HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/8/1995MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, AUGUST 8,1995
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Richard N. Bird (District 5)
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
John W. Tippin (District 4)
M
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TOORDER PAGE
3. PLEDGE OF ATLEGIANIC - James E. Chandler
4. � A�7 DMONS to the AGFND /FMFR N Y IT - --
11.G.1. Report on Beach Erosion
Emergency Notification Procedures (added to 13.A.)
13.D.1. Commercial Fishermen Grant Support
13.D.2. Occupational License Comment
14.B. Storm Debris and Landfill Charges (SWDD Meeting)
None
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board: I.R. Mem. Hosp. District Tentative
1995/96 Budget
B. TDLCB Annual Report
(memorandum dated July 24, 1995)
C. Progress Report & Reimbursement Invoice
1995 Planning Grant Invoice #2
(memorandum dated July 25, 1995)
D. Community Transportation Coordinator
Annual Evaluation Report
(memorandum dated July 24, 1995)
7. CONSENT
AGENDA on 'd 1• PAGE
E.
James & Jane Schwiering's Request for Site Plan
and Administrative Permit Approval Extension for
Construction of a Dock Prior to Construction of a
Single Family Residence
(memorandum dated July 26, 1995)
F.
Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes
Property Purchased for County Use
(memorandum dated July 21, 1995)
G.
County Tax Deed_ Applications
(memorandum dated July 20, 1995)
H.
North County R/O Plant -Phase II Construction,
Well Field and Brine Line Disposal
(memorandum dated July 17, 1995)
I.
North County Wastewater Treatment Plant
(memorandum dated July 17, 1995)
�� Yrilllr 1Xr.11 proMDI,,M
DICI V.11 WAM DICIN I
None
N � 1:
1. Request by Arthur and Denise Ferguson
for a Variance From the Subdivision Ord.
Road Paving Requirements
(memorandum dated July 21, 1995)
2. Acquisition of City of Sebastian Utility
System
(memorandum dated July 25, 1995)
(additional backup under separate cover)
3. NACo Deferred Compensation Plan
(memorandum dated July 28, 1995)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION mms
None
None
M
11. DEP RTMENIr
i. MATTERS PAGE
A. Community
1Develo m n
1.
Request for Approval of the Comprehensive
Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)
Public Participation Plan
(memorandum dated July 25, 1995)
2.
I-95 / CR 512 Commercial/Industrial Node
(memorandum dated July 27, 1995)
B. Emergency
Services
None
C. General
Services
None
D. Leisure
Services
None
E. Office
of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public
Works
None
H. Uffiffies
1.
Sebastian Utility System Acquisition
Reimbursement for Funds Expended
(memorandum dated July 17, 1995)
2.
Sebastian Utilities Water System Inter-
connections
(memorandum dated July 25, 1995)
3.
Renewal of Master Plan Continuing
Services Contract wBrown & Caldwell
(memorandum dated July 27, 1995)
4.
Award of Bid No. 5092 - Construction of
So. County WWTP Filter Addition
(memorandum dated July 27, 1995)
5.
Wetlands Project - West Regional WWTP
Change Order No. 1
(memorandum dated July 26, 1995)
6.
Jungle Trail Waxer Main, Change Order No. l
(memorandum dated July 25, 1995)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY PAGE
Ex Parte Communications
(memorandum dated July 28, 1995)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Kenneth R Macht
Discussion of Emergency Procedures During
Hurricane Erin
(no backup) .
B. Vice Chairman Fran Adam
E. Commissioner John W Tin= nen
14.
A. Emergency S�rvic s District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
of meeting.
M M M
Tuesday, August 8, 1995
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, August 8, 1995,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B.
Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John
W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia
Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Administrator
Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of:
Report on Beach Erosion (11.G.1.) and
Emergency Notification Procedures (added to 13.A.)
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of:
Net Fishing Grant Support (13.D.1.) and
Occupational License Comment (13.D.2.)
Administrator Chandler requested addition of an item under the
Solid Waste Disposal District concerning storm debris and landfill
charges. (14.B.) (Clerk's Note: This request necessitated calling
a Special Meeting of the District.)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
added the above items to the Agenda.
1 --
'
QD "�� T
August 8, 1995
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
The following has been received and placed on file in the
office of the Clerk to the Board:
Indian River Memorial Hospital District
Tentative 1995/96 Budget
B. Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board EMLCB)
Annual Report
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 24, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. -Kea VZe
AICPCommunity Devent rector
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S W
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 24, 1995
RE: TDLCB ANNUAL REPORT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 8, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In order to comply with Rule 41-2, Florida Administrative Code,
the Board of County Commissioners must submit several reports to
the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged. Included among those submittals is: a
Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB)
Annual Report. The TDLCB annual report provides a brief summary of
the TDLCB's accomplishments/activities during its fifth year of
operation. The report summarizes the TDLCB's organization,
allocated funding, vehicle inventory and related activities for
fiscal year 1994-95.
On July 20, 1995, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved the attached TDLCB
annual report. At that time, the TDLCB recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the Transportation
Disadvantaged Program Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA),
approve the attached report and forward the report to the CTD.
2 Boa 95 P,���SQ
August 8, 1995
i
r � �
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a copy of the TDLCB annual report for fiscal year 1994-
95. This report must be submitted to the State of Florida
Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are either to approve the transmittal
of this report as submitted, to approve transmittal of the TDLCB
annual report with revisions, or to deny the transmittal of this
report to the state.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners/DOPA approve the TDLCB annual report for fiscal year
1994-95 and direct staff to transmit this report to the State of
Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the TDLCB annual report for FY 1994-
95 and directed staff to transmit it to the
State of Florida Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged.
C. 1995 Planning Grant Invoice #2
Progress Report and Reimbursement Invoice
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 25, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
K2L
Obert M. Kfie'Itiffo, AIPF
Community Developmen irector
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S . A.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 25, 1995
RE: PROGRESS REPORT & REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE
1995 PLANNING GRANT INVOICE #2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 8, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
It is required, as part of the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD)
Planning Grant contract between the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners (BCC) as the Designated Official Planning
Agency (DOPA) and the State of Florida Commission for the
3
August 8, 1995 wow U5
Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD); that periodic progress reports
and reimbursement invoices be submitted. To comply with the CTD's
requirements, staff has prepared a progress report and invoice for
the period from April 1, 1995 to June 30, 1995.
For the 1995 planning grant period, the invoice and progress report
represent the second submittal. This progress report and
applicable finished products, such as the Local Coordinating Board
(LCB) meeting agenda items, CTC reports, etc., are required to
accompany all reimbursement invoices.
Attached is a copy of draft invoice #2 and the progress report.
This report, along with the appropriate supporting documents, will
be submitted to the CTD upon the Board of County Commissioners/DOPA
approval.
On July 20, 1995, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved. the attached
progress report and invoice. At that time, the TDLCB recommended
that the Board of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the
Transportation Disadvantaged Program Designated Official Planning
Agency (DOPA), approve the attached progress report and invoice and
forward these to the CTD.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a copy of the progress report and invoice for the April
1, 1995 to June 30, 1995 period.
Finished products such as the TDLCB meeting agenda items, CTC
reports, and other reports are required to accompany all
reimbursement invoices. These materials will be submitted to the
state along with the reimbursement invoice and the progress report.
The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are either to approve the transmittal
of the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice as submitted, to
approve transmittal of the Progress Report and invoice with
revisions, or to deny the transmittal of the Progress Report and
reimbursement invoice to the state. Choosing the last alternative
could affect the county's reimbursement of staff time expended for
transportation disadvantaged planning related services.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners/DOPA approve the Progress Report and reimbursement
invoice #2, and direct staff to transmit the report and the invoice
to the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged (CTD).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the Progress Report and reimbursement
invoice #2, and directed staff to transmit the
report and the invoice to the State of Florida
Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged.
4 BOOK 95 PAGE 852
August 8, 1995
D. Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) - Council on Aging
Annual Evaluation Report
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 24, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert M. Keat n , AICP
Community Developtent D Yector
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 24, 1995
RE: COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION COORDINATOR (CTC) ANNUAL
EVALUATION REPORT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 8, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
One requirement of the county's coordinated transportation
disadvantaged development plan is that "the Transportation
Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) shall evaluate the
performance of the Community Transportation Coordinator and -provide
a recommendation to the DOPA for continuation or replacement of the
Community Transportation Coordinator". To facilitate this
evaluation process, the TDLCB developed a set of criteria for the
coordinator evaluation. On September 11, 1992, the Board of County
Commissioners, acting as the county's Designated Official Planning
Agency (DOPA), approved the CTC's evaluation procedures and
standards.
To conduct the CTC evaluation, the Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) established a subcommittee, whose
purpose was to meet with the coordinator and evaluate the
coordinator's performance. Using the criteria established by the
TDLCB, the subcommittee assessed the performance of the Community
Transportation Coordinator and prepared a report addressing the
coordinator's performance in relation to each of the evaluation
criteria. A copy of that report is attached. Based upon its
assessment, the evaluation sub -committee recommended that the
Indian River County Council on Aging be retained as the county's
CTC.
At its regular meeting on July 20, 1995, the TDLCB approved the CTC
annual evaluation report submitted by the evaluation subcommittee.
The TDLCB also directed staff to forward the evaluation report to
the Board of County Commissioners/DOPA for review and approval.
E
August S, 1995
Boa 95 PAGE 853
Alternatives and Analysis
The Indian River County Council on Aging has been the County's
Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) since October 1990. In
the past four years, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local
Coordinating Board (TDLCB) recommended that the BCC/DOPA retain the
Council on Aging as the county's CTC. Subsequently, the BCC/DOPA
approved the TDLCB's recommendation and retained the Indian River
County Council on Aging as the coordinator.
This year, evaluation of the CTC has been performed_ by an
evaluation subcommittee of the. Local Coordinating Board. This
evaluation was conducted according to the CTC evaluation procedures
and criteria approved by the TDLCB and the BCC/DOPA. Based upon
the evaluation committee's report, the Transportation Disadvantaged
Local Coordinating Board voted to retain the Council on Aging as
the county's CTC.
The Board of County Commissioners acting as the Transportation
Disadvantaged Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) has
several alternatives. The first alternative is to approve the CTC
annual evaluation report and retain the Council on Aging as the
County's CTC. A second alternative would be to reject the CTC
annual evaluation report and direct the TDLCB to re-evaluate the
coordinator. A third alternative would be to make changes to the
evaluation report and vote either to retain or terminate the
Council on Aging as the county's CTC.
RECOMMENDATION
The TDLCB and staff recommend that BCC/DOPA approve the attached
CTC annual evaluation report, retain the Indian River County
Council -on Aging as the county's CTC, and direct staff to forward
the evaluation report to the State Commission for the
Transportation Disadvantaged.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the Community - Transportation
Coordinator's annual evaluation report,
retained the Indian River County Council on
Aging as the County's CTC, and directed staff
to forward the evaluation report to the State
Commission for the Transportation
Disadvantaged.
E. Dock Construction Approved - Lot 21, Sandpointe West Subdivision
.Tames & Jane Schwiering
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 26, 1995:
Boa 95 PnE 854
August 8, 1995
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrato FSO
DI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
R6bert M. Keati ,-AICP
Community Developm nt ector
THROUGH:6,Stan Boling, AICP:Xj, 'k
Planning Director
FROM: Eric Blad&l
Staff Planher, Current Development
DATE: July 26, 1995
SUBJECT: James & Jane Schwiering's Request for Site Plan and
Administrative Permit Approval Extension for Construction
of a Dock Prior to Construction of a Single Family
Residence [SP-MA-94-09-041/IRC #94060168-001]
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 8, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On July 28, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
administrative permit approval to construct a dock on Lot 21 of the
Sandpointe West Subdivision (see attachment #3), a vacant single
family lot. The aforementioned request was accompanied by a
concurrent request for minor site plan approval. The minor site
plan was approved by the Technical Review Committee (TRC) subject
to Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the administrative
permit use. Upon the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval of
the administrative permit, the associated minor site plan was
validated. The expiration date of the site plan and administrative
permit approvals is July 28, 1995.
Prior to the expiration date, the project applicant filed a request
to extend the site plan and administrative permit approval
expiration date. Pursuant to site plan regulations, the request
may now be considered by the Board of County Commissioners.
ANALYSIS:
Although the LDRs have been amended since the time of project
review and approval, the members of the Technical Review Committee
(TRC) concur that subsequent amendments as applied to the subject
project are not significant enough to require any revisions or
redesign of the project. All TRC staff members recently approved
the applicant's request for site plan extension.
As allowed under provisions of the LDRs, MRMC Construction, Inc.,
on behalf of James and Jane Schwiering, is requesting a. full one
year extension of the site plan approval expiration date. Staff
has no objections to the Board granting the request since the
previously approved site plan substantially conforms to existing
LDR requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
request by James and Jane Schwiering for a one year extension of
the conditional site plan approval and administrative permit use
approval, with all original site plan approval conditions to remain
in effect. The new site plan expiration date will be July 28,
1996.
7
August S, 1995' 'f,t
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the request by James and Jane
Schwiering for a 1 -year extension (expires
July 28, 1996) of the conditional site plan
approval and administrative permit use
approval, with all original site plan approval
conditions to remain in effect.
F. Cancellation of Outstanding Taxes
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 21, 1995:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AV, Q. 441aA-,/
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
TABU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: July 21, 1995
RE: CANCELLATION OF OUTSTANDING TAXES
PROPERTY PURCHASED FOR COUNTY USE
95 NAGE856
The County recently acquired some right-of-way, and, pursuant to Section
196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is allowed
to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the property
acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done by
resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the Tax
Collector and copies sent to the Property Appraiser and Fixed Assets
Department.
REQUESTED ACTION: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the
attached resolution cancelling taxes upon lands the County recently
acquired.
(CLERK'S NOTE: Previously adopted on 8/1/95.
See Resolutions No. 95-89 and 95-90.)
G. County Tax Deed Applications
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 20, 1995:
8
August S, 1-995
TO: Board of County Co issioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
THRU: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: July 20, 1995
RE: County Tax Deed Applications
On May 23, 1995, the Board authorized the Tax Collector to proceed with
certain tax deed applications on behalf of the County, and, in connection
with that, the Clerk of the Courts notified our office that the following
costs are due:
(1)
Tax
Certificate
#93-3004
$ 213.46
(2)
Tax
Certificate
#93-3007
230.94
(3)
Tax
Certificate
#93-3016
228.42
(4)
Tax
Certificate
#93-3031
160.86
(5)
Tax
Certificate
#93-3060
203.38
(6)
Tax
Certificate
#93-3087
228.42
TOTAL COSTS
NOW DUE
$1,265.48
Requested Action: Staff
requests
the Board authorize the payment of the
above costs to the Clerk.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
authorized payment of costs enumerated in the
memo for a total of $1,265.48 to the Clerk of
the Courts.
H. North County Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion
Resolution Providing for Reimbursement of Certain Expenditures from
Future Bond Issues
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 17, 1995:
August 8, 199595—frti -857
r
Mr 95 PAGE 858
DATE: JULY 170 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. P
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY &FMICEs
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHE
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT D 9OR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY WASTp.WATER TREATMENT PLANT
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a resolution, which is a requirement in order to be
able to reimburse for funds expended to construct the North
County Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends
approval of the attached resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution No. 95-93 establishing its
intent to reimburse certain expenditures in
connection with the North County Wastewater
Treatment Plant Expansion Project from the
proceeds of future bond issues.
RESOLUTION No. 9s-93
A RNSOLUTIOW OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF I1ITDIAN RIDER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING ITS INTENT TO REIISURSE CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PROJECT FROM THE PROCEEDS OF FUTURE
BOND ISSUES, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida (the County) expects
to make certain expenditures in connection with the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion Project of the County; and
WHEREAS, the County intends to reimburse itself for said
expenditures from the proceeds of future bond issues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
August 8, 1995
M
Resolution No. 95-93
1. The County expects to make certain expenditures in
connection with the North County Wastewater Treatment
Plant Expansion Project of the County (the Project.)
The County intends to finance said expenditures by *the
issuance of one or more future bond issues. Some or
all of said expenditures are expected to be paid prior
to the issuance of said future bond issues. Therefore,
said expenditures will be paid from the Utility.
Operating Fund, the Utility Impact Fee Fund, and the
Utility Special Assessment Project Fund of the County.
The County intends to reimburse said funds for said
expenditures out of the proceeds of said future bond
issues expected to be used for said reimbursement is
$5,500,000.00. Said expenditures include, without
limitation,expenditures for the acquisition,
construction, furnishing and equipping the Project; for
reports, studies, and projections in connection with
the Project; and for other items directly related to
the Project.
2. This resolution shall constitute a "Declaration of
Offical Intent" within the meaning of Section 1.103-18
of the federal income tax regulations.
3. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners is
hereby directed to make a copy of this resolution
available for public inspection during regular business
hours of the Office of the Clerk in the County
Administration Building, beginning no later than 30
days following the adoption of this resolution and to
keep the same available for public inspection at such
place and during such hours until the date upon which
11
August 8, 1995 859
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 93
the bond issues herein mentioned are issued and
delivered by the County. This resolution was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and the motion
was'seconded by Commissioner Adams , and,
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 8 day of August , 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
Jef K. Barton erk
'Kehneth R. acht, Chairman
I. North County R/O Plant - Phase H Construction
Well Field and Brine Line Disposal - Resolution Providing for
Reimbursement of Certain Expenditures from Future Bond Issues
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 17, 1995:
DATE: JULY 17, 1995
TO: JANES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTD'/
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY�ERVXCES
PREPARED HARRY E. ASHERRAW
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DXRRC7bR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY RIO PLANT -PHASE II CONSTRUCTION,
WELL FIELD AND BRINE LINE DISPOSAL
12
August 8, 1995
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a resolution, which is a requirement in order to be
able to reimburse for funds expended to construct the North
County RIO Plant -Phase II Construction, Well Field and Brine Line
Disposal.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends
approval of the attached resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution No. 95-94 establishing its
intent to reimburse certain expenditures in
connection with the North County R/O Plant -
Phase II Construction, Well Field and Brine
Line Disposal Project from the proceeds of
future bond issues.
RESOLUTION NO. 9.5---9-4
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING ITS INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES IN -CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH COUNTY RIO PLANT -PHASE
II CONSTRUCTION, WELL FIELD AND BRINE LINE DISPOSAL PROJECT FROM
THE PROCEEDS OF FUTURE BOND ISSUES, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida (the County) expects
to make certain expenditures in connection with the North County
RIO Plant -Phase II Construction, Well Field and Brine Line
Disposal Project of the County; and
WHEREAS, the County intends to reimburse itself for said
expenditures from the proceeds of future bond issues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The County expects to make certain expenditures in
connection with the North County RIO Plant -Phase II
Construction, Well Field and Brine Line Disposal
Project of the County (the Project.)
13
August 8, 1995
The County
boa 95 ¢AcE 862
MSOIATION AO. 95- 94
intends to finance said expenditures by the issuance of
one or more future bond issues. Some or all of said
expenditures are expected to be paid prior to the
issuance of said future bond issues. Therefore, said
expenditures will be paid from the Utility Operating
Fund, the Utility Impact Fee Fund, and the Utility
Special Assessment Project Fund of the County. The
County intends to reimburse said funds for said
expenditures out of the proceeds of said future bond
issues expected to be used for said reimbursement is
$9,000,000.00. Said expenditures include, without
limitation, expenditures for the acquisition,
construction, furnishing and equipping the Project; for
reports, studies, and projections in connection with
the Project; and for other items directly related to
the Project.
2. This resolution shall constitute a "Declaration of
Offical Intent" within the meaning of Section 1.103-18
of the federal income tax regulations.
3. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners is
hereby directed to make a copy of this resolution
available for public inspection during regular business
hours of the Office of the Clerk in the County
Administration Building, beginning no later than 30
days following the adoption of this resolution and to
keep the same available for public inspection at such
place and during such hours until the date upon which
the bondissuesherein mentioned are .issued and
14
August 8, 1995
M M M
M
Resolution No. 95-94
delivered by the County. This resolution was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and,
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 8 day of August , 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
Jeff R . Bait , Cl erk
An
APPROVED FOR AGENDA:
15
August 8, 1995
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
19r71001=l r�
• - .=UL
cc=���W
ROOK 95 P-nE 864
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST BY ARTHUR AND DENISE FERGUSON
FOR VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ROAD PAVING
The public hearing was advertised as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press,loumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the metter
In the Court, was pub•
Ilshed in said newspaper In the Issues of o?l ` s
Affiant further same that the said Vero Bush p1m4cumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach. in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newapapor has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian Fiver County, Florida, Cash daily and has been
entered as second glass mail matter at the post office in Von; Beach, in said Indian River MY",
ty, Florida, for a period of one year nest prooeding the first publication of the attached Copy of
advertiaementl and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor pr oniaed a" PWW, firm
Cr oorpo►aticn any discount, rebate, commisalon or refund for he purpose of muring this
advettiaement for publication In the sold nwepaper,
Swam found subscribed beton me this or day of A,0.19
(Btt>MIreM III sttwe!
(BEAy
16
August 8, 1995
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public to consider a variance,
frau the requirements of Subdivisions
and Plate, of the Lend Development Regulations
ILDRs1 flet would a0ow the piattfig • of two +-'h
acre Iota without paved road mss, said plat to
cover the subject �op�y destx8ed as:
THE SOUTtI 298.95 FEET OF THE EAST
145.71 FEET OF THE WEST 5.5 ACRES
OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THE EAST
20 ACRES OF TRACT 10, SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF LANDS IN
INDIAN RHEA FARMS COMPANY SUB-
DIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
2 AT PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
proe
Spee the above location map she " the subject
'the Board of hearing Commissioners will oonduct a
� r by� amid DeNse FF The
� shall has",
a n �po�t�dty to be heard, vrR bye
held by the Board of -=Maty Ca naftsion" of W
dlan River County, Florida in the CMmnissicn.Cfem-
bars of the County Administration BuIldingriocated
at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tues
day, August 8, 1995 at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appael mry dedsian
which may be made at 0is meeting wM reed tc en
am that a verbatim record of the Is
nmade which Ich the nch
eedaal�I the tBstirncmy e1W
SONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 587-8000 EXT. 223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET-
ING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:-sKenreth R. Macht, Chairman
July 21, 1995 1218289
33rd sr
l
rr, ,
4.
32ni ST
aL
. I ,...�
�
t
• ,
I
Subject
Site
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of Public to consider a variance,
frau the requirements of Subdivisions
and Plate, of the Lend Development Regulations
ILDRs1 flet would a0ow the piattfig • of two +-'h
acre Iota without paved road mss, said plat to
cover the subject �op�y destx8ed as:
THE SOUTtI 298.95 FEET OF THE EAST
145.71 FEET OF THE WEST 5.5 ACRES
OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THE EAST
20 ACRES OF TRACT 10, SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF LANDS IN
INDIAN RHEA FARMS COMPANY SUB-
DIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK
2 AT PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA.
proe
Spee the above location map she " the subject
'the Board of hearing Commissioners will oonduct a
� r by� amid DeNse FF The
� shall has",
a n �po�t�dty to be heard, vrR bye
held by the Board of -=Maty Ca naftsion" of W
dlan River County, Florida in the CMmnissicn.Cfem-
bars of the County Administration BuIldingriocated
at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tues
day, August 8, 1995 at 9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appael mry dedsian
which may be made at 0is meeting wM reed tc en
am that a verbatim record of the Is
nmade which Ich the nch
eedaal�I the tBstirncmy e1W
SONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR AT 587-8000 EXT. 223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET-
ING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY:-sKenreth R. Macht, Chairman
July 21, 1995 1218289
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed Memorandum of July 21,
1995 with the aid of a graphic of Sunniland Homesites.
TO: James E. Chandler O�
County Administrator (/
Is
%A6bert M. Keatirig, eficp
Community Devel��opme t Di
FROM: Stan Boling,aAIii��CP .
Planning Director
DATE: July 21, 1995
SUBJECT: Request by Arthur and Denise Ferguson For a Variance From
the Subdivision Ordinance Road Paving Requirements
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of August 8, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Arthur and Denise Ferguson have applied for a variance from certain
subdivision ordinance road paving requirements as applied to their
property at 3100 62nd Avenue. The subject property is a ±1 acre
parcel located on the east side of 62nd Avenue, south of 33rd
Street, adjacent to the Sunniland Homesites Subdivision (see
attachment #2). Their property is located within the Urban Service
Area, is zoned RS -3 (Residential Single Family up to 3 units/acre),
and is legally described as follows:
THE SOUTH 298.95 FEET OF THE EAST 145.71 FEET OF THE WEST
5.5 ACRES OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THE EAST 20 ACRES OF
TRACT 10, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF LANDS IN INDIAN RIVER FARMS
COMPANY SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2 AT PAGE 25
OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
The property fronts 62nd Avenue, an unpaved county local road that
lies within a 70' wide right-of-way created by the Sunniland
Homesites subdivision plat. The plat was approved in 1956, prior
to any county zoning, subdivision, or road paving requirements.
The road consists of a gradeable- road base and is the county's
maintenance responsibility. Along the west side of 62nd Avenue lie
10 lots and a tract created via the Sunniland Homesites plat. The
parcels range in size from ±12,150 square feet to ±1.45 acres. On
the east side of 62nd Avenue lie 6 metes and bounds parcels created
over the years by individual deeds and parcel splits. The parcels
range in size from ±10,200 square feet to ±1.12 acres.
About 7 years ago, a one time split of a 1.67 acre metes and bounds
parcel* located on 62nd Avenue resulted in a .67 -acre parcel and the
subject 1 acre parcel. Later, in 1994, the Ferguson's obtained a
county single family building permit to construct a residence
(their present residence) on the southern half of the subject
property. Since that time, planning staff has had informal
17
August 8, 1995
7 8009. 95 fAGE 666
meetings with the Fergusons and explained that no second,
independent residence could be built on the subject property
without filing a plat to create 2 lots (includes the third lot) out
of the subject property. Staff further explained that new
subdivision lots are required to have paved access. Thus, for the
subject property to be divided further, 62nd Avenue would need to
be paved via the petition paving process or by an involuntary
paving assessment process or by private effort of the applicant and
any adjacent owners wishing to plat their properties.
The Fergusons have pursued platting and, at a pre -application
conference with county staff in May of this year, discussed their
proposal to plat two ±J acre lots out of the subject property. At
that meeting, staff again verified that the subdivision ordinance
requires that the roadway serving the newly created lots must be
paved to the nearest paved road. In this case, 62nd Avenue would
need to be paved from the subject lots to the recently paved 33rd
Street. The Fergusons have now requested a variance from the
paving requirement, and wish to plat the 2 lots without any paved
access.
In accordance with section 913.11 of the subdivision ordinance, the
Board of County Commissioners is now to consider approving,
approving with conditions, or denying the variance request.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
•The Need for Platting and Paving Requirements
Since 1975, the county's subdivision ordinance (Chapter 913 of the
County's land development regulations) has allowed one time parcel
splits resulting in the creation of 2 lots; the ordinance, however,
requires platting and full compliance with all subdivision
requirements where a third lot is to be created. Since 1984, the
county has closely monitored lot splits and platting requirements
at the time of single family building permit review. Such a review
was performed in 1994 when the Fergusons applied for a building
permit and staff determined that the one time split involving the
subject property was legal. In the case of the subject property,
there is no disagreement from the applicant that platting is
required now that the third parcel is proposed to be created from
the original 1.67 acre parent parcel. There is, however,
disagreement about the county's road paving requirement.
One of the main reasons for requiring platting is to ensure that
each resulting lot is served by a minimum level of road, drainage,
and utility improvements. By requiring platting, the county
ensures that, at a certain point in the division of parcels (when
3 lots are created out of 1 parcel), all resulting lots will have
paved road frontage and access when located in the Urban Service
Area, will be served by an approved drainage system, and will be
served by public water and/or wastewater utilities when available.
The paving requirements of subdivision ordinance (Chapter 913)
sections 913.09(3)(J)1 and 913.07(4)(H)l.b. are intended to ensure
that new lots and the resulting homesites are served by an "all
weather" paved roadway that meets county standards. The paving
requirement benefits lot owners by providing better access and
eliminating nuisances commonly associated with unpaved roads (e.g.
dust, tracking mud and sand, vehicle wear, periodic surface
conditions that are less safe). The paving requirements also
benefit the county and taxpayers by eliminating the burden of
maintaining unpaved roads, and by ensuring that new homes will not
be allowed to proliferate along existing unpaved roadways. Such a
18
August 8, 1995
proliferation inevitably puts more wear on unpaved roads and either
degrades the roadway or requires more maintenance.
*Paving 62nd Avenue
The subject property and all other parcels on the east side of 62nd
Avenue have benefitted from the public road right-of-way
established by the Sunniland Homesites plat. Over the years,
grandfathered -in and lot split homesites along 62nd Avenue have
been allowed to be developed. Now, a subdivision is proposed and
a variance has been requested, raising this central question:
should 62nd Avenue be paved? If 62nd Avenue is never to be paved,
then the county's subdivision paving requirement makes sense by
limiting the number of homesites and residents using the roadway so
that road degradation and maintenance costs are minimized. The
county's subdivision paving requirements also make sense if the
road is to be paved at some point in the future, since the
requirement causes the subdividers to initiate either a petition
paving or a forced assessment.
Because the site is located at the end of 62nd Avenue, about 1,200'
of the road would need to be paved to provide paved access from the
Ferguson's proposed lots to 33rd Street. Based upon county
engineering's rough estimates for petition paving projects, paving
the road to county standards would cost $40 - $50 per linear foot.
Therefore, paving a 1,200' segment could cost $48,000 - $60,000.
Using the general petition paving formula, where the county pays
25% of the cost and property owners on each side of the road split
the remaining 75%, the petition paving cost for a property owner
could run $1,500 - $1,875 per 100' of frontage.
As previously described, there are generally 3 alternatives for
funding the paving of 62nd Avenue:
(1) The developer or a group of developers pays for the paving
cost.
(2) A petition paving program is initiated and approved by the
county.
(3) An involuntary paving assessment is approved by the county.
In the past, some subdivision developers have used the petition
paving process to help pay for paving roads in existing
subdivisions. The Fergusons' primary contention is that the entire
cost of the required road paving is not feasible for them*to bear
for their proposed 2 lot subdivision. Staff agrees. However, the
subdivision should not be approved without a mechanism in place
(such as an approved petition paving project or approved
involuntary paving assessment) to guarantee the paving and commit
the developers to paying their fairshare for the paving.
*Variance Review and Consideration
Section 913.11 of the subdivision ordinance gives the Board clear
guidance in its review and consideration of a variance request.
According to Section 913.11, the Board shall not approve a variance
unless it finds all of the following:
(A) The particular physical conditions, shape, or topography of
the specific property involved would cause an undue hardship
to the applicant if the strict letter of the land development
regulation is carried out; _
19
August 8, 1995iri
I
Bou 95 PAPE 868
(B) The granting of the variance will not cause injury to adjacent
property or any natural resource;
(C) The conditions upon which a request for variance are based are
unique to the property for which the waiver is sought and are
not generally applicable to other property in the adjacent
area and do not result from actions of the applicant; and
(D) The variance is consistent with the intent and purpose of the
Indian River County land development regulations, the Indian
River County Comprehensive -Land Use Plan, and this Chapter.
If the board approves a_variance, it may attach any such
conditions to the variance as will assure that the variance
will not result in noncompliance with the intent and purpose
of this Chapter. Violation of any such condition shall be
deemed a violation of this Chapter.
It is staff's position that none of these criteria is satisfied by
the request.
(A) The physical conditions, shape, and topography of the subject
property do not cause a hardship in the development of the
property. The property is developable and has no unique
physical characteristics that create a development hardship.
(B) The granting of the variance would increase the number of
homesites using 62nd Avenue and, therefore, would increase
traffic on 62nd Avenue. Such traffic would impact the roadway
and would contribute to maintenance needs. Therefore,
granting the variance would negatively impact adjacent
property since such action would contribute to roadway
maintenance needs.
(C) Conditions of the property are not unique, since many parcels
exist in the county that would require road paving in order to
allow a subdivision development. Granting the request would
set a precedent that could apply to other parcels on the east
side of 62nd Avenue, as well as other unpaved local county
roads, including 62nd Drive located one block to the west.
(D) The variance request is not consistent with the intent and
purpose of the LDRs to avoid approving new development that
does not meet current paving standards. Granting such
approval would allow more intense use of an unpaved road.
SUMMARY
It is the developers' responsibility to initiate action, such as a
petition paving request or involuntary assessment proposal, to
ensure that the subdivision ordinance paving requirement is
satisfied. Through such assessment processes, the county can
directly address the funding equity concerns raised by the
applicant. In staff's opinion, granting such a variance would set
a precedent for similar situations throughout the county and would
result in more development using substandard roadways and
increasing maintenance needs and costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the
variance request.
20
August 8, 1995
M M M
SUNNgLWN®PB14-33 0MEV U ES
— — — 33rd ST -- CHERRY
2-.0'
PARIEL- 1
� r -
OOo� 1
15
TRIO
=�
18 8
$.-; 2
17 'v°o
ac (
8
o _
r
}'a
taw
las'
10 $
-
h
DI -1
136'
`•
ooGo,�� K)
Gtr. ,f I
01
s4
ri
pipp ti
2-.0'
PARIEL- 1
� r -
OOo� 1
15
135
$ . ,o I
18 8
$.-; 2
17 'v°o
ac (
8
o _
r
}'a
taw
las'
— — — — — — 32nd ST.—
W hi y
136
_..
15
t4
14�' o
I
TR9
= u'o 7
ac (
— — 1 R6
8
1j
in AC
9
10 $
-
h
DI -1
136'
v
Gtr. ,f I
01
Ll
1
(V AC" d
OI
35
1—
0,00
— —
oVb.2. 0
b —�+I
1
(
li.
oriQ
O
— — — — — — 32nd ST.—
W hi y
Ise,
136
_..
15
t4
14�' o
6
t9
= u'o 7
12 -
— — 1 R6
8
1j
in AC
9
10 $
-
h
DI -1
136'
v
Ll
1
(V AC" d
35
Ise,
136
_..
15
5
14�' o
6
1.3 =
= u'o 7
12 -
•
8
1j
9
10 $
-
136'
136'
a' Mi lu
"1 A
+1
I (�r
I
� I
—� F
FTR15 TR16
Subject Property
F
i
RS -3
21
August 8, 1995
ma ' 5 :F .
Boa 95 pmu870
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the Chairman opened the
public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
matter.
Art Ferguson, 3100 62nd Avenue, advised that because his
brother is somewhat incapacitated, due to a bad back problem, they
were trying to get him to live next to them by building a second
residence on their property. He felt it would not hurt the area
too much.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Adams pointed out that the Fergusons had letters
of support from their neighbors.
In response to Commissioner Adams' inquiry, Director Boling
presented the regulations concerning lot splits and explained that
an accessory dwelling unit provision would permit a structure of
only 750 square feet. Mr. Ferguson felt that was too small to
house his brother.
Chairman Macht agreed that 750 square feet was too small,
understood the application of the law, but wondered if there was
any way to help the Fergusons.
Director Boling pointed out that granting the request would
constitute a precedent and his department faces requests of this
nature frequently.
Commissioner Adams was sympathetic to staff's concern about
precedent, but she had a hard time denying the request.
Commissioner Adams MOVED to grant the variance.
MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Commissioner Eggert and Commissioner Bird were sympathetic,
but expressed concerns about approving a request which staff had
recommended be denied.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that if the Board did not
enforce the ordinance in this clear case, where the applicants have
not met even one of the four criteria, then the Board would have
said, in effect, that the law is no longer enforceable in this
county.
22
August S, 1995
_I
Commissioner Tippin recalled he had argued for exceptions.in
the past and recounted a situation of selling his own brother a
five -acre piece away from a paved road.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Bird, to approve
staff's recommendation to deny the request.
Under discussion, Chairman Macht asked Director Boling if it
was possible for the square footage to be expanded under the
accessory dwelling rule because the occupant of the proposed
dwelling is disabled.
Director Boling explained that the variance criteria always
deals with hardships related to the property itself, not to the
occupants. Also, the variance ordinance specifically prohibits
variances to specific land use criteria that are put in place for
special uses, such as accessory dwelling units. So, unless the
LDRs are changed, there's no way to expand the 750 square feet.
Commissioner Bird was sympathetic, but thought the situation
was very clear. He pointed out that innumerable similar cases have
been denied at staff level. He felt the staff should be supported
in their interpretation of the very clear ordinances the Board has
adopted.
Mr. Ferguson added the 750 square foot restriction requires
the dwelling to be on the same piece of property and there would be
no bank financing available for the project. In the future, he
would have no problem paying his portion for the road paving, but
now it wasn't feasible for a half acre.
Commissioner Bird noted that if a large undeveloped property
to the south ever develops, staff would require them to make a
connection to 62nd Avenue. If so, they would require it to be
paved through to 33rd Street, which may open other options.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION
motion carried 4-1, Commissioner
opposed.
23
and the
Adams
August 8, 1995 ED;c M,f,'�t : 871
Boa 95 Face 8 i 2
PUBLIC HEARING - ACQUISITION OF CITY OF SEBASTIAN UTILITY
SYSTEM
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
adveitisei'iient for publication in the said newspaper.
�saa Ga an, �4habsrribed forepe this. day o D. 19 7—
—eAfteias Manager)
BARBAI'A C SPRAGII[. NOTARY PUFA_IC, "
State of Fhorda, M / Cornrnwmn L.a June 29. 1997
„ Slgnad:-i: -
Notary SAF3ARA C S,'�IAGUE '`•
NOTICE
The Board
RIvar HEAR,,Rftrj hereby provides noticenof
PUBLIC FIEAR scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on
lr
T�At „8,199C5,,sattt the County Commis -
k% 1840 25th Street Vero BeA
tO�
�+ a> Florida.sEBAsAWA WASTEWATER
SYSTEM.
Interested parties mey m0ebe heard. who to thespW MW ftand
menta involved In the proposed dohs
so at the Deparbrtent of Utffitea tay he
VCM
Armtntsbratorl BuBdtrg, 1840 25th Street,
nero
� made who at this wish � appeal wig
decision which .
Met a verbatm record oat ting roc mead m ensure
which Ifft proceedings ce u is which
the appeel Is based.y ffiId evidence opal which
AlWore who needs a(AsspmW. acmymwddm for
ft n=contact the CcuWs
Withnp Act A) Antericere Cocrdn&w at 567-
111M. ExL 40% at 4hours
ce of the
FFMO
Joy 25, Aug. 1, 1995 1219185
807
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto reviewed the memorandum
of July 25, 1995 with the aid of a phase map:
DATE: July 25v 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: 1'ERRANCE G. %�*SRVICES
DIRECTOR OF
PREPARED HARRY K AS
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT D OR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUBJECT: ACQUISITION OF CITY OF SEBASTIAN UTILITY SYSTEM
BACKGROUND:
On November 1, 19949 the Department of Utility Services (Department) presented to
the Board of County Commissioners (Board) a letter of proposal from the City of
Sebastian's City Manager, Joel Koford, offering the sale of the City of Sebastian's
24
August 8, 1995
I
� � r
(City) Utility System (System) and to establish a thirty (30) year franchise agreement
"to provide potable water distribution and wastewater collection for the City of
Sebastian" (Copy Attached). After review, the Board authorized Staff to proceed
with investigation of the legal aspects of the acquisition including the expense of the
services of bond counsel to review the acquisition. (Copy of minutes are attached).
On May 2, 1995,, the Department presented to the Board of County Commissioners
the Department's analysis of the proposed purchase of the system, based upon
information available at that time and requested further direction from the Board of
County Commissioners in the matter prior to proceeding with Public Hearings in the
matter.
After review, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to proceed with the
public hearings on the acquisition of the City of Sebastian Utility System. (Copy of
minutes attached).
ANALYSIS:
The Department has updated its financial analysis based upon the final negotiated
Interlocal Agreement Providing For the Transfer of the City of Sebastian Water and
Wastewater System.
The basic criteria used in performing the analysis was as follows: (1) the purchase
must be supported with revenues generated under existing County utility rates and
(2) that the existing County utility customers would not be impacted negatively.
The purchase of the System by the County will be beneficial to the current City
customers. The current City of Sebastian utility customers would realize a decrease in
their monthly charges as follows:
59,000 Gals. Per Month 79,000 Gals. Per Month
Current City Charges
$68.45
$82.97
Under County Rates
$58.88
$70.52
Increase/(Decrease)
($9.57)
($12.45)
% Decrease - County Rates
13.98%
15.01% -,
The Department has analyzed the financial and engineering information provided by
the City. Based upon this analysis (copy attached), contents of the proposed
Interlocal Agreement (copy attached as part of the public hearing document) the
Department has determined that it would be fmancially feasible to acquire the City
System. Major aspects of the financial analysis is based upon the following
assumptions: (1) Due to the high operating and maintenance costs, the County would
abandon (surplus) the existing water and wastewater treatment facilities and would
supply capacity from its existing facilities and (2) the agreement by the City to expand
the water and sewer system to serve areas in the City without utility service.
The purchase price as set forth in the offer of sale from the City of Sebastian is
$5,000,000.00, the amount of the bond indebtedness for the utility system. The terms
of the sale are as set forth in the Interlocal Agreement (attached as part of the public
bearing document).
The value of the Sebastian Utility System being received is as follows:
Water and Wastewater Utility System
(Plant value less depreciation) $3,363,248
- (Plant Purchased from GDU)
Indian River Drive Water Line
Fund Transfers
Total
25
August 8, 1995
750,000
11,237,470
$5,350,718
WR 95
Boos 95 ,P,�, v 874
The staff believes that the purchase price and terms of the Interlocal
Agreement are reasonable.
The County submitted its financial and engineering analysis to bond counsel and its
bond underwriters and received positive response as to the County's ability to either
assume the existing City Utility Bond Issue or issue bonds to defense the existing bond
issue.
The City of Sebastian held a special city council meeting on July 19,1995, at 7:00
P.M. and conducted a Public Hearing as required by Florida Statutes Chapter
180.301 to determine that the sale of the System was in the public interest. Based
upon the information presented at the Public Hearing the City Council voted
unanimously to pass City Resolution No. R-9542 - Finding Sale of the City of
Sebastian Water and Wastewater Facility is in the Public Interest in Accordance with
F.S.130.301(R 9542). (Copy attached). The Resolution included approval of the
Interlocal Agreement and "authorized and directed the Mayor to execute such
Interlocal Agreement on behalf of the City."
As set forth in the attached memo from Joseph A. Baird, Director, Office of
Management and Budget, Indian River County staff has been analyzing for several
months the financing alternatives for the purchase of the utility.. As set forth in the
memo various options were considered. At this time and for the reasons set forth in
the memo, if the purchase is approved by the Board, staff is proposing that we
interfund borrow and pay Sebastian cash or securities to defense the bond issue. We
will then issue bonds for other utility capital projects and reimburse the interfund
borrowing for the Sebastian purchase.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends purchase of the City of Sebastian Utility System, approval of
the operating budget with required improvements, and change orders for the
construction of the required waterline connections, subject to results of the public
hearing as required by Florida Statutes 125.3401 to determine if the purchase of the
City of Sebastian System is in the public interest.
Director Pinto reviewed information in the Public Hearing
Document which provides documentation required by Florida Statutes
Chapter 125.3401 dealing with the purchase or sale of water, sewer
or wastewater reuse utility by County.
Director Pinto pointed out certain responsibilities concerning
pending lawsuits and other prior agreements were addressed in the
agreement. He discussed the expansion of the system and stressed
that the acquisition will not be financially successful if the
expansion of the system in Sebastian does not take place, because
the financial analysis is based on expanding the service area
especially for water.
Director Pinto wanted it to be very clear that the boundaries
of the expansion were not locked in stone and explained that under
the contract, the City of Sebastian has the ability to set up the
assessment districts, but the County will provide technical
assistance and the City Council will sit as the assessment board,
26
August 8, 1995
_I
or equalization board, to determine how the cost is distributed to
the customers that benefit within the system. He pointed out the
benefits of these provisions. He felt it was an important part of
the agreement because it relieves the City of the fear that the
County can dictate where their planning will be and where utilities
will and will not be within the City. It also gives the City the
ability to do an assessment project and they will be serviced by
the County based on available capacity equal to everyone else in
the system.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if there was anything in the
agreement that would prevent or hamper the County from proper
expansion in Sebastian and in north county, and Director Pinto
responded there was nothing at all. As a matter of fact, he
thought that was one of the most important parts of the purchase of
the system, that it actually will help expansion in a more
reasonable way. He predicted the City will never have to worry
again about bringing utilities to new commercial development.
In response to Commissioner Bird's inquiry, Director Pinto
advised that the department had analyzed payment of bills by
Sebastian residents and did not plan to open a satellite office,
but would try to locate someone in the City of Sebastian to allow
transactions to take place. He explained, however,. that the
customers have been dealing with an office in Miami, with a drop
off in Sebastian, and the County will provide that type of
drop/lock box for payments. They expect to have someone up there
during the sign-up period because they recognize it will be
necessary. They are presently discussing it with the Tax Collector
and a bank in Sebastian.
Director Pinto then reviewed the financing of the purchase of
the system and plans for bonds.
The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the Chairman opened the
public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this
matter.
Gary Brandenberg, attorney with the firm of Carlton Fields,
representing Citrus Utilities owned by Richard Graves, presented a
short history concerning a franchise agreement with Citrus
Utilities. He informed the Board that a law suit has been filed to
recover $77,000 for his client. He advised that if the acquisition
takes place, he will have no alternative but to join the County in
the suit and suggested the County try to settle the matter before
acquiring the system.
27
August 8, 1995 my
'A00F.95 anE876
County Attorney Vitunac advised that he was well aware of the
problem; it was covered in the contract. He explained that the
City of Sebastian will still be a party and if there is a judgment,
it will be against them, but, if it is against us, we are covered
in the contract. He added that the contract had been written in
the 1980's by then -County Attorney Brandenberg.
Director Pinto noted that to facilitate the closing, it was
very important to move forward._ He recognized Citrus Utilities'
claim, but felt it should not be a stumbling block.
Reith Miller, of Sebastian, asked for an explanation of impact
fees and hook up charges.
Director Pinto explained, in detail, all charges for new and
existing customers as well as financing policies and costs. He
clarified that existing customers will not pay an impact fee, and
that new customers would pay impact fees that are in existence at
the time they decide to hook up.
Assistant Director Harry Asher gave the current rates for
meter installation, customer deposit, impact fees and installation
charges.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the purchase of the City of Sebastian
Utility System, the operating budget with
required improvements and change orders for
the construction of the required waterline
connections, as recommended in staff's
memorandum.
Director Pinto thanked the representatives from the City of
Sebastian and his staff, particularly Mr. Asher, and recognized the
efforts of the Mayor of the City of Sebastian.
Chairman Macht invited the Mayor's comments.
Mayor Arthur Firtion thanked the Board. He felt the purchase
was a great step in bringing his city together with the county.
PUBLIC HEARING DOCUMENT ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
28
August 8, 1995
PUBLIC HEARING - NACo DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid not promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund forMe purpose of securing this
adyertisement, for publication in the said newspaper.
�BW0 oraalbgu"et bed before me this A .�� day of
A.71%19
(00siness Manager)
(/ BARBARA C. SPRAGUC. NoT,ARY PU'el.l'.
i State of Florida, My Corms mmn Exo Jun-) Zy. , 997
(S4^F•j,��.`, ...:rte/' •�i...G•-..�f"•f.,,r�
Sign
ed' Notary. SA113ARA C VIP,AL:7JF
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Board of County Comndsslwtars of Indiarn RRivng �err
Camty` Florida, ww8�, 1995 at 9 05amm.. tr�the wm-
Tuesday, August
Own -
mission Chambers at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach. Florida 32960, to consider the adoption of
an ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN-
TY, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION
104.05, DEFERRED COMPENSATION. OF
CHAPTER 104 OF THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY CODE, TO ESTABLISH A DE-
FERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
THROUGH THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
IDA
pTproposed Ordinance bdc rage yr business abe Inspected im tto
he
:$ W I m Monday
thrdre Friday) at the Office of
the Clerk to the of County C wdssloners,
jW Street Vero Beach, Florida.
Ijn meted parties may appeartheat Public Fearing
and be heard with respect to the Wposed ordl-
� who may wish to appeal any deuton which
ff" be meds at this meetlng will need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings which includes testimony rt
and evidence upols which
Anappeal Is based
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for
oontM the CkKutty's Americans
� � at 587.80W,
Ext. 223 at least 48 hours in advance of the meet-
Ing.
eetIng• INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KENNETH R. MACHT, CHAIRMAN 1221179
July 29,1895
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins reviewed the memorandum of
July 28, 1995:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: WIC -1 William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 28, 1995
SUBJECT: NACo Deferred Compensation Plan
On May 16, 1995 the Board of County Commissioners approved offering
County employees an optional deferred compensation plan sponsored by the
National Association of Counties. This plan is in addition to the existing
deferred compensation plan offered by the International City Managers
Association Retirement Corporation. The Board designated the Personnel
Director as their representative to implement the NACo Deferred
Compensation Plan.
Florida Statute 112.215 provides that no deferred compensation plan of a
county shall become effective until the appropriate official (in this case the
Personnel Director) has determined that the compensation deferred and
investment products purchased pursuant to the plan will not be included in
the employee's taxable income until it is actually received by the employee
under the terms of the plan, and, that the compensation will nonetheless be
29
August 8, 1995 ,�;
boa 95 Pn,E 78 -7
deemed compensation at the time of deferral for purposes of Social Security
coverage, retirement, pension, or other benefit program.
The statute requires the Board to adopt by ordinance the deferred
compensation plan; to designate the appropriate official to approve and
administer the plan (i.e., the Personnel Director) and to designate the
Personnel Director to make the determinations listed above.
Toward that end, on July 25, 1995 the Board of County Commissioners
authorized the advertisement of the following revision to Section 104.05, the
deferred compensation section of Chapter 104 dealing with personnel matters
in the Indian River County Code.
"Section 104.05. Deferred compensation.
.A dDeferred compensation plans, are ¢ONAIV
available throuchICMA Retirement
Corporation or the National Association of Counties,
It 0001510 on an optional basis to employees. This
program is a supplement to a retirement income and it
provides for a tax deferral on income contributed to the
plan. The director of personnel shall approve and
administer the plans, and make determination required
by F.S. 112.215(6)(b)."
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the attached ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance No. 95-20 amending Section
104.05, Deferred Compensation, of Chapter 104
of the Indian River County Code, to establish
a Deferred Compensation Plan through the
National Association of Counties and to
appoint the Director of Personnel to approve
and administer County Deferred Compensation
Plans and make determinations required by
Florida Statutes.
ORDINANCE NO. 95- 20
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING SECTION 104.05, DEFERRED
COMPENSATION, OF CHAPTER 104 OF THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY CODE, TO ESTABLISH A DEFERRED
COMPENSATION PLAN THROUGH THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, AND TO APPOINT THE
DIRECTOR OF PERSONNEL TO APPROVE AND
ADMINISTER COUNTY DEFERRED COMPENSATION
PLANS, AND MAKE DETERMINATIONS REQUIRED BY
FLORIDA STATUTES, AND TO PROVIDE FOR
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
30
August 8, 1995
r
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20
WHEREAS, on May 16, 1995 the Board of County Commissioners
approved offering County employees an optional deferred compensation plan
sponsored by the National Association of Counties (NACo);
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners designated the
Director of Personnel as their representative to implement the NACo Deferred
Compensation Plan;
WHEREAS, Florida Statute 112.215 provides that no deferred
compensation plan of a county shall become effective until the appropriate
official has determined that the compensation deferred and investment
products purchased pursuant to the plan will not be included in the
employee's taxable income until it is actually received by the employee under
the terms of the plan, and, that the compensation will nonetheless be deemed
compensation at the time of deferral for purposes of Social Security
coverage, retirement, pension, or other benefit program; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend Section 104.05, the deferred
compensation section of Chapter 104 of the Indian River County Code, to
include the NACo Deferred Compensation Plan, and to provide that the
Director of Personnel approve and administer the plans and make the
determinations required by F.S. 112.215(6)(b);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. Amendment to Section 104.05 Deferred
compensation.
Section 104.05 of the Indian River County Code is hereby amended
as follows:
"A dDeferred compensation plans, are Olkt7Olifft available
throuih da" i00d/16t ICMA Retirement Corporation or the
National Association of Counties, a *ytWN on an optional
basis to employees. This program is a supplement to a
retirement income and it provides for a tax deferral on income
contributed to the plan. The director of Personnel shall
approve and administer the plans, and make determinations
required by F.S. 112.215(6)(b)."
SECTION 2. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the
Indian River County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of the
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions.
SECTION 3. Severability
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or
void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall
be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
31
,c
August 8, 1995
BOOK 95 PnE880
ORDINANCE NO. 95-20
SECTION 4. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the
Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 8, day of August , 1995.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on
the 2 9 day of July , 1995, for a public hearing to be held on the
_g day of n„9„�t , 1995, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Tipnin , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By �.
AT nneth R. 4—cht, Chairman
By,
of rVy K. rton, Clerk
C.-
CODING:
CODING: Words 41ft01t/1ANik jtyi type are deletions from existing law;
words underlined are additions.
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this
day of &L%at , 199 5. 15th
Acknowledgment for the Department of State received on this 23rday of
August , 199 5, at 11:OOa.m./pcmx and filed in the Office of the Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
32
August S, 1995
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN APPROVED
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a
Memorandum dated July 25, 1995:
TO: James E. Chandler J �'
County Administrator
DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
I-0
ober M.Kea i g, ICVector Community Developm nt
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S �•
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: July 25, 1995
RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION
AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of August 8, 1995.
INTRODUCTION
According to state statutes, each local government in the state
must, on a regular basis, prepare an evaluation and appraisal of
its comprehensive plan. Indian River County's Evaluation and
Appraisal Report (EAR) must be submitted to the state by January 11
1997. As of this time, staff have focused primarily on data
collection, research, and coordination with county departments
having implementation responsibilities. Now, it is necessary to
address the issue of public participation in the EAR process.
Recently, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to accept a
$14,069.00 grant from the state Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) to pay a portion of the EAR preparation costs. As part of
the contract associated with the grant, the Board agreed to prepare
an EAR public participation plan and submit that plan along with an
EAR workplan to DCA for its review and concurrence.
Public participation is more than just a state requirement; it is
an integral part of any successful public planning initiative. Not
only is EAR public participation required by the Indian River
County/DCA grant contract; it is -also mandated by Chapter 163 of
the Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J-5 of the Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.). These rules requiring public
participation in the comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal
process, however, are flexible enough to allow each local
government to develop a public participation program consistent
with its needs and with local conditions. Although flexibility
exists in structuring the plan, the requirement to have a public
participation program is specific in state statutes and the
administrative code.
Consistent with these requirements, staff has developed a plan for
public participation in the comprehensive plan evaluation and
appraisal process. This plan will ensure participation by County
33
August 8, 1995 NOW qu 881
r
Boa 95 ou 882 1
residents in plan evaluation, utilizing the technical knowledge and
expertise of individuals, groups and organizations within the
county. As proposed, the public participation plan would rely on
existirfg County committees to obtain public input and to advise the
Planning and Zoning Commission which is the county's established
local planning agency.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Any successful program for public participation must be clearly
formulated and contain opportunities for: public education; public
review and comment; and public discussion and input. These
objectives were considered by staff in developing the proposed
public participation plan.
As structured, the public participation program is divided into
several components. These components are: public information (an
ongoing activity), EAR preparation, and EAR adoption. Each of
these phases will involve public meetings, workshops, public
hearings, and other activities.
The Planning and Zoning Commission, as the County's designated
local planning agency (LPA), has responsibility for preparing the
comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal report and, as such,
for public participation activities. As proposed, the Planning and
Zoning Commission would coordinate all plan review activities;
however, EAR public participation activities relating to specific
plan elements would be assigned to existing committees which focus
on areas relating to specific plan elements. An example of this
would be the Marine Advisory Committee coordinating review and
public input of the coastal zone and conservation elements of the
comprehensive plan.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The proposed public participation plan focuses on existing.groups.
The proposal provides for a detailed public participation plan; it
allows for participation of Planning and Zoning Commission and
Board of County Commission members in the process; it incorporates
an on-going public information program; and it ensures public
participation in the process.
Although the Planning and Zoning Commission has the responsibility
to prepare the comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal report
and establish a public participation program, the proposed program
involves using other committees to advise the Planning and Zoning
Commission. To implement the recommended plan, the Board of County
Commissioners will need to delegate responsibility for Evaluation
and Appraisal Report preparation to those existing committees
referenced in the attached public participation plan document.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
proposed public participation plan.
Commissioner Eggert asked that Appendix "D" (page 13 of the
Plan) be amended to show November for the meetings of the Economic
Development Council and the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
In response to Commissioner Bird's question, Director Keating
advised that the County Commission had final authority for
acceptance of the Plan. He then explained how changes recommended
34
August 8, 1995
� ® s
by the committees will be incorporated into the Plan and that
changes can be specific rather than general.
Commissioner Tippin asked that the Plan be kept as simple as
possible. He felt that it was a very good plan and thought that
using the existing committees was a step in the right direction.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Eggert, to approve
the proposed Public Participation Plan.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird wanted the goal of this
Plan to streamline and decrease the volume of the Comprehensive
Plan. He wondered how much support it would receive from the
Department of Community Affairs since the current plan was very
much driven by the DCA.
Chairman Macht remarked that the Plan was already
revolutionary.
Commissioner Adams wanted to mention two things. Under
Coastal Management and Conservation, she thought that the Beaches
and Shores Preservation and Advisory Committee would like an
opportunity for input. Also, she felt an issue that really ought
to be looked at is the agricultural element.
Commissioner Eggert advised that agriculture, as well as
aquaculture, is always a part of economic development.
Commissioner Adams was comfortable with it under economic
development.
Commissioner Tippin suggested that (page 11 of the Plan)
property owners associations not be listed specifically, because
there are others in the county that perhaps should be involved. He
realized the committees were the "primary" advisory groups, but
thought staff might be able to find another name (other than
secondary) for the other groups.
Chairman Macht suggested "ancillary".
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously.
I-951CR512 COMMERCIAL/ USTRIAL NODE
With the aid of graphics, an overhead, and an aerial map,
- Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of
July 27, 1995:
35
August 8, 1995 wx U5y
Bou 95 pnF 884
mac-
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator e •
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP AN11C
Community Development Director
DATE: July 27, 1995
SUBJECT: I-95/CR 512 COMMERCIAWINDUSTRIAL NODE
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of August 8,. 1995.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Recently, the County's Economic Development Council (EDC) has been
working with staff to evaluate the size and configuration of the
County's three large I-95 commercial/ industrial (C/I) nodes. In
particular, the EDC has focussed on the I-95/CR 512 C/I node.
With respect to the I-95/CR 512 node, the EDC has determined that
the node should be reconfigured such that land adjacent to and
abutting 102nd Terrace is included in the node. Not only does the
102nd Terrace right-of-way provide access, water, and sewer, but it
provides for the logical expansion of the de facto industrial park
that has been established there with the siting of XL Vision,
Maacho, and Profold.
The EDC's intent is to include into the node land abutting 102nd
Terrace for a distance of 1,000 feet. That amount of land would
total approximately 107 acres. Including such land in the node
would, of course, necessitate amending the comprehensive plan.
With such an amendment, a comparable amount of land would have to
be removed from the node to avoid further increasing the County's
overallocation of commercial/industrial land.
ANALYSIS:
Two issues arise with respect to including the referenced 107 acres
in the node boundary. The first issue involves identifying 107
acres currently within the node that can be removed from the node.
Although seemingly a difficult task, there are some wetlands acres
and a borrow pit that could appropriately be removed from the node.
The second and more difficult issue involves the status of the 107
acres proposed for node inclusion. That 107 acres, along with
several thousand acres of contiguous land, is owned by Anthony
Coraci (owner of record is DSC of Newark) and is being purchased by
the state through its Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL)
program. Although the state has been attempting to purchase the
Coraci property for a number of years, it now appears that a sale
is imminent. In fact, the acquisition is expected to be presented
to the Governor and Cabinet for final consideration in late August.
Generally, land purchased by the state through the CARL program is
limited to conservation uses and managed accordingly.
Consequently, the anticipated CARL purchase could restrict
development on the subject 107 acres and prevent that land from
being incorporated within the node.
36
August 8, 1995
� � r
One resolution of this issue is for the County to convince the
state to declare the 107 acres as surplus land and allow the County
to acquire it. Because the subject 107 acres does not have
significant natural resource value and given that land's proximity
to available infrastructure, surplussing the land is a possibility.
According to Charles Hardee, the County's land acquisition
consultant, the most effective strategy would be for the County to
coordinate with CARL staff and request that the Governor and
Cabinet, as part of their acquisition decision, agree to formally
consider surplussing the 107 acres sometime within the next year.
By so doing, the Governor and Cabinet would not be required to make
the surplussing decision at this time, but would keep that option
available. Another advantage is that such a decision would allow
time for the County to develop a plan to acquire the surplus
property.
Given the short timeframes and the need to coordinate with both
CARL staff and cabinet aides, action is needed on this matter
immediately. By choosing to pursue surplussing of the 107 acres,
the Board would not be making any commitment to actually acquire
the 107 acres. Instead, the Board would be keeping its options
open.
A further consideration is whether to use Mr. Hardee's services to
lobby CARL staff and the cabinet aides. While Mr. Hardee is under
contract to the County with respect to both its environmentally
sensitive land --acquisition and solid waste land acquisition
programs, neither program could fund this activity. According to
Mr. Hardee, the time spent and costs associated with the CARL staff
and cabinet aide coordination would be minimal.
It is the EDC's position that incorporating the subject 107 acres
into the I-95/CR 512 Commercial/ Industrial node is necessary to get
a viable north county industrial park in place. With. road access,
water and sewer availability, and existing industrial facilities on
adjacent parcels, the 107 acres is well positioned to be the
necessary catalyst to spur economic development in the north
county.
At the present time, the County has a limited window of opportunity
to lay the groundwork for incorporating the 107 acres in the I-
95/CR 512 node. To maximize that opportunity, the County could
retain Mr. Hardee to coordinate with CARL staff and the cabinet
aides. With a short term contract not to exceed $1,500, the County
could substantially enhance its chances of having the Governor and
Cabinet keep the option open to surplus the subject property.
Besides the referenced 107 acres, the County may also want to
consider the prospect of requesting that the state surplus
additional land for a north County park.
At its July 25, 1995 meeting, the EDC recommended that the Board
take the following actions: monitor the Coraci purchase; negotiate
with the state to surplus the subject 107 acres; coordinate with
owners of wetlands property in the I-95/CR 512 node to have that
land removed from the node; and agree to submit a comprehensive
plan amendment in the January cycle to reconfigure the I-95/CR 512
node. -The staff concurs with these recommendations. `
3r7
August 8, 1995
boa 95 P,&GF 886
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
• Authorize staff to coordinate with CARL staff and cabinet
aides to get the Governor and Cabinet, as part of the
Coraci acquisition, to agree to subsequently consider
surplussing the above referenced 107 acres. Staff also
recommends that the Board authorize Charles Hardee to
represent the County on this matter with a provision that
his charges not exceed $1,500.
• Authorize staff to -coordinate with wetlands property
owners in the I-95/CR 512 node to have wetlands property
removed from the node.
• Direct staff to submit a comprehensive plan amendment (in
the January cycle) to reconfigure the I-95/CR 512 node,
if the state has agreed to surplus the 107 acres.
Commissioner Eggert advised the Economic Development Council
supports this effort and she felt it was important to handle the
CARL situation quickly.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to approve
staff's recommendation as set forth in the
Memorandum.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird voiced his concerns in
detail regarding the questionable need to increase the acreage, the
possible enhancement of certain property values through changing
zoning or uses which might jeopardize the situation with the State,
and removal of the borrow pit. He thought it was premature to
expand the node and could not see the necessity for it.
Commissioner Adams supported the EDC's position and staff's
recommendations and stated that they have been very careful not to
interfere with the pricing process on the Coraci property. She
also thought this was an opportunity for the County to be able to
negotiate for the 100 acre north county park. She thought 107
acres was not enough, but it was a beginning.
Commissioner Eggert interjected that the EDC also was
considering saying to the State that we also would like them to
surplus land for a north county park.
Commissioner Adams felt it was all a great partnership, with
a park atmosphere, with economic, recreation, conservation, all
together, and accessible from all directions.
Commissioner Eggert advised it was greatly supported by the
Sebastian Chamber of Commerce and a lot of north county citizens.
38
August 8, 1995
Commissioner Bird questioned going east of the existing
commercial industrial developments, rather than west.
Commissioner Adams pointed out the road, water and sewer were
already in place.
Darrell Fennell, attorney representing Tom Hamilton as
Personal Representative of Estate of Carlson Plat, which owns
approximately 300 acres west of the current node, who only became
aware of this proposal this morning and wanted to express a concern
on behalf of the Estate. He explained his understanding of what
was potentially occurring and advised of the desire of the Estate
to work with the County. He advised the property is for sale and
concurred with Commissioner Bird's remarks.
Commissioner Eggert explained the intent was not to expand the
node, but there was some environmentally sensitive land that could
be used for storm water and the designation commercial/industrial
could be taken off that and placed elsewhere.
Commissioner Adams responded that the County had no plans to
develop the property now; we are merely trying to take advantage of
a situation being offered. Perhaps that property would be
privately developed, which obviously would enhance the value of the
Estate's property. She would look forward to his input down the
road on what will be done with the property.
Attorney Fennell asked if she was saying that it may be that
even though there would be a discussion with the Estate regarding
the elimination of the acres in the borrow pit area, that would not
necessarily remove the opportunity to use that by the estate.
Commissioners Eggert and Adams responded in the affirmative.
Dean Leuthje, engineer with Carter Associates, who accompanied
Attorney Fennell, addressed the mitigation possibilities for
wetlands on the 395 acres owned by the Estate. He would not wish
to see the Estate penalized by saying that the wetlands that may or
may not be on the 300 acres within the node could not be developed,
because they could be developed through other kinds of mitigation.
He advised there was no offer pending on the property, but it was
for sale.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried 4-1; Commissioner Bird was
opposed.
39
August 8, 1995
ODS( 95 fnE 887
Fr- I
BOOK 95 P�nF888
REPORT ON BEACHES FOLLOWING HURRICANE ERIN
Coastal Engineer Don Donaldson reported on erosion damage as -
a result of Hurricane Erin with the aid of photographic slides
taken before (Tuesday, August 1, approximately 5 p.m.) and after
(Wednesday, August 2, approximately 9 a.m.). He advised that he
will have more quantitative data at the next Beach Advisory
Committee meeting after gathering survey information.
Highlights of the report were as follows. There was about 10'
erosion at the boardwalk at Humiston Beach. There was
approximately 4 to 5 feet of sand lost at the Driftwood. The Ocean
Grill Restaurant survived okay although quite a bit of sand was
lost from under it. The Holiday Inn did not suffer too badly with
2' to 3' loss of sand. Conn Beach sustained minimal structural
damage to the boardwalk, but a portion of the sidewalk collapsed.
Because of the erosion in this area, there is potential for the
roadway to be captured by the sea in future storms or northeasters.
Wabasso Beach came through fairly well with no structural damage.
Dr. Flax' property seawall held.
The collection of survey data has revealed that Sea Oaks had
a good bit of dune cutting and also erosion in South County. Some
properties north of the Moorings, for example, Porpoise Point and
Anglers Cove, are applying for fill. There has been- some dune loss
at McLarty Visitor Center, and survey data is still being collected
in those areas. Quite a bit of debris has been left exposed, but
the primary concern is how fast the beach will recover before we
have another event.
Chairman Macht was grateful we did not receive the worst of
the storm or the high tide predicted, or we would have had even
more, possibly, catastrophic loss. He predicted that if something
is not done, another storm will cause major beach erosion and tax
loss for the county.
Commissioner Adams thought that because of the direction of
the wave action, the PEP reef would have prevented a lot of this
damage.
Mr. Donaldson agreed it would have been helpful to have it in
place.
Chairman Macht agreed, at least we would have had the
opportunity to find out if it worked.
No action taken.
(Clerk's Note: Commissioner Bird left the
meeting temporarily during the prior report,
at about 10:45 a.m.)
40
August 8, 1995
SEBASTIAN UTILITY SYSTEM ACQUISITION & REEVIBURSEN ENT
RESOLUTION
The Board reviewed Memoranda of July 17 and August 4, 1995:
DATE: TULY 17, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COIINTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI;t�ICES
PREPARED HARRY E. AS
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
BY:
SUB.TECT: SEBASTIAN UTILITY SYSTEM ACQIIISITION
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Attached is a resolution, which is a requirement in order to be
able to reimburse for funds expended to construct connections to
the Sebastian Utility System and Acquisition costs.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends
approval of the attached resolution.
'tel y� ,�• •, •---• _.
dc Works
DATE: August 4, 1995 C- ttimuniy ev. -'
TO: James E. Chandler
Fi-lance
County Administrator C'ma
Emerg. Serv. -
THRU Terrance G. Pi % jI Other
Director
FROM: Harry E. Asher
Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Acquisition of City of Sebastian Utilities - Additional Information
This information was orginally submitted to the Board of County
Commissioners with the May 2,1995, Agenda Item concerning the Acquisition of
the City of Sebastian Utilities.
Attached are undated schedules based upon the most recent information
available to be included for evaluation of the purchase of the City of Sebastian
Utility System.
41
BDa F .
August 8, 1995
Boos 95 mu 890.
1 SEBSCH.WK4 - 7/25/95 SCHEDULE 1
CITY OF SEBASTIAN UTILITIES
PROJECTED ANNUAL SALES VOLUMES
WATER
PROJECTED REVENUE FROM WATER AND SEWER (GDU SYS. $799,037.58
SEWER (other)
BILLING UNDER IRC BULK RATES (Current)
PP/PLC TOTALS
SYSTEM
BILLING UNITS (1) 1 12
ANNUAL ERUS (2) 4,086 4,086
VOLUME (3) 15,862 15,862
SEWER (other)
BILLING UNDER IRC RATES (Proposed)
PP/PLC TOTALS
SYSTEM
BILLING UNITS (1) 4,086 4,086
ANNUAL ERUS (2) 4,086 4,086
VOLUME (3) 15,862 15,862
CURRENT
GDU
P. PLACE/
TOTALS
IRC
PROJECTED
$24.00
$11.97
SYSTEM
P. LK CLUB
$50,599.78
RATES
REVENUE
BILLING UNITS
(1)
20,903
3,276
24,179
$2.00
$48,358.80
ANNUAL ERUS
(2)
22,163
3,276
25,439
$9.20
$234,042.48
VOLUME
(3)
102,554
9,257
111,811
$2.25
$251,574.75
$533,976.03
SEWER
GDU
TOTALS
IRC
PROJECTED
SYSTEM
RATES
REVENUE
BILLING UNITS
(1)
8,114
8,114
$2.00
$16,228.80
ANNUAL ERUS
(2)
9,374
9,374
$13.50
$126,554.40
VOLUME
(3)
36,501
36,501
$3.35
$122,278.35
$265,061.55
PROJECTED REVENUE FROM WATER AND SEWER (GDU SYS. $799,037.58
SEWER (other)
BILLING UNDER IRC BULK RATES (Current)
PP/PLC TOTALS
SYSTEM
BILLING UNITS (1) 1 12
ANNUAL ERUS (2) 4,086 4,086
VOLUME (3) 15,862 15,862
SEWER (other)
BILLING UNDER IRC RATES (Proposed)
PP/PLC TOTALS
SYSTEM
BILLING UNITS (1) 4,086 4,086
ANNUAL ERUS (2) 4,086 4,086
VOLUME (3) 15,862 15,862
CURRENT
BULK
PROJECTED
RATES
REVENUE
$2.00
$24.00
$11.97
$48,911.57
$3.19
$50,599.78
$99,535.35
CURRENT
BULK
RATES
$2.00
$13.50
$3.35
NET INCREASE IN SEWER (OTHER)
TOTAL PROJECTED WATER AND SEWER SALES REVENUE
Water
(1) Current mo. 1,659 X 12 X 5% growth.
(2) Current est. ERUS -1,759 X 12 X 5% growth.
(3) Projected Water Sales
PROJECTED
REVENUE
$8,172.00
$55,163.43
$53,137.70
$116,473.13
$16,937.78
$815,975.36
Sewer
(1) Current mo. 644 X 12 X 5% growth.
(2) Current est. ERUS 744 X 12 X 5% growth.
(3) Projected Sewer Sales.
Sewer (other) IRC Bulk Rates
(1) Total billing to City of Sebastian under 1 bill monthly.
(2) Projected PP/PLC 329 X 12 X 3.5% growth
(3) Projected
Sewer (other) IRC Rates
(1) Total billing to individual customers.
(2) Projected PP/PLC 329 X 12 X 3.5%
(3) Projected
42
August 8, 1995
lsebcon.wk4 - 7/26/95 SCHEDULE 2
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Department of Utility Services
Analysis of Acquisition of City of Sebastian Utilities
Capital Requirements for Connection to County Facilities
Sewer
Utilizing the existing 6" force main currently connected to the
force main near Reflections Development on US 1, would
require a regional lift station to be.constructed at the wastewater
plant site - cost is as follows:
Lift Station $140,000
Force main relocations at plant site. $30,000
$170,000
10°x6 engineering $17,000
10% contingency $17,000
Total $204,000
Remote Telementry Units for 10 lift stations @ 5,400. ea. $54,000
Renewal and Repiacement(T. Southard Memo Attached) $72,200
Estimated demolition cost for Wastewater Plant $125,000
Total Sewer Connection Charges $455.200
Water
The following are the initial connections that are required to
supply water from the County facilities:
1. 16" connection CR510 North to existing 16"
$213,534
Powerline Road
2. 8" connection at Reflections Development on US 1
$6,000
3. 12" connection at Sebastian Lakes Development on
SR 512
$94,000
4. Barber Street tie in from US 1 -12" line
$145,000
6. Master metering for all connection points.
$24,100
$482,634
10 % Engineering
$48,263
5% Contingency
$24,132
$555,029
Renewal and Replacement - Galvanized Lines
$25,000
(City of Sebastian memo attached)
Estimated Demolition/Removal of Water Plant
$100,000
Total Water Connection Charges
$680.029
Projected Engineering Services to Revise
Water, Wastewater, and Effluent Master Pians
$50,000
Total Projected Capital Requirements for Connection to County Facilities $1.185,229
43 ROQK 9
August 8, 1995
Boob 95 fna 892
3sebrev.wk4 - 2/16/95 SCHEDULE 3
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
Projected Capacity Required From Existing System
City of Sebastian Utility System
Water
Current Water Projected Capacity
Units Impact Fee Replacement Cost
1,723 ERUS $1,570.00 $2,705,110.00
Credit for Water Transmission Lines in System
1,723 $597.00 * $1,028,631.00
Net Projected Capacity Replacement Cost $1,676,479.00
Sewer
Current Sewer Projected Capacity
Units Impact Fee Replacement Cost
687 ERUS $2,551.00 $1,752,537.00
Credit for Wastewater Transmission Lines in System
687 $676.00 * $464,412.00
Net Projected Capacity Replacement Cost $1,288,125.00
Total Projected Capacity Replacement Cost $2,964,604.00
*Component Transmission Cost of Present Impact Fee Rate
44
August 8, 1995
Expenses
4arevsch.wk4 7/27/95
(2) Reconnect Fees - based on 10/94 revenues.
(3) Projected 2 - Account Clerk II for Sebastian System & Operations Coordinator
(4) Projected 1 - Sewer Service Worker for maintenance of facilities.
(5) Projected 1 - Water Service Worker for maintenance of facilities.
General Personnel Expenses (3)
General Personnel Benefits
$63,178
$64,757
$66,376
$68,036
$69,737
$71,480
$73,267
$75,099
$76,976
$78,901
SCHEDULE 4
$35,760
$17,014
$36,654
$17,439
$37,570
$17,875
$38,509
$18,322
$39,472
$18,780
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY
$42,507
$43,570
$44,659
Sewer Personnel Benefits
$10,423
$10,684
$10,951
$11,225
ANALYSIS
OF CITY OF SEBASTIAN UTILITIES ACQUISITION
$12,088
$20,224
$12,390
$20,730
$12,700
�►
C
Water Personnel Expenses (5)
Water Personnel Benefits
CITY OF SEBASTIAN UTILITIES TEN YEAR PROFORMA CASH FLOW STATEMENT
$17,439
$17,875
$18,322
OQ
Revenues
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
$11,793
$20,236
Water Sales
Sewer Sales
$533,976
$552,665
$572,008
$592,029
$612,750
$634,196
$656,393
$679,367
$703,144
S727,754
00
Sewer Rev. Increase Blk.
$265,062
$16,938
$274,339
$17,531
$283,941
$18,144
$293,879
$304,165
$314,811
$325,829
$337,233
$349,036
5361,252
I -A
Rate Equalization Charge (6%)
$48,959
$50,672
$52,446
$18,779
$54,281
$19,437
$56,181
$20,117
$58,147
$20,821
$60,183
$21,550
$62,289
$22,304
$23,085
$24,368
Penalties & Interest (1)
$23,964
$24,803
$25,671
$26,569
$27,499
$28,462
$29,458
$30,489
$64,469
$31,556
$66,725
$32,660
S326,480
Reconnect Fees (2)
Projected Revenue
$8,676
$8,980
$9,294
$9,619
$9,956
$10,304
$10,665
$11,038
$11,425
$11,824
Debt Service (P&I)
$360,868
$897,575
$928,990
$961,504
$995,157
$1,029,987
$1,066,037
$1,103,348
$1,141,965
$1,181,934
$1.223,302
Expenses
(1) Penalties & Interest - based on 10/94 revenues.
(2) Reconnect Fees - based on 10/94 revenues.
(3) Projected 2 - Account Clerk II for Sebastian System & Operations Coordinator
(4) Projected 1 - Sewer Service Worker for maintenance of facilities.
(5) Projected 1 - Water Service Worker for maintenance of facilities.
General Personnel Expenses (3)
General Personnel Benefits
$63,178
$64,757
$66,376
$68,036
$69,737
$71,480
$73,267
$75,099
$76,976
$78,901
Sewer Personnel Expenses (4)
$35,760
$17,014
$36,654
$17,439
$37,570
$17,875
$38,509
$18,322
$39,472
$18,780
$40,459
$19,250
$41,470
$19,731
$42,507
$43,570
$44,659
Sewer Personnel Benefits
$10,423
$10,684
$10,951
$11,225
$11,505
$11,793
$12,088
$20,224
$12,390
$20,730
$12,700
$21,248
$13,017
Water Personnel Expenses (5)
Water Personnel Benefits
$17,014
$17,439
$17,875
$18,322
$18,780
$19,250
$19,731
$20,224
$20,730
$21,248
Sewer General Operating Expenses(6)
$10,423
$17,885
$10,684
$18,333
$10,951
$18,791
$11,225
$19,261
$11,505
$19,742
$11,793
$20,236
$12,088
$12,390
$12,700
$13,017
Water General Operating Expenses(7)
$44,724
$45,843
$46,989
$48,163
$49,367
$50,602
$20,742
$51,867
$21,260
$53,163
$21,792
$54,492
$22,337
$55,855
Sewer General O & M Expenses
Water General O & M Expenses
$25,000
$20,000
$25,625
$26,266
$26,922
$27,595
$28,285
$28,992
$29,717
$30,460
$31,222
09h,
In Projected Expenses
$261,422
$20,500
$267,958
$21,013
$274,657
$21,538
$281,523
$22,076
$288,561
$22,628
$295,775
$23,194
$23,774
$24,368
524,977
$303,170
$310,749
$318,517
S326,480
Net Revenue after Expenses
$636,152
$661,032
$686,848
$713,634
$741,426
$770,262
$800179
$831,217
$863,417
$896.822
Debt Service (P&I)
$360,868
$360,868
$360,868
$360,868
$360,868
$360,868
$360,868
$360,868
$360,868
S360,868
Debt Service Coverage
1.76
1.83
1.90
1.98
2.05
2.13
2.22
2.30
2.39
2.49
Amortization - Water & Sewer Capacity
Sewer Renewal & Replacement
$148,230
$13,253
$148,230
$148,230
$148,230
$148,230
$148,230
$148,230
$148,230
$148,230
$148,230
(9)
Water Renewal & Replacement (10)
$26,699
$13,584
$27,366
$13,924
$28,050
$14,272
$28,752
$14,629
$29,470
$14,995
$30,207
$15,370
$15,754
$16,148
$16,551
Net Revenue
SR71n,2
tiroona
evicrc
irZ4c4.,
$30,962
$31,736
$32,530
$33.343
1
1
1
(1) Penalties & Interest - based on 10/94 revenues.
(2) Reconnect Fees - based on 10/94 revenues.
(3) Projected 2 - Account Clerk II for Sebastian System & Operations Coordinator
(4) Projected 1 - Sewer Service Worker for maintenance of facilities.
(5) Projected 1 - Water Service Worker for maintenance of facilities.
(6) Projected incremental sewer treatment expenses - 36,501 (volume X $.49/th gals) No. Co. Pit. Cost.
(7) Projected incremental water production expenses-111.811(volume X $.40/th gal)s RO Prod. & Transmission.
(8) Amortization of Replacement Plant Capacity
calculated on $2,964,604 over 20 year period
,
(9) Projected at 5% of Sewer Sales.
(10) Projected at 5% of Water Sales.
CZ
01) Sales Growth is Projected at 3.5% per year and Expenses are projected to increase at 2.5%.
1
1
1
8M.
Indian River County
Department of Utility Services
Supplemental Information for Proposed Acquisition of City of Sebastian Utilities
Water Transmision and Distribution SVstem(GDU System)
Water transmission and distribution system (not incl. Park Place/Palm Lake Club) is 31.3 miles
(165,400 feet) in sizes from 2 inch to 16 inch in diameter constructed of PVC, asbestos cement,
or ductile iron. (Data taken from Bond O/S)
95 � E 89
Wastewater Collection and Transmission System
The wastewater system consists of the following:
No. of Accounts
Total Accounts
Estimated Current
Development
Size
Linear Feet
Replacement Cost*
Total
Transmission
16"
14,400
$32.00
$460,800.00
Transmission
12"
25,826
$24.00
$619,824.00
Transmission
10"
1,700
$22.00
$37,400.00
Transmission
8"
7,780
$20.00
$155,600.00
Transmission
6"
2,200
$16.00
$35,200.00
Distribution
6"
101,537
$16.00
$1,624,592.00
Distribution
4"
10,500
$12.00
$126,000.00
Distribution
3"
840
$9.00
$7,560.00
Distribution
2"
600
$9.00
$5,400.00
Totals
165,383
$3,072,376.00
Hydrants
6"
133
$1,000.00
$133,000.00
Customer Services,
Met(Various
1,359
$250.00
$339,729.17
Totals
$3,545,105.17
Wastewater Collection and Transmission System
The wastewater system consists of the following:
Protected Svstem Growth
There are approximately 13,000 platted residential lots in the City, of which approximately 4,600 lots
have structures.
Identified residential customer growth (Data from Bond O/S) with facilities in place for service.
As of September, 1993.
No. of Accounts
Total Accounts
Estimated Current
Development
Size
Linear Feet
Replacement Cost*
Total
Gravity
8"
48,800
$20.00
$976,000.00
Transmission
2"-8" Force Main
20,300
$15.00
$304,500.00
Manholes
Various
200
$1,500.00
$300,000.00
Lift Stations
Various
6
$35,000.00
$210,000.00
Totals
Totals
2,600
$1,790,500.00
Total estimated current replacement cost(does not incl. water & wastewater plants).
$5,3351605.17
Protected Svstem Growth
There are approximately 13,000 platted residential lots in the City, of which approximately 4,600 lots
have structures.
Identified residential customer growth (Data from Bond O/S) with facilities in place for service.
As of September, 1993.
46
August 8, 1995
SCHEDULE 5
No. of Accounts
Total Accounts
Projected
Development
Presently Served
at Buildout
Growth
Service
Sebastian Highlands
1238
2,823
1,585
Water
Sebastian Highlands
582
980
398
Wastewater
Park Place
178
684
506
Water & Wastewater
Palm Lake Club
25
136
111
Water & Wastewater
Totals
2,600
46
August 8, 1995
SCHEDULE 5
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
(4-0; Commissioner Bird temporarily absent)
adopted Resolution No. 95-95 establishing the
Board's intent to reimburse certain
expenditures in connection with the Sebastian
Utility System Acquisition project from the
proceeds of future bond issues.
RESOLUTION NO. -95-_n
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING ITS INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES IN CONFECTION WITH THE SEBASTIAN UTILITY SYSTEM
ACQUISITION PROJECT FROM THE PROCEEDS OF FUTURE BOND ISSUES, AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Indian River County, Florida (the County) expects
to make certain expenditures in connection with the Sebastian
Utility System Acquisition Project of the County; and
WHEREAS, the County intends to reimburse itself for said
expenditures from the proceeds of future bond issues;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The County expects to make certain expenditures in
connection with the Sebastian Utility System
Acquisition Project of the County (the Project.) The
County intends to finance said expenditures by the
Issuance of one or more future bond issues. Some or
all of said expenditures are expected to be paid prior
to the issuance of said future bond issues. Therefore,
said expenditures will be paid from the Utility
Operating Fund, the Utility Impact Fee Fund, and the
Utility Special Assessment Project Fund of the County.
The County intends to reimburse said funds for said
expenditures out of the proceeds of said future bond
issues expected to be used for said reimbursement is
$5,500,000.00. Said expenditures include, without
limitation,expenditures for the acquisition,
construction, furnishing and equipping the Project; for
reports, studies, and projections in connection with
the Project; and for other items directly related to
the Project.
47
August 8, 1995 M9K '
Booz 95 mu
RESOLUTION No. 95- 95
2. This resolution shall constitute a "Declaration of
Offical Intent" within the meaning of Section 1.103-18
of the federal income tax regulations.
3. The Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners is
hereby directed to make a copy of this resolution
available for public inspection during regular business
hours of the Office of the Clerk in the County
Administration Building, beginning no later than 30
days following the adoption of this resolution and to
keep the same available for public inspection at such
place and during such hours until the date upon which
the bond issues herein mentioned are issued and
delivered by the County. This resolution was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert and the motion
was'seconded by Commissioner Adams
, and,
upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Absent
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Commissioner John Tippin
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution
duly passed
and adopted this g day of August . 1995•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
Jeff K. Barto , erk enneth R. Macht, Chairmafi
APPROVED FOR AGENDA:
BY—
A `�'�( JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
48
August 8, 1995
SEBASTIAN UTILITIES WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECTIONS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 25, 1995:
DATE: JULY 25, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. M CA
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR S ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMEUTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN UTILITIES WATER SYSTEM INTERCONNECTIONS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -13 -DS
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to
proceed with preparations for the acquisition of the City of
Sebastian's Utilities connection to the County system. On July 18,
1995, an amendment to the County's Master Plan was approved, and on
July 19, 1995, the City of Sebastian voted to sell its Utility to
Indian River County. As part of the above actions, plans have been
generated for. the immediate interconnection of the two water
systems. Permitting for these projects is also under way with the
Department of Environmental Protection in Orlando.
ANALYSIS
Based on the vote by the City of Sebastian and the public hearing
for the Commission decision, the Utilities Department has begun
negotiation with Speegle Construction for the construction of these
projects. There are four points of immediate interconnection
between the two systems, as follows:
1) Powerline Road from CR 510 to Barber Street using a line size
of 16 inches.
2) Park Place on Stratton from US 1 to Park Place entrance using a
line size of 12 inches.
3) CR 510 to Laconia at the Roseland Road intersection using a
line size of 12 inches.
4) On US 1 at Reflections using a -line size of 16 inches.
The negotiated cost for all -of the above construction is
$452,534.00. By utilization of a change order to one of our
existing contracts, these projects can be expedited. This work will
be funded from the Utility impact fee fund.
RECOI+XENDATION
Contingent upon the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the
purchase of Sebastian Utilities, the staff of the Department of
Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
also approve proceeding with the above construction by approval of
the attached change order with Speegle Construction as presented.
49
August S, 1995 'NUc . :. fwA 897
boor
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
(4-0; Commissioner Bird temporarily absent)
approved proceeding with construction outlined
in the memorandum and approved Change Order
I
No. 1 with Speegle Construction as presented,
as recommended by staff in the memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MASTER PLAN UPDATE - ' ENGINEERING SERVICES WORK
AUTHORIZATION NO. 8 - BROWN AND CALDWELL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 27, 1995:
DATE: JULY 27, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT�Aw
S'r
OR /��
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI -
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. c AIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL NCTNEER
BY: DEP O UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: RENEWAL OF MASTER PLAN CONTINUING SERVICES CONTRACT
WITH BROWN AND CALDWELL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. MP -91 -18 -ST
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the selection of and a contract with Brown
and Caldwell for all Master -planning services. (See attached agenda
item and minutes.) To date, we have been very pleased with their
responsiveness to the Utilities Departments continuing
Master -planning needs. The Utilities Department now wishes to
extend this contract for an additional year. As a result of the
past several years of work together, we have been able to more
specifically outline our areas of service and the costs associated
with the projected work. The two new areas of specified service are
related to the Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program (costs are 100%
recoverable from applicants) and a review of potential customers for
the Sludge Facility.
ANALYSIS
Staff feels both the pretreatment analysis and the sludge analysis
work is best suited to Brown and Caldwell as they, working in
conjunction with the Utilities Department, originated the
pretreatment ordinance. The areas of need and the projected
associated costs are as follows:
1) Project Management $ 3,150.00
2) Hydraulic Model Updates 12,000.00
3)* Industrial Waste Pretreatment Applications 10,850.00
4)* Sludge Analysis 12,000.00
5) Mlts-ce-]_aneous Engineering 7.000.00
Total $45,000.00
50
August 8, 1995
* Costs to be recovered from proposed users or applicants.
Funding for Items 1, 2, and 5 will be from Account No.
472-000-169-146.00 and Items 3 and 4 will be funded from
471-218-536-033.21.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
approval of the proposed Master Plan agreement as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
(4-0; Commissioner Bird temporarily absent)
approved Authorization No. 8 with Brown and
Caldwell as set forth in staff's memorandum.
AUTHORIZATION NO. 8 ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
BID NO. 5092 - CONSTRUCTION OF SO. COUNTY WWTP FILTER
ADDITION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 27, 1995:
DATE: JULY 27, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THROUGH: H. T. "SONNY" DEAN
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID NO. 5092
CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTH COUNTY WWTP FILTER ADDITION
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1PRO07ECT NO. IIS -90 -20 -DS
BACKGROUND
Bid Opening Date:
Advertisement Dates:
July 26, 1995
July 5 and 12, 1995
Bids received from the following contractors:
Contractor Bid Total
Widdell $1,013,500.00
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Wharton -Smith, Inc. $937,000.00
Lake Monroe, Florida
51
August 8, 1995 bm 899
BOOK 95 00
WPC Industrial Contractors, Inc.
$874,000.00
Jacksonville, Florida
Project Integration, Inc.
$958,000.00
West Palm Beach, Florida
-
Butler Construction, Inc.
$1,089,017.00
Rockledge, Florida
Encore Construction, Inc.
$1,063,650.00
Altamonte Springs, Florida
The lowest bidder is WPC Industrial Contractors, Inc.
of
Jacksonville with the bid amount
of $874,000.00. Based on
the
investigation conducted by the project engineer, the said contractor
has performed satisfactorily with
previous owners as.well as
with.
Indian River County.
The source of funds will be from the Utilities impact fee fund
No.
472-000-169-111.00. The estimated
budget is $942,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
bid be awarded to WPC Industrial Contractors, Inc., of Jacksonville
as the lowest, most responsive, and responsible bidder meeting•
specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid. In addition,
staff requests Board approval of the attached agreement as to form,
when all requirements are met and approved by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
(4-0; Commissioner Bird temporarily absent)
awarded Bid #5092 to WPC Industrial
Contractors, Inc. and approved the agreement
when all requirements are met and approved by
the County Attorney, as recommended by staff
in the Memorandum.
WETLANDS PROTECT - WEST REGIONAL WWTP - COASTAL
CONSTRUCTION OF BREVARD, INC. - CHANGE ORDER #1
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 26, 1995:
DATE: JULY 26, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
Y,'�
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WETLANDS PROJECT - WEST REGIONAL WWTP
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -93 -05 -ED
52
August 8, 1995
On February 7, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved and
granted the construction of said artificial wetlands project to
Coastal Construction of Brevard, Inc., in the amount of
$1,663,385.00. The construction has progressed as scheduled and is
approximately 72% completed. Change Order No. 1 is being submitted
to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.
ANALYSIS
The change order consists of the installation of a perimeter fence,
an additional cost to increase the size of one section of piping
(approximately 120 LF), an additional 90 -degree elbow, and
additional berm dirt material. Justification of each item in Change
Order No. 1 is listed and described on Page 2 of 3 of the attached
change order. The change order adjusts the original contract by
$170,883.40 to a new contract amount of $1,834,268.40. Funding for this
project will be from the impact fee fund..
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $170,883.40, which adjusts
the contract to $1,834,268.40.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
(4-0, Commissioner Bird temporarily absent)
approved Change Order No. 1, to the Coastal
Construction of Brevard, Inc. contract, in the
amount of $170,883.40, which adjusts the
contract to $1,834,268.40, as set forth in the
memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
JUNGLE TRAIL WATER MAIN, CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 25, 1995:
DATE: JULY 25, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTI
PREPARED WILLIAM F. M
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PRW
ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OLITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: JUNGLE TRAIL WATER MAIN
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -27 -DS
BACKGROUND
On April 11, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners awarded the above -referenced project to Derrico
Construction Corporation. As a result of both in-house and
53
August 8, 1995 �c�� �` •�
BOOK 95 PA%E902
Master -planned consultant review, it has become apparent that the
North Beach Water Plant will be taken off line in the near future
and be converted to a Master Repump facility. (See attached letter
from Brown and Caldwell.) This change will necessitate the
construction of a second water line on Jungle Trail.
ANALYSIS
We have negotiated a change order with Derrico in the amount of
$82,674.00 for this line installation. Construction of this
additional line at this time will eliminate the need to tear up
Jungle Trail a second time. This will also result in a savings of
approximately $50,000.00 to the County over bidding this job at a
future date. The line is to be installed in a similiar fashion as
the current one to avoid future conflicts with County and DOT
projects. Funding for this project will be from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1 as
presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
(4-0, Commissioner Bird temporarily absent)
approved Change Order No. 1, as recommended by
staff in the Memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
(Clerk's Note: At approximately 10:58 a.m.,
Commissioner Bird returned to the meeting.)
EX PARTE CONMIMCATIONS
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins reviewed a Memorandum of
July 28, 1995:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: kA;-CWilliam G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: July 28, 1995
SUBJECT: Ex Parte Communications
HISTORY:
1991 Florida case law established that any communication, oral or written,
received outside of a hearing by a member of a board or commission acting
in a quasi-judicial manner was presumptively prejudicial. Such contacts
would be presumed to taint the decision of the board and be the basis for a
re -hearing.
As a result, the Florida Legislature in 1995 created Section 286.0115, Florida
Statutes, which allows access to public officials under certain circumstances.
54
August 8, 1995
F.S. 286.0115, "ACCESS TO LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIAL":
The County may. now adopt an ordinance or resolution removing the
presumption of prejudice from ex parte communications with local public
officials by establishing procedures for the disclosure of such contacts,
written communications, or investigations and site visits.
Disclosures must be made before or during the public hearing at which a
vote is taken so that persons with opinions contrary to those expressed in
the ex parte communications are given a reasonable opportunity to refute or
respond to the communication.
A resolution has been prepared (see attachment) that would allow access to
public officials taking quasi-judicial action; remove the presumption of
prejudice from such communications; and establish procedures for disclosure
of such communications.
There is no requirement to adopt such procedures.
Commissioners Eggert and Bird spoke against the proposed
resolution.
Commissioner Adams asked if could be done any other way, and
Attorney Collins explained that this was a procedure that the State
had set up.
Commissioner Tippin spoke against the resolution and suggested
that either written or verbal disclosure might be acceptable.
Attorney Collins suggested they could do that, but reiterated
that there was no requirement to adopt the State -approved
procedures or any other procedures. He thought they had the
opportunity to adopt alternate procedures, but the only question
would be whether it would overcome the presumption of prejudice.
Chairman Macht preferred to make no change and to continue to
lobby the Legislature to modify the law, as he has advocated for
some time.
The Board discussed Commissioner Tippin's suggestion; the
majority wished to continue as they had been doing.
Chairman Macht inquired if it was possible to put Commissioner
Tippin's suggestion before the Attorney General for an opinion and
Attorney Collins thought it would not be a good procedure since
there's no case law on it.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Eggert, to proceed as they
have been and try to abide by the law, but if
there is an inadvertent contact causing a need
for disclosure, then to make it at the public
meeting.
55
August 8, 1995
800 95 PAA 904
Under discussion, there was agreement to continue lobbying the
Legislature to modify the law.
Attorney Collins advised that there was some discussion among
County Attorneys as to whether or not this legislation would even
be constitutional, whether the Legislature can overturn case law in
a situation like this. He thought it was very likely that there
will be some challenges to this law.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the
motion carried unanimously. (4-1, Commissioner
Adams opposed)
Chairman Macht asked for an update if there were any changes
to the law or court decisions.
DISCUSSION - EMERGENCY PROCEDURES - HURRICANE ERIN
Chairman Macht congratulated staff on their fine performance
during Hurricane Erin. He believed we have a great system going,
and that this storm served as almost a dry run which validated our
procedures.
Commissioner Bird questioned the mandatory evacuation order
for the barrier island, and Emergency Services Director Doug Wright
explained that certain decisions are predicated on the type of
storm and are in accordance with Plans which have been reviewed by
the State and FEMA. Those decisions are also coordinated with
other agencies in the county. He pointed out that certain
protective actions must be taken because FEMA will look at the
responsibility of local government in cost assessment for damage
sustained.
Commissioner Adams commended Director Wright and the Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) staff and volunteers for a wonderful job
throughout the night. Chairman Macht and Commissioner Eggert added
their wholehearted agreement.
Director Wright thanked the Board for their commendations and
advised that they used a team work approach. He advised that
Administrator Chandler had spent the night in the EOC, while on his
vacation.
Commissioner Eggert was dissatisfied with the back -to -work
notification procedure. She believed there was a communication
56
August 8, 1995
problem. She had not been contacted at all and some employees who
had been notified to go to work on Wednesday, August 2nd, were told
they would be docked if they did not report.
Administrator Chandler accepted total responsibility for the
back -to -work decision. He explained that at about 6 a.m. Wednesday
morning, all preliminary reports indicated relatively minimal
damage, roadways were clear and safe, the storm had passed and the
weather was clearing. At that point, he made a decision that it
would be in the best interest of the community to call the rest of
the employees back in to report at noon with several caveats.
Those employees who had been there all night were not expected to
come to work. He also recognized that it might not have been
possible to contact some employees and they would not be penalized.
Commissioner Bird pointed out that communications was the
problem, that rather than relying on television or radio, there
must be some kind of a telephone network.
Administrator Chandler advised that each department head was
contacted and they were to notify all of their employees. He also
had contacted Personnel Director Jack Price and Public Works
Director Jim Davis, who was Acting County Administrator at the
time, to advise them of what was transpiring. He also recognized
that because of the hour of the day, the time frame, and other
conditions, some employees might not get notified and should not be
penalized. The media was not used for communication to employees.
Commissioner Adams understood then that those who did not show
up for work Wednesday afternoon would be paid.
Administrator Chandler agreed, unless they were notified and
chose not to come in. He recognized that individuals may have an
extenuating circumstance that could be discussed.
Commissioner Eggert spoke about the all-night volunteers who
chose to work longer thinking they had the next day off, or their
small child's school was closed, and so forth. She detailed one
case in particular and Administrator Chandler agreed that instance
was unquestionably a communications -.breakdown.
Because of her experience in a shelter, Commissioner Eggert
felt that people were more exhausted from just being awake all that
time. She was concerned about the volunteers hearing that they
were going to be docked if they didn't report and was worried about
how many would volunteer in the future. She was also concerned
whether employees can really do a very good job at work after, being
up most of the night. If she had been called that morning and
asked, she would have said, "We said we were going to close and
57
-MR
August 8, 1995
BOOK 95 .� . 90
people made decisions on that basis. Let's keep it closed for the
day . '1
Commissioner Bird questioned how much was really gained.
Chairman Macht wondered if we ought to establish an
authoritative media channel/station. In the future, maybe Channel
13 could be our official TV cable channel.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that many people don't have
cable TV.
Commissioner Adams, who does not have the availability of
cable TV, felt very comfortable with information she heard on radio
station WAVE.
Administrator Chandler explained that, based on information
the EOC was receiving from the National Hurricane Center, they
attempted to disseminate local conditions at about 7:30 p.m.,
Tuesday, when they overrode the commercial stations and advised
people to tune to Channel 13.
Chairman Macht was certain that all these points would be
discussed in the critique.
COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN GRANT SUPPORT
Commissioner Eggert referred to a Memorandum dated August 4,
1995:
TaAsun CoasT
PRIVATE
INDUSTRY
COUNCIL
CAREER
TRANSITION
CENTER
9334 S. U.S. #1
Port St. Lucle, FL.
34952
407/335.9177
FAY 4117/135.9390
AA/EOA
August S, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Commissioner Carolyn Eggert
FROM: Sam Patterson
DATE. August d, 1995
SUBJECT: Grant Proposals for Commercial Fishermen in
Aquaculture
It has been discussed that as part of the revitalization effort, letteis o"t,
support accompany any grant proposal. Both Harbor Branch and#he
Private Industry Council are presently applying for state and fedefal
grants. Indian River County is named in both grants as an intricate
area for training and employment opportunities. To strengthen the
package, it becomes important that a County Commissloner, thatiis
Presently involved in the revitalization movement, make a few
statements of support.
The following are my points of concern:
58
r � r
Ken rockers
Ghtiirnuut
1. Indian River County does support the Private Industry Council's
efforts in forming partnerships with Harbor Branch that benefits
Sid Foe
Vice Chairman
displaced commercial fishermen.
reasusu re�r artagiio
T
Treasurer
2, Indian River County is in favor of retraining commercial net
fishermen in aquaculture training and employment
Karen Alley
programs.
Werner Bots
Richard D. Curtis
3. The Commission encourages the Department of Labor to fund Puch
Rick FRickeerretti ell
projects as aquaculture parks and training,
Christopher Fogal
Carol
4. Overall impact of the Amendment on the
Mace GI-ff rdkom
Suzanne Hutcheson
county and how projects
like aquaculture will enhance economic
Bronco Johnson
stability to the people most
affected by the net bars.
Larry Let, Jr.
Hat LeMieux
Michael Lewis
I.A. "Mac" Mascioli
Carl Miller, Jr.
John Mirwola
Robert Moses
Marilyn Reynolds
J. Hal Rob", Jr.
E. Thelma Waters
Wilbur Williams
"NAI ION'S'I PRIVATE INDUSTRY COLJNiCiL"
Ken Pruitt
L1.S. li�t+utrsrm of I�h-e 1'Y)(1 • tiui�nal A1L�n: t �f ni.n.0 l�?
Monoraly Afer mer
NA.n Griggs
Executive Director
Bobbie Howard-davis
Assisrarr Director
Commissioner Eggert wanted to follow through and write a
letter to support the.grant.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously
supported writing a letter of support for the
grant proposals for commercial fishermen in
aquaculture.
59
August 8, 1995 ma 95 F� %F 0 7'
BOOK 95 pn� 908 7
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE COMMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 3, 1995: -
TO: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney7t?�36
DATE: August 3, 1995
SUBJECT: USE OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE TAX REVENUES
You have asked this office a question concerning the use of revenues
generated by the local occupational license tax. The question is related
to an article by Milt Thomas in the August 1995 Treasure Coast
Business Journal.
Occupational license tax revenues may be used for any lawful purpose;
however, Section 205.033 (7) , F . S . , which appears to be legislative
direction, provides as follows:
7) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this
chapter, the revenue received from a county occupational
license tax may be used for overseeing and implementing a
comprehensive economic development strategy through
advertising, promotional activities, and other - sales and
marketing techniques.
Commissioner Eggert recalled that during consideration of the
occupational license ordinance, the question had come up whether
those dollars could be used for economic development. Since they
can, she felt it was something to be considered in the future when
incentive requests are presented.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the
Board would convene as the Board of Commissioners for a Special
Meeting of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are
being prepared separately.
60
August 8, 1995
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:23 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. ton, clerk
Minutes approved on -
61
August 8, 1995 mof 95'