HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/1995� MINUTEPRTTACHED �
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVEW COUNTY-, FLORIDA
A O E. N' W A
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17,1995
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Richard N. Bird (District 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
John W. Tippin (District 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
13
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER ,4 C K U
3. PT'F'DGF'OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. Richard N. B
4. 11 rr 1N : ►If:) ►ll 1111[cy ITEM,44
13-A-1 Block grant for Medicaid
13-A-2 DEP groundwater rules for landfills
13-B Citrus waste
13-E Annual dinner meeting of Treasure Coast Council of
Local Governments
,.1IN u rNW1Mrfrl .w Y.
Presentation of Proclamation Designating November 4, 1995
as Children's Art Festival Day in Indian River County 1
6. APPROVAi. nF wrTxrrr�c
Special Meeting of September 21, 1995)
A. Renewal of Abandoned Flow Well Plugging
Agreement with SJRWMD
(postponed from meeting of Oct. 10, 1995)
(memorandum dated October 11, 1995) 2-16
B. Award Bid #6006 / Steel Corrugated Pipe
(memorandum dated October 10, 1995) 17-26
C. Award Bid #6018 / Sand for Dunes
(memorandum dated October 10, 1995) 27-31
-1
7. CONSENT AGENDA (coned.) - PSE
D. Request for Floodplain Cut & Fill Balance Waiver-
for
aiverfor Blue Cypress Lake Park Restrooms
(memorandum dated October 9, 1995) 32-34
E. Request to Advertise and Set Public Hearing
Date for Proposed Ordinance Updating the
Standard Technical Codes
(memorandum dated October 3, 1995) 35-37
F. Request to Advertise and Set Public Hearing
Date for Ordinance Determining Employee -
Independent Contractor Status
(memorandum dated October 3, 1995) 38-41
1 Yr 11Y 1I U41 it 0 41 al lei D1
K112 : ► y I
None
11:31rej YY u
None
1:01; 1►
1. Countryside Mobile Home Park, Res.
#85-61, Between Realcor Assoc. and
Indian River County
(memorandum dated October 5, 1995) 42-148
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGULATING
THE HOLDING OF BINGO GAMES IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 149-151
1. 1 K I.T.3 (eve I 1513
None
Yu1 ►114,11arvog
A. Commtn Development
1. Karl Hedin's Request for Board Review of
County Wetland Resource Permit Fee Re-
quirement
(memorandum dated October 4, 1995). - 152-166
(postponed from meeting of October 10, 1995)
2. Jet Skis Off Wabasso Causeway
(memorandum dated October 11, 1995) 167469
� � r
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS PAGE
A. Community Development_(c°nfAj-.
3. Manuel Silva's Request for Board Review of
Commercial Vehicle Parking Restrictions in
Residential Areas
(memorandum dated October 11, 1995) 170-180
B. Emergency_ rvi es
1. Authorization to Purchase Disaster Response
& Recovery Equipment with Development of
Regional Impact (DRI) Funds, B.A.#001
(memorandum dated October 10, 1995) 181-183
2. Approval of Base Grant Agreement from the
Emergency Management, Preparedness and
Assistance Trust Fund, Budget Amend. #002
(memorandum dated October 10, 1995) . 184-212
C. General Servicec
County Administration Building Renovations
Architectural/Engineering Services
(memorandum dated October 11, 1995) 213
D. i.eisnrp Services
None
E. Office of Management and BLd et
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Work s
1. Bid Award - Replacement of Wabasso
Causeway Boat Ramp and Replacement of
Dale Wimbrow Boat Ramp
(memorandum dated October 9, 1995) 214
2. Recommendations of the Parks & Recreation
Committee
(memorandum dated October 11, 1995) 215-219
3. Meeting with Municipalities Regarding Local
Option Gas Tax Revenue Distribution
(memorandum dated October 6, 1995) 220-227
4. Engineering Consultant Selection - 43rd Ave.
Five -Lane Widening from 22nd St. to 10th St.
(memorandum dated October 9, 1995) 228-229
_I
11. PAGE
G. & H. Public Works Dent & Utilities Dept
Vero Tropical Gardens and a.Portion of Paradise Park,
Unit.#3 Water Service, Resolutions I and II
and
Road and Drainage Improvements - Public Works
Project #9130 - Resolutions to Set Public Hearing
Date and Provide for Special Assessment Paving
and Drainage Improvements
(memorandum dated September 26, 1995) 230-242
H. Utilities
1.
South County Repump Station and Force Main
Retainage Reduction
(memorandum dated October 4, 1995)
243-247
2.
Twenty Seventh Avenue Department of Trans-
portation Improvements Project
Utility Relocation Schedule and Agreement
(memorandum dated October 3, 1995)
248-252
4.
So. County Regional Ef dent Pumping Station
Change Order No. 1 and Engineering Services
(memorandum dated October 4, 1995)
253-257
5.
1st American Banks (I.E., Puttick Enterprises)
(memorandum dated October 9, 1995)
258-262
6.
SR60 Water Line - 66th Ave. to 62nd Drive
(memorandum dated October 6, 1995)
263-265
12. COUNTY ATTO
NFY
None
1 ul►�I 1 �I ; MY u
C. Commissioner Richard N. Bird
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'PAGE
E. Commissioner John W TilliDin
A. Emergency Services District
Authorization to Execute Purchase Agreement with
Ten -8 Fire Equipment, Inc., for a Tanker to Replace
a 1968 GMC Removed from Service Due to Vehicle's
Unserviceable and Unsafe Condition
(memorandum dated October 6, 1995)
B. Solid Waste D'snosal Di trict
None
266-270
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.
Tuesday, October 17, 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, October 17,
1995, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran
B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; and John W. Tippin.
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert was recuperating from knee surgery.
Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles
P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Macht requested the addition of Item 13-A-1, comment
about block grant for Medicaid and Item 13-A-2, comment regarding
DEP groundwater rules for landfills.
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of Item 13-B, citrus
waste.
Commissioner Tippin requested the addition of Item 13-E,
announcement'of annual dinner meeting of Treasure Coast Council of
Local Governments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) added the above
items to today's Agenda.
PROCLAMATION - CHILDREN'S ART FESTIVAL DAY IN IRC
Chairman Macht read aloud the following proclamation which
will be given to Mark McMahon, education assistant for the Center
for the Arts.
BOOK 96 Fh.cr.16
1
OCTOBER 17, 1995
_I
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, on November 4, 1995, the Children's Art Festival,
organized by the Center for the Arts, will celebrate
its fifteenth anniversary; and
WHEREAS, the theme for this year's festival will be "A WORLD OF
ART". This event provides the opportunity for hands-on
art experiences for young people of all ages, pre-
schoolers through teens. The entire family can enjoy
the student art displays, entertainment, music and food
available throughout the day; and
WHEREAS, the reason the Children's Art Festival came into
existence was because there was a concern by those
involved in establishing a Center for the Arts that the
youth of the area were underexposed and given limited
opportunities to participate in visual arts activities.
Since the inception of the Children's Art Festival
thirteen years ago, art instruction in the school
systems, both public and private, has increased
significantly making art and humanities awareness an
enriching part of the lives of the young people -in our
community:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY CONMISSIONERS that November 4, 1995 be
designated as
CHILDREN'S ART FESTIVAL DAY
in Indian River County, and the Board expresses its
appreciation to the many hard working volunteers for
instituting and continuing this fine program for the
youth in our community.
s 17 day of October, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Jnnn�eth R. Macht, Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 21, 1995. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of 9/21/95, as
written.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 2 BOOK 96 PA.fAV
1
BOOK 96 FADE 318
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bird requested that Item C be removed for
discussion.
A. Renewal of Abandoned Flow Well Plugging Agreement with S TRWMD
(Postponed from meeting of October 10, 1995)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/11/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP TMENT IAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. eatin , AI
Community Develafpmenliirector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,�H=�CP
Chief,.Environmental Planning
DATE: October 11, 1995
RE: Renewal of Abandoned Flow Well
Plugging Agreement with SJRWMD
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of October 17, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Since 1989, the County has participated in a 50/50 cost share
program with the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD)
to plug abandoned artesian wells. As a result of this program, 181
wells have been plugged or repaired in Indian River County, saving
approximately 80 million gallons per day (mgd) of ground water.
This past year, 27 wells were plugged in the County (9 county -wide
through the cost -share program; 5 on County Utilities property; and
13 via other SJRWMD programs).
Throughout the duration of the County/District program, the County
has allocated a total of $30,000 ($15,000 for Utilities property,
$15,000 for county -wide private property) on a fiscal year basis.
In turn, SJRWMD has matched the county's funds with $30,000 of
their own, resulting in a total of $60,000 per fiscal year
allocated for well plugging.
The original agreement for the well plugging program was executed
on October 3, 1989, to plug abandoned wells on County Utilities
property. In March, 1990, the agreement was amended to apply
county -wide. The original agreement has been amended five times as
part of an annual renewal process.
In a change from previous years, SJRWMD is proposing that two
separate contracts - one for Utilities property and one for county-
wide private property - be executed for fiscal year 1995-96 cost -
share funding. Based on guidelines adopted in September, 1994 (see
attached), the SJRWMD has changed its policy on Utilities property
3
OCTOBER 17, 1995
jg�
r
cost -share to fund 258 (rather than 508) of costs. [An exception,
however, is that SJRWMD will provided 508 funding for wells plugged
on Utilities property if the wells were not originally constructed
by the Utility.] As proposed, funding will be as follows: -
Contract County Share SJRWMD Share Total
County -wide $151000 (50%) $15,000 (50%) $30,000
Utilities $ 9,000 (75%) $ 3,000 (25%) $12,000
TOTAL: $24,000 $18,000 $42,000
The attached contracts are hereby presented to the Board for
approval consideration for fiscal year 1995-96.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
As reflected in the provided table, the County's share from
previous years will changed from $30,000 to $24,000. The total pool
of funds, as proposed, will be reduced from $60,000 to $42,000.
This funding reduction is largely based on past experience that
demand for well plugging on Utilities property does not warrant a
joint allocation of $30,000, which has been allocated in previous
years. County -wide, however, well plugging projects have been
numerous enough to warrant continued allocation of $30,000 in joint
funds.
--- The - Board of County Commissioners has approved $9,000 in the
Utilities Department budget and $15,000 in the Community
Development Department budget for fiscal year 1995-9.6, for the
County/'SJRWMD well plugging cost share program.
Abandoned flow wells result in -the unnecessary consumption of
ground water. Moreover, artesian flow wells tend to have high
chloride levels, and in turn lower water quality in the surfic Al
aquifer, which is commonly used for private potable wells. Renewal
of the attached agreement will result in the continuation of an
important and successful water quality and quantity protection
program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached abandoned flow well plugging cost share agreements with
the SJRWMD for FY 1995-96, and authorize the chairman to execute
the agreements. ..
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved two cost
share agreements with SJRWMD for FY 1995-96, as
recommended by staff. -
AGREEMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
4 Bo0g 6 FAGE•�,�9
OCTOBER 17, 1995
BOOK 96 FnE320
B. Award Bid ##6006 -- Steel Corrugated Pipe - Annual Contract
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/10/95:
DATE: October 10, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Service
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #6006/Steel Corrugated Pipe
Road and Bridge - Annual Contract
-BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
Metal Culvert
Clearwater, FL
Southern Culvert
Ft Pierce, FL
Contech Construction Products
Lantana, FL
RECOMMENDATION:
August 11, 1995
July 28, Aug 4, 1995
Ten (10) Vendors
Three (3) Vendors
BID TOTAL
$ 92,773.80
$ 98,993.69
$108,539.46
1. Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to the second
low bidder, Southern Culvert for the Steel Corrugated
Pipe. (See Departmental recommendation).
2. Establish an Open End Contract with Southern Culvert
with a not to exceed amount of $100,000.00 during the
period October 1, 1995 thru September 30, 1996. Last
year's -total expenditures were $60,000.00.
3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract
subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost
increase{ vendor acceptance, and the determination that
renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) awarded Bid #6006
to Southern Culvert in an annual contract not to
exceed $100,000, as set out in staff's
recommendation.
5
OCTOBER 17, 1995
C. Award Bid x#6018 - Sand for Sandridge Sand Traps
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/10/95:
DATE: October 10, 1995
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TARO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Direc
General Services 4 --1 n
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #6018/Sand for Dunes
Sandridge Golf Club
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
"-Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
VENDOR
Standard Sand & Silica
Davenport, FL
Sand Specialists Inc
Ft Pierce, FL
Golf Specialities
Melbourne, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
September 20, 1995
Aug 30, Sept 6, 1995
Seven (7) Vendors
Three (3) Vendors
PRICE PER TON BID TOTAL
$ 27.50 $30,250.00
$ 27.85 $30,635.00
$ 30.05 $33,055.00
$30,250.00 (1,100 Tons)
SOURCE OF FUNDS Golf Course Operations Other
Improvements -Except Buildings - 418-221-572-066.39
ESTIMATED BUDGET $30,250.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Standard Sand
& Silica as the lowest, most responsive and responsible
bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the
Invitation to Bid.
Commissioner Bird asked for' clarification on the use of the
sand, and Bob Komarinetz, Golf Course Director, advised that the
sand is for sand traps, not dunes.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being -absent) awarded Bid #6018
to Standard Sand & Silica in the amount of $30,250,
as set out in staff's recommendation.
6 BOOK 96 PAGE 3,1
OCTOBER 17, 1995
BOOK 96 FA.GE2
D. Floodplain Cut & Fill Balance Waiver - Blue Cypress Lake Park
Rest Rooms
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/9/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Dir ecto
AND
Roger D. Cain, P.
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E ASL
Civil Engineer CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut & Fill Balance Waiver for Blue
Cypress Lake Park Restrooms
REFERENCE.: AA -95-11-140 / 95080129
DATE: October 9, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Carter Associates, Inc. is requesting a waiver of the 100 year
floodplain cut and fill balance requirement for the subject project
on behalf of the Parks Division of the Public Works Department.
The restroom site is located within the existing Blue Cypress Lake
Park property on the west shore of Blue Cypress Lake. The
elevation of the existing ground is two feet below the base flood
elevation of 27.5 feet N.G.V.D. established by F.E.M.A. As
described in the attached letter from Carter Associates dated
September 25, 1995 the fill necessary to elevate lowest floor of
the new restroom building to 0.5 feet or more above the base flood
elevation will displace 180 cubic yards of the existing floodplain
storage. The site plan was approved by the Community Development
Department staff on September 28, 1995 with the condition that a
County Type B Flood Protect ion-Stormwater Management System Permit
be obtained.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The site meets the L.D.R. Section 930.07(2)(d)3. waiver request
criteria of being located in the St. Johns Marsh and is underlain
by Terra Ceia organic soil as described in the U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service Soil Survey of Indian River County.- If a
waiver is not granted the restroom and its water treatment
equipment could be re -designed to be elevated on piling foundations
to satisfy the cut and fill balance.
7
OCTOBER 17, 1995
Alternative No. 1 — Grant the cut and fill waiver based on the
criteria of L.D.R. Section 930.07(2)(d)3.
Alternative No. 2 - Deny the cut and fill waiver. This would
require design of a revised foundation to elevate the restroom on
pilings.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board, by 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) granted a
floodplain cut and fill balance waiver for Blue
Cypress Lake Park rest rooms, as set out in staff's
recommendation.
E. Schedule Public Hearing Date for Proposed Ordinance
Updating the Standard Technical Codes
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/3/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: October 3, 1995
SUBJECT: PROPOSED ORDINANCE UPDATING THE STANDARD
TECHNICAL CODES .
The attached proposed ordinance updates the Standard Technical Codes
of the Indian River County building codes to reflect the deletion of the
1991 edition and the addition of the 1994 edition as required by law.
Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the ordinance and requests
permission to advertise it for a public hearing to be held on November
7, 1995.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) scheduled a
public hearing for November 7, 1995 at 9:05 a.m. to
consider a proposed ordinance updating the standard
technical codes.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 8 900K �� FAGE33
BOOK 96 FtI., 324
F. Schedule Public Hearing Date for Proposed Ordinance Determining
Employee -Independent Contractor Status
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/3/95:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney l
DATE: October 3, 1995
SUBJECT: ORDINANCE DETERMINING EMPLOYEE - INDEPENDENT
CONTRACTOR STATUS
The proposed ordinance provides for the establishment of criteria for
determining the status of employees and independent contractors.
Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the ordinance and requests
permission to advertise it for a public hearing to be held on November
7, 1995.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) scheduled a
public hearing for November 7, 1995 at 9:05 a.m. to
consider proposed ordinance determining
employee/independent contractor status.
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK,
RESOLUTION 85-61, REALCOR ASSOC.
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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a�-
In the Court, was pub,
Hafted In said newspaper in the issues of �/y�.S
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
advertisement for publication In the said newspaper.
•` �r`'•!o'any, subscribed before me this 104 day 006a-/ A.D. 19 4�1-
MI• C�Om �5"• (Business Manager)
• JUfk '. E'rWl� Rt = "fii1A 1A (; ,,:ran W;W1Y F•1lal fr.
SqNid
•' - N.— itAHWIAr. M41A1011 _--
9
OCTOBER 17, 1995
/ PUBLIC WMM
i Board of Canty Comndsebners of Ut .
Or�Cyoialty. FlaidB, WE hrold a p�8c' hearing al
Ektobw 17, 1aa,�, at 905 a•m7 in the
,�1��.. Ct18[IlberB . in " the - Att=
,�,1.- 9 "IQT u' a,,t.- 1844 25th Stre�,�,-.Vero
d% FL . rraa 'PW* t198ditg WN h b ,,�,,..
Vmr = .'Of - the kwinh e . between the `o "7
the.Owttera of Colin"". Nlorlh MoNrle Home;
t4or ft ---WP= of de: the franc fte-tri .
Mg. and,. ttrereetter,. c�iirlgto_ ,limit, restrict, or temikiia'
frarx�tse ea the 8aard traty see tR: i - '
,esftd Pim 'My appee, at the ma" and
heard MW to lids I matter . Anyace who.
1111311W ftndft dta do.
is f4tt�+
at the Department,' 1040.. 25th Stre)t,
1 Beach, Florida. .
Ne, who . needs a special acommmddoiI .'for
Act(C401"tor at
.
1. ExL 408, at IjfADA) 48 horn in advance of ttre.
16,1995 1240874
W
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/5/95:
DATE-: October 5, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVI S
PREPARED ANA ANDERSON
AND STAFFED FRANCHISE COORDINATOR
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARR, RESOLUTION #85-61,
BETWEEN REALCOR ASSOCIATES AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PUBLIC HEARING
BACKGROUND
On May 23, 1995, the Board , unanimously approved staff's
recommendation to set a public hearing f 6 June z0; 1995. Prior to
that date we received a phone call from the attorney representing
Ellenburg Capital stating that they would be resolving the
outstanding issues immediately. Therefore, the public hearing
scheduled for June 20, 1995 was cancelled and our Department
awaited the information promised by the attorney.
On August 17, 1995, our Department received the following documents
from Ellenburg Capital Corporation, the current owners of
Countryside North Mobile Home Park:
* Franchise transfer application from Realcor to Ellenburg.
* A check in the amount of $115 for a transfer application fee.
* An annual report for July 6, 1993 through December 31, 1993.
This represents the time period of ownership by Ellenburg,
Capital Corporation. An annual report for the time period of
January 1 through December 31, 1994.
* A check in the amount of $8,362.95 ($5,860.91 for franchise
fees and $2,442.04 for R&R fees) representing franchise fees
and renewal and replacement fees from the date that Ellenburg
Capital Corporation acquired the park, but no franchise fees
were received for the period of January 1, 1992 through July
6, 1993 when Realcor owned the park.
ANALYSIS
Taking into consideration the total amount of franchise fees owed
($43,236.62) and the amount of Renewal and Replacement Fees
($32,424.54) owed to the County, we are requesting that the Board
of County Commissioners find the items and amounts received
insufficient as compliance of the existing franchise.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility
Board of County Commissioners find
default, and therefore, the franchise
result of the finding would be that
court to appoint a receiver.
Services recommends that the
that the franchise is in
is no longer in force. The
the County ask the Circuit
OCTOBER 17 1995 10 6om 96 F,AcE3'?'
BOOK 96 PACE,32
Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised that there are two
issues involved in this matter: 1) The existing franchise that was
issued to Realcor, which is no longer in existence, has some
deficiencies; 2) the present owner of Countryside, Ellenburg
Capital, has applied for the franchise to be transferred to them
and to be operated by them. The Utilities Department and the
Commission has been very careful to try to protect the 600 plus
residents of this park and has been reluctant to take certain
actions against the present owner and the franchise holder merely
because we know that the trend for mobile home parks is to pass
utility costs through to the residents of the park.
Director Pinto explained that the County has tried time and
time again to negotiate the issues involved to the best interest of
the utility users in the entire county, particularly the residents
of the mobile home park. Director Pinto was not too concerned
about the owner of the park because he felt they have violated our
confidence many times, but he emphasized that the County has to
take whatever steps are necessary to protect the operating
utilities at Countryside and the people receiving the service from
those utilities. He felt the money issues with regard to franchise
fees and impact fees could be worked out if we could sit down with -
the owner and go over the figures carefully. An example of that is
the escrow fund for renewal and replacement equipment within the
park. There is a requirement that 2Z percent of gross revenues be
placed into this fund which is to be kept to guarantee that certain
renewal and replacement is done to the system. It is to the
utility's advantage to keep in close contact with us because it
allows certain maintenance of the park to be funded from the
Renewal & Replacement fund. Currently, there is approximately
$32,000 in the fund, and we think the park owner owes the escrow
fund another $30,000 or so. All we have to do is reconcile the
account and if the owner of the park can show us that they have
made an equal amount of legitimate repairs to the plant within the
last 3 or 4 years, they can utilize the monies within the account
and the account will balance out. We know that they have made such
repairs, so we are confident that issue can be resolved.
Director Pinto explained that the amount of franchise fees
owed is somewhat of a complicated issue. In this case, it is kind
of strange to charge any franchise fees because no rates were being
charged within the park. Normally, franchise fees are a percentage
of the rate structure and it is a direct pass through from the
people using the service to the governing authority, which in this
11
OCTOBER 17, 1995 �
M
O
case, would be. the County. Therefore, the franchise fees have been
based on a calculation against the gross operating costs of the
treatment plant.
Director Pinto emphasized that under no circumstances do we
want to set up a situation that makes it worse for the people in
the park. He didn't believe they ever have had a good owner at
Countryside. The only way we could get the present owner to talk
to us is to call for this public hearing and -,require that this
franchise be transferred properly or put into some sort of
receivership. We have tried to call them repeatedly but their
Oregon office did not get any information back to us.
Director Pinto suggested that the Board hear from Ellenburg
Capital about what they propose to do if this franchise is
transferred to them. He recommended that the transfer be approved
with the stipulation that Ellenburg agrees to the franchise
amendments that he would list later in this hearing. If the owner
cannot come up with legitimate expenses on the treatment plant,
then he should bring the maintenance fund up to the amount it
should be.
Attorney Vitunac advised that there is no legal franchise
holder at the moment. There is a de facto franchise holder, which
is Ellenburg, and the normal process is that as part of the.sale
from Realcor they should have come to the County and applied for
the transfer of the franchise. If they had, all these matters
would have been taken care of as part of the closing. What
happened was a midnight closing as far as the County is concerned.
It happened without our knowledge or involvement, and then Realcor
went out of business quickly leaving a gap. Our hope is that
Ellenburg will comply with our new regulations and be an active,
legitimate franchise holder. However, the law allows an
independent party to be appointed as a franchise holder if
necessary, and that person would be responsible for the assets of
the utility which was owned by Ellenburg and also responsible to
run the park for the protection of the residents, and thirdly, to
protect the public's interest in seeing that it all works well.
The law says that a receivership has to be in the hands of an
impartial person.
Commissioner Adams was inclined to go with staff's original
recommendation and force some action one way or the other.
Chairman Macht opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
12
OCTOBER 17, 1995 BOOK 96 PAGE 9 7
BOOK 96 F'AE
Gary Brandenburg, attorney from the law firm of Carlton Fields
in West Palm Beach, advised that he represents Ell -Cap 38, which is
a subsidiary of Ellenburg Capital Corporation which is based in
Oregon, which currently owns all the assets of the water system and
the mobile home park that is in question here.
Chairman Macht inquired about the ownership of the wastewater
system, and Director Pinto explained that wastewater is handled now
by the County, it is not part of the franchise.
Attorney Brandenburg commented that the County certainly has
gotten their attention. There is a bad situation here and has been
for some time. Ellenburg Capital regrets that the previous owner
created such a bad situation with respect to the delinquencies in
the fees that they owed to the County. He felt it is important to
point out Ellenburg has applied for a transfer of the franchise.
They have submitted to the County a full accounting and full
payment for all franchise fees and sums that are due pursuant to
the franchise from the very day that they acquired the system until
the end of the current accounting period. A lot of the back fees
that are owed relate back as far as 1985 and they are very sorry
that those fees were not collected from the previous owner. They
are surprised at the amount of some of those fees and the fact that
they were outstanding for so long without collection effort.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that the franchise fee part of that
would have been passed through to the customers who are here today.
Ellenburg does not want to put the customers through the burden of
attempting to charge them now for fees that they should have paid
to the County since 1985. They don't think that it is fair to them
or fair to the County to try to impose that 6% fee on the current
residents of the mobile home park.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that as most of the County's water
and sewer franchises evolved over the years, the County charged a
franchise fee in return for allowing the water and sewer utilities
to utilize the streets and right-of-ways and to put their lines
within County -owned property. This particular situation was unique
because none of the lines crossed any County rights-of-way and
there was no use of any public land. One has to question whether
or not there was any justification for the imposition of the 6%
franchise fee to begin with, particularly in light of the fact that
this utility did not send bills to its customers. There was no
bill, so to speak, to collect a franchise fee or tax which is what
it really is because it goes into the County's general fund.
Attorney Brandenburg felt there is real justification for the
County Commission to take a look at that and say that these people
ought not pay that f ee and put that behind us and to move ahead
13
OCTOBER 17, 1995 -
M
M
_I
with Ellenburg Capital in bringing their franchise current and
making sure that Ellenburg is a responsible corporate citizen in
the future.
Attorney Brandenburg next addressed the R & R fund, noting
that Ellenburg's portion is up to date from the time they acquired
the system and has been submitted to the County. At�the date they
acquired the system, the system was in very bad need of repair.
He emphasized that Ellenburg paid for repairs well in excess of the
$30,000. Rather than requesting R &`R funds, they paid the
following expenses out of pocket: $7,500 for repair of the pump;
$2,500 for repair of the water lines; and $27,000 in repairs to the
water plant itself.
Attorney Brandenburg stressed that Ellenburg would have been
well within their rights to ask the County to write the check, but
they paid for the expenses out of pocket. Had that $37,000 merely
been given to the County and then withdrawn, there would be no
issue at all with respect to that $30,000.
In conclusion, Attorney Brandenburg advised that Ellenburg
respectfully requests that the County impose such requirements that
are deemed appropriate and approve the transfer of the franchise.
Commissioner Adams asked what time frame is necessary to bring
this matter to a close, and Director Pinto stated that the
franchise can be transferred immediately upon Ellenburg's signed
acceptance of the recommended amendments to the franchise.
Arthur Aker, resident of Countryside for 13 years, explained
that each of the residents have a lifetime lease which includes all
the amenities, and water and sewage at no additional cost to the
tenant. The lease has been violated once by the Indian River
County Utilities Department and Mr. Pinto. Mr. Aker noted that
the deal to hook up to sewer was made in about 3 days, and that was
a violation of the water franchise. He didn't agree to it. Mr.
Aker wanted to be very sure that his lease doesn't get violated
again. Each unit has water meters and the sewer bill runs about
$35 a month. He never saw things move so fast as those meters. He
wished to point out that Realcor was made up of Mr. Hatfield and
Mr. Peters who had roots in Vero Beach. Now Hatfield and Peters
are involved in the new mall in Vero Beach. Mr. Aker also pointed
out that Ellenburg has owed the franchise fees since 1993 when they
purchased the utility at Countryside.
Carl Hedin, 300 Cardinal Drive, spoke as an interested
taxpayer. He felt that if we give these people a free lunch, the
14 BOOK 6 FAGE •.J �9
OCTOBER 17, 1995
BOOK 96 PAGI.3 0
taxpayer will have to pay for their unpaid balance. Mr. Hedin
suggested that the Board not issue a new franchise until the last
one is paid off.
Mike Tucci, 214 South Sandpiper Drive, was very pleased with
Mr. Pinto and the Commission for what they have done in behalf of
Countryside. He believed that the wastewater situation can be
attributed to Ed Nelson, who pulled that off on a Sunday. For the
past 2h years he has not been able to drink the water at
Countryside North. Many, many people throughout the park buy
bottled drinking water because they believe the park's water is not
safe to drink. He urged the County to provide water to
Countryside North if Ellenburg doesn't produce water that is
suitable to drink.
Lincoln Nystrom, resident of Countryside, wished to echo what
Mr. Aker said about the fees being owed since 1993. He questioned
why the County allowed this to happen. He has never heard of
business practices such as these. These expenses should have been
collected in 1985 and they were not. The residents pay their taxes
and pay their rent, but then they find out that big corporations
are getting away with not paying their bills. Mr. Nystrom felt the
Board should see that is changed immediately.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Bird asked Attorney Vitunac whether we have the
ability to go back against Realcor and collect the past due
franchise fees.
Attorney Vitunac explained that the unpaid franchise fees
amount to $40,000. We already have heard arguments against its
being imposed to begin with; Realcor never sent a bill to the
tenants on top of which he could put a 6% fee; Realcor sold the
property and went out of business. He felt it probably would be a
lost cause to sue them. The corporation is gone. We would have a
lot in it and it is not sure we would win. We could not place a
lien on the property for this kind of fee. For $40,000 over all
those years, staff thought it would be better to start cleaning and
get on with the good company.
Chairman Macht thought there was a lot to say for a clean
break and a clean start, but he would like to see us o1as rvee the
time certainties, the action certainties, amd -the -money certainties
-- and if the new owner doesn't come to the table with forthright
15
OCTOBER 17, 1995
M ® s
information and meet his obligations, then it is time we should
rely on the courts. But, until then, his recommendation and vote
would be to approve the transfer subject to the acceptance of the
requirements recommended by Director Pinto.
Director Pinto read aloud the following requirements that must
be agreed to in writing by Ellenburg prior to.'the approval of the
franchise transfer:
1) Required to have a Florida legal firm representing them so that
we can make direct contact here in Florida, not Oregon.
2) Required to have a 24-hour contact with a maintenance company
that is approved by the County that operates the treatment
plant.
3) That maintenance company must have the ability to spend up to
$10,000 for emergency repair immediately upon failure.
4) That the R & R requirements be increased from 22% to 30 on an
annual basis because of the condition of the treatment plant.
5) That the amount in the R & R fund never be reduced below
$30,000. This means that even if they have legitimate
expenditures, they cannot reduce the fund below $30,000.
6) That all interest earned on the account be kept in the account
to increase the amount in the account so that there is more
money there to service a maintenance problem if one occurs.
7) Chlorides and total solid particles in the drinking water must
be tested daily and DER results reported to Indian River County
Utilities Department, with copies placed on the bulletin board
in the Homeowners' Association common area on a weekly basis.
8) Upon connection to the County water system by the year 2002,
all the funds in the R & R fund are to be used for upgrading
the internal distribution system.
9) Penalty fees for non-compliance are to be increased from $50 to
$500. First, it would have to come before a public hearing and
if they don't comply, the Board could impose a penalty of up to
$500.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 16 BOOK 96 PACE 3*,31
BOOK 96 PAGE 3. 3 620
10) All fees due to the County be paid on a quarterly basis,
rather than on an annual basis.
11) An annual franchise regulation fee of $2,500 is to be paid in
quarterly installments to replace the existing 6%
franchise fee, which no longer shall be required.
Director Pinto recommended, on that basis, that the Board
approve the transfer of the franchise. He expected to have the
franchise signed in two weeks and back before the Board in two
weeks. If not, he suggested that the Board take Ellenburg to court
and look for a receiver.
Attorney Brandenburg assured the Board that Ellenburg would
have the agreement back in a week.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, to authorize staff to arrange for
a new franchise with the 11 requirements read aloud
by Director Pinto with the stipulation that we have
a signed acceptance from Ellenburg Capital within
two weeks from today; with the understanding that
the 6% franchise fee is waived for Ellenburg Capital
and that Ellenburg Capital will submit expenditures
on repairs to show they are legitimate expenses.
Under discussion, Attorney Vitunac advised that there is no
meeting in two weeks, but Commissioner Adams stressed that the two
weeks is still the deadline for receiving their written acceptance.
Commissioner Bird wanted to see this back on the Agenda for
the meeting of November 7, 1995.
Executive Aide Alice White asked for clarification of
expenditures, and Chairman Macht restated that Ellenburg is to
furnish invoices on repairs they made to show that the cost is at
least the amount in the Renewal & Replacement account.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The
Motion was voted on and carried unanimously 4-0,
Commissioner Eggert being absent.
17
OCTOBER 17, 1995 �
PUBLIC HEARING — ORDINANCE REGULATING THE HOLDING OF
BINGO GAMES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
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 publt9jred
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
In the matter of
in the Court, was pub -
fished in sold newspaper in the fasues
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 dally 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
adveerttiis(e,ment for publication in the said newspaper.
iapoJp lQ.a�k,ibed before me this _ day 9 e.S
_ My Cornn Ex
J"11 21 14 r4re
Op
taoa,nass
aAReARA C SPRACUI 11S:APY PIJM IC.
Soo' Nnipry RA4kARA r. SPRAGOF
I Board Cly
RTi ren County, of C4
hereby prp s ll� Ut f as
schedl�ed for A am. on Tuesday
Cga�y 17, 1985, to be held at the. hldian Rhrer
Adrrikliftfion Vero Beach, Fbrida. T16 ha M5th be for or�dUlStraK
erlo 1,90dm a tile. �e, proposed
AN ORaNANCE OF NDIAN hMEFI Ca0UnN-
TY,•FLORIDA, REQLA ATNO THE HOLD-
NO'•/pOFF� BM QAMM 1N KMM RNER'
.f•Y VVYI�1 T. ', _�
Any, hWeated p� appear at the meetlnp
and -be beard. with respect to the proper o dF-
t r1ar10e. Copies Of 1118OfdinBflOe Bre .ayalf-
ab�e for inspection bar tithe pubic durtn8 regular bush
nese haus at the OHfoe of the Clerk D the Board of
County , 1840 2551 Street,- Vero
j Anyone who may wish
Nd arty dodslon wWoh
uy be maft at oft mee g' wil read to W181.1111W181.1111f�►tl�et a verbeft room d of the prooee�gs Is mae,
wi iahLldu
kdes Wdrnony and sviderloe . Won, wtfioh
the appeal Is based.
Anyone. 'w ta mneeds a special aooanrnodatlon for
`wNh Act oontA Ccordklator ,
(ADA)ad
at 56780W,
Ext 408 at_ lean -48 tiara In advance of ft meet-
�Dp t 7, 1996 1239 2
Assistance County Attorney Terry O'Brien explained that this
ordinance was generated as a result of a letter received from Mr.
Hall who expressed concern that the proposed ordinance would have
some intrusion to the bingo games held by 11 different non-profit
organizations. This ordinance is 'designed to thwart that by
limiting the number of sessions at any one location.
Chairman Macht opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Sal Stenario was in favor of this ordinance being adopted
because he believed all the charitable organizations in this county
would go defunct if commercial bingo was allowed.
Ralph Chapin, South Indian River Drive, Ft. Pierce, stated he
was here on behalf of many bingo players who frequent his bingo
hall in St. Lucie County. He favored the regulation and the
control. He believed that bingo is a valuable social activity in
the community and is here today to urge the Board to regulate bingo
to the benefit of non-profit organizations.
Mary Jane Leeson, 1825 Mooringline Drive, commented that she
enjoys going to Ft. Pierce in St. Lucie County to play bingo. She
OCTOBER 17, 1995 18 Boa 96 Fm,),333
BOOK 96 ME.334
did not believe that anyone coming in here would take away from the
charitable bingo in Indian River County. She urged the Board not
to vote on it today before checking to see how Bingo Madness is run
in Ft. Pierce, pointing out that two nights a week are run for
United Way.
Mr. Chapin referred to Bingo Madness as a "hall for hire."
His company has tables, chairs, and necessary equipment installed.
Charitable organizations rent or lease the facility and volunteers
run their own games. The United Way leases the hall for $1 a year.
Bingo Madness does not conduct any games of bingo.
Sam Alia of Vista Royale hoped that this ordinance would not
impact the bingo games at Vista Royale which are held just for the
fun of it. To them it is just a night out for the seniors.
Commissioner Bird explained that this ordinance would limit
their games to just one a day, and Attorney O'Brien offered to make
a copy for Mr. Alia of Chapter 849 regulating condominium
associations and mobile home parks.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Tippin wanted everyone to realize that there are
many fine charitable organizations in this county who do not rely
in any way, shape, or form on bingo.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) adopted Ordinance
95-24, regulating the holding of bingo games in
Indian River County.
ORDINANCE 95- 24
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REGULATING THE HOLDING OF BINGO
GAMES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the state of Florida has set forth regulations for the
conduct of bingo games; and
WHEREAS, case law (Jordan Chapel vs. Dade County, 334 So.2d
661) has determined that local governments may regulate bingo games
provided such regulations do not conflict with state law; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to regulate the number of
sessions that an organization may conduct bingo games,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
19
OCTOBER 17, 1995
M M M
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
A new section 306.11 is added to the Indian River County Code to
read as follows:
Section 306.11. Bingo Sessions.
Any organization authorized by Florida Statutes to conduct
bingo games shall be limited to conducting said games to one
session per day and no more than two sessions per week in
Indian River County. No location may be used for bingo for
more than one session per day nor more than two sessions
per week in Indian River County.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or any 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 of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the
legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by
the Clerk with the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of
Florida within ten days after enactment, and this ordinance shall take
effect upon filing with the Secretary of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 17 day of October, 1995.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on
the 7 day of October , 1995, for a public hearing to be held on
the 17 day of October , 1995, at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A y e
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Absent
Commissioner John B. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and
adopted this 17 day of October, 1995.
BOARD COUNT OMMISSION
Attest: INDIAN IVER COUNT FLORIDA
�
By /7
JeffreQBarton, Cl enneth R. Macht, Chairman
Effective date: This ordinance became effective upon filing with the
Department of State which took place on 25th day of October ,
1995.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 20 BOOK 96 PA:
BOOK 96 wE 36
KARL HEDIN'S REQUEST FOR BOARD REVIEW OF COUNTY
WETLANDS RESOURCE PERMIT FEE REQUIREMENT
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, presented the
alternatives as set out in staff's recommendation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert Rea g,ftDir
Community Developme for
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, ICP
.Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: October 4, 1995
RE: Karl Hedin's Request for Board Review of County
Wetland Resource Permit Fee Requirement
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of October 10, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
For purposes of constructing a newly approved expansion of a mini -
warehouse storage business (Keith's Mini Storage "1B" at 6015 99th
Street), Mr. Karl Hedin recently obtained wetland fill approvals
from the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the
U.S. Army Corps- of Engineers (ACOE). To mitigate site wetland
impacts, Mr. Hedin agreed to pay a $6,000 fee -in -lieu of on-site
mitigation to the Environmental Learning Center (ELC), where the
funds will. be used for native vegetation restoration.
During the County's plan review process, county staff advised Mr.
Hedin that, in order to gain release of his approved site plan, he
also needed to obtain a county wetland resource permit, including
payment of $75 application fee. Although Mr. Hedin paid the $75
fee to obtain a county permit, he wrote a letter on September 20,
1995 (attached) protesting the fee, and requesting a hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the permit
requirement, which he considers duplicative and unreasonable. As
such, this matter is presented herein for -the Board's
consideration.
ANALYSIS
The county wetland resource permit was established in conjunction
with implementation of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Before 1990,
21
OCTOBER 17, 1995
r
the County Code set fortis wetland protection criteria,,. but did --not
require a separate county permit (or associated fee) in addition to
state and federal dredge and fill permits. The objective of
Comprehensive Plan wetland protection policies is to prevent "net
loss of wetland functional values in the County, which is
generally accepted as a reasonable balance between resource
protection and private development opportunity.
The county wetland resource permit was established mainly for two
reasons: to cover the cost of county review in implementing land
development regulation (LDR) requirements; and to establish a
wetland project tracking system by means of permit issuance. Also,
in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, a fee -in -lieu of
mitigation alternative was established, and the permit serves as a
mechanism to process and keep track of mitigation projects.
Occasionally, there are circumstances when a county permit is
required yet state and federal permitting -exemptions apply; for -
example filling of an isolated fresh water wetland under 1/2 acre.
The .state _and ,federal exemption 1s a "flat" Exemption .and does not
take into account wetland functional value; the county permit
allows for a qualitative review and mitigation relative to
functional value.
Concerning Mr. HedinIs letter indicating that he has spent over
$10,,000 for. wetland mitigation, it should be noted that a large
-portion of that amount relates to his opting for payment of a fee
in lieu of on-site preservation or mitigation.
It is staff's position that the $75 county review fee is not
unreasonable, given that county environmental planning staff
conduct field reviews; coordinate with site planners, other
jurisdictional agencies, and applicants; and keep a database to
monitor and inspect mitigation sites for maintenance and
compliance.
Alternatives
It is staff's position that the present permitting system has a
number of good points. Not only does this system -provide a
mechanism for county review and monitoring of mitigation projects;
it also allows the county to maintain an accurate mitigation
database. In addition, through its permit fee structure, the
county can partially recoup its costs associated with development
projects, instead of having those costs borne by taxpayers. Despite
those characteristics, there are alternatives to the present
system.
One Alternative to the present wetland permit requirement would be
to eliminate county permit and wetland protection criteria
altogether, relying only on state and federal permitting. This
alternative, however, would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment
and State approval, which may not be forthcoming.
Another alternative is to maintain the county's wetland protection
comprehensive plan policies and LDR ordinance largely intact, but
eliminate the requirement of a county permit. This would result in
some local say in wetland dredge and fill activities, but would not
22 BOOK 96 fA.GE�i
OCTOBER 17, 1995
BOOK 96 PAGE 38
A third alternative would be to possibly combinecounty
environmental planning section permits into one overall permit.
That is, instead of having separate land clearing, tree removal,
dune maintenance, mangrove trimming, and wetland resource permita_,
combine these permits into one environmental review permit that
could be 'issued on a project -by -project basis.
Finally, in its effort to streamline state permitting procedures,
the State has established an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP)
that is administered by the Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) or the SJRWND (but never both). The State is developing
guidelines whereby local governments can opt to apply for ERP
delegation, thus combining State and local permitting. A federal
permit/review would still be required in addition to the ERP.
Over the past year, staff has been monitoring ERP delegation
opportunity. As the opportunity progresses, the County will need
to fully evaluate ERP delegation implications, particularly
relating to costs (-e.g., additional staff).
RECONMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
staff to further investigate the costs/benefits of obtaining State
ERP delegation, and the opportunity of consolidating environmental
review permits.
Karl Hedin, 3003 Cardinal Drive, had just one exception to
what'Mr. DeBlois has said. The St. Johns River Water Management
District does not follow boundary lines on their 1/2 acre
exemptions. The distance on his.property has less than 10,000 sq.
ft. of wetlands, but it continued farther down the road on other
people's property. They still considered it over a half acre, and
he still was not exempt. He had agreed to pay $6,000 if the money
remains in Indian River County, and it was delegated to the
Environmental Learning Center. However, they still have not given
him a final inspection report that is acceptable to the County that
he has met all the requirements of the mitigation on these
wetlands. The Corps of Engineers came down and looked at it also,
and said that if it's okay with St. Johns who is handling this, it
was okay with them. Mr. Hedin contended that if it is okay with
St. Johns, it should be okay with the County. However, the County
said no, that they want $75 to know that I did this. A recent
newspaper article stated that bureaucracy is just running us three
or four times over. Taxpayers are paying for duplication of
inspections. You would think that one agency, whether it be the
County, the Corps of Engineers, SJRWMD, the EPA, that one fee
should cover it and one fee should take precedence over what is
required and that should be it.
Mr. Hedin explained that he somewhat resented the County
charging him for inspection when he has been inspected 3 times
23
OCTOBER 17, 1995
already. He distributed copies of the following costs involved
with the permit:
K. D. HEDIN
3003 CARDINAL DRIVE
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32963
(407) 234-5474
FAX (407) 234-5476
October 17, 1995
RE: Keith's Mini Storage 111B"
FEE'S
1)
Conference with Corp. of Engineers
(Architect/Engineers/Owners
$ 300.00
2)
Conference with St. Johns Water
Management District Field Inspector
(Architect/Engineers/Owners & Botanist)
$1,191.50
Numerous letters, phone calls, FAX'S,
etc., with Indian River County, St.
Johns Water Management District and the
Environmental Learning Center
$ 700.00
4)
Mitigation "FEE" with St. Johns Water
Management District paid to the
Environmental Learning center
$6,000.00
5)
Site Plan Approval Fee
$ 600.00
o)
Plan Exam Fee Permit
$ 198.50
* 7 )
Wetlands Inspection Fee �- ���n' T l
$ 75.00
3)
Tree Removal Fee
$ 80.00
9)
Impact Fee
$5,299.20
10)
Building Permit Fee
$ 736.50
$15,180.70
Note: And this all for a small
$150,00.00 mini -storage
building addition
OCTOBER 17, 1995 24 BOOK 96 P,,U,3:39
BOOK 96 PAGE 340
Community Development Director Bob Keating stated that staff
generally agrees with Mr. Hedin, but we spend time and effort and
there is a cost. We would like to eliminate duplication and look
at the possibility of getting delegation in the future.
Mr. Hedin advised that he was one of the first to go to St.
Johns with the proposal that the mitigation money be kept in Indian
River County.
Commissioner Adams thanked Mr. Hedin for his efforts in having
the money go to the Environmental Learning Center.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, to direct staff to further
investigate the costs/benefits of obtaining State
DER delegation and the opportunity of consolidating
environmental review permits.
Commissioner Tippin wondered why the SJRWMD's permitting
records were not good enough for Indian River County, and Mr.
DeBlois stated that staff would be looking into it.
Commissioner Adams understood that our primary concern is to
make sure that there is no net loss of wetlands to the county.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
carried 4-0, Commissioner Eggert being absent.
JET SKIS OFF WABASSO CAUSEWAY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/11/95:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP Axfk.
Community Development Director
DATE: October 11, 1995
SUBJECT: JET SKIS OFF WABASSO CAUSEWAY
It is requested that the information provided herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of October 17, 1995.
25
OCTOBER 17, 1995
777
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
At the October 10, 1995 meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners, the Board discussed jet ski usage at Wabasso
Causeway Park. In discussing this issue, the Board focussed on jet
ski rentals, zoning regulations, and County park procedures. At
that time, the Board directed staff to consider the issue and
report back at a subsequent meeting. This is that staff report.
•Staff's Park Use Interpretation
According to the County's zoning code, Chapter 911 of the Land
Development regulations, public parks and playgrounds are allowed
in all of the County's residential and agricultural zoning
districts. Within these parks, there are a variety of recreational
activities allowed, including fishing, boating, swimming and a
range of sporting events.
Staff's position regarding allowable park uses has always been
consistent. That position is that parks can have any recreational
uses allowed by the Board, as well as any appropriate accessory
uses. Park accessory uses may be commercial in nature, such as
food/drink concessions or bait sales, and may or,maynot- be
allowed by the Board. From a zoning perspective, however, these
could be allowed.
Similarly, other types of uses which are even more commercial would
be considered accessory by staff if allowed by the Board through a
license agreement or other mechanism. These uses could include
boat/jet ski rental, beach umbrella rental or other uses. None of
these uses would be allowed, however, unless the Board approved
them as accessory uses.
For rental businesses, staff's position is that the business must
be appropriately located and site planned in a commercial area.
Although all transactions must occur in the business's commercial
location, there -are no limitations on where rented equipment can be
used or how rented equipment is transported. Consequently, staff
has not restricted the transportation of or use of rental jet skis
im Wabasso Causeway Park.
• Existing Rental Businesses
Throughout the County, there are businesses that rent vehicles or
equipment to be used off-site. At least two businesses rent
equipment that is used at Wabasso Causeway Park. These two
businesses are the Sailboard Center and Aqua Ventures Rentals.
As staff indicated at the October 10th Board meeting, the Sailboard
Center has conducted a sailboard rental business from a commercial
location on U.S. #1 for over ten years. This business involves
transacting business at the U.S. #1 location and delivering rental
sailboards to Wabasso Causeway Park. No complaints have been
received by staff regarding this business.
More recently, staff approved a change of use administrative
approval for Aqua Ventures. Located west of U.S. #1 in Wabasso,
Aqua Ventures rents jet skis, with most of the jet skis used in
Wabasso Causeway Park. Operating much like the Sailboard Center,
Aqua Ventures transacts business at its Wabasso location and then
delivers the jet skis to the park.
:sides the two businesses referenced above, there are other
sinesses in the Wabasso/Winter Beach area that rent watersport
26 b00K 96 FAE .341,OCTOBER 17, 1995
BOOK 96 pvi-c 342
equipment. Whether and to what extent those businesses use Wabasso
Causeway Park is unknown to staff. From a zoning perspective,
staff's concern relates only to commercial activities, not delivery
or off-site use of rental equipment.
ANATMA T R
Based upon the discussion at the October 10th Board meeting, it
appears that the Board had two principal concerns. One concern
was that businesses providing watersport rental equipment that is
used in Wabasso Causeway Park were conducting business activity in
the park. The second concern was that jet skis used at Wabasso
Causeway Park are a nuisance, adversely affecting swimmers,
fishermen, boaters, the Environmental Learning Center, and
waterfront residences.
Regarding the first concern, staff has checked with both the
Sailboard Center and Aqua Ventures and has been assured that all
transactions are conducted at their commercial locations, not at
the park. In terms of transporting rental equipment, either
sailboards or jet skis, to the park, there is little difference
between a rental business trailoring two rental jet skis to the
park and a family bringing two privately owned jet skis to the
park. Staff's position is that delivering rental equipment to a
county park does not constitute commercial use of the park.
The Board's second concern relates to jet skis and their impacts.
As indicated by the Board, jet skis seem to cause particular
problems at Wabasso Causeway Park. This is consistent with
complaints received by staff. Most likely, the number of jet ski
complaints is high in this area because of the number of swimmers,
boaters, waterfront residents, and ELC visitors in this area,
coupled with the fact that the Wabasso Causeway Park is one of only
a few places where jet skiers can get legal public access to the
Lagoon.
To address this issue directly, the Board has several options. One
would be to prohibit launching motorized watercraft from Wabasso
Causeway Park. In doing so, however, the Board could not
differentiate between owners and renters. Another option would be
to restrict the areas in the Lagoon where jet skis are allowed.
This would probably have to be done through the state by either
-expanding speed zone restricted areas or establishing jet ski
prohibition areas. A final option would be for the Board to
provide for enhancement of existing speed zone enforcement. This
would involve Board funding for either additional Florida Marine
Patrol staff or local speed zone enforcement personnel.
Before choosing any of these options, however, the Board needs a
more detailed analysis. Also, the Board would benefit by having
either MANWAC or the Parks and Recreation Committee consider this
issue and make a recommendation to the Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board make no changes in staff's
watercraft rental policy at this time. Staff also recommends that
the Board take no action on jet skis other than to request that the
Florida Marine Patrol better enforce existing speed zone
restrictions.
27
OCTOBER 17, 1995
� r
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that it is
a discretionary decision of the Board whether any use should be an
accessory use to a park, the jet skis in particular. If there is
business occurring in the park and a license is needed, then he
felt the matter should go to the Parks & Recreation Committee. The
question is whether jet skis off this particular location are being
a nuisance and adversely affecting people,: Director Keating
recalled that the manatee protection plan established speed zones
for boats in certain areas of the Indian River Lagoon. A lot of
the areas around the Wabasso Causeway are unregulated, however.
- There are slow speed areas on the west side of the lagoon and on
the east side by Jungle Trail.
Commissioner Bird felt that the concern is discriminatory
against businesses that use areas as accessories to their
operations, pointing out that County codes allow such watercraft to
be launched from parks as long as actual business isn't conducted
from the launch site. He pointed out that the public boat ramps
were built with State funds and in all the agreements signed with
the State, there is an anti -discrimination clause.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that even with all the waterfront
we have in this county, virtually the only way the public or marine
related businesses can gain access to the water is through public
facilities. So, those businesses that want to rent a sailboard or
a jet ski have no choice but to use public launching facilities
because there is no commercially zoned area for this in the
unincorporated part of the county. A few very small commercial
facilities are located on the water in Vero Beach and Sebastian.
Chairman Macht was concerned about the watercraft operating
too close to shore, within 100 feet, where others may be boating or
swimming. He didn't believe there is anything to prohibit the
Board from establishing off limits, not so much for the manatees,
but for general safety.
Commissioner Adams agreed because she worries about those who
operate the watercraft in reckless fashion, either jumping waves or
doing 11360s". She pointed out that we don't allow all -terrain
vehicles in Hobart Park to mix with soccer players. The jet skis
are becoming increasingly popular and she would like to see us
prevent a problem so we don't have a tragedy.
Commissioner Bird agreed there should be some restriction on
them operating too close to shore. It should be illegal, and it is
stupid. _
Commissioner Adams suggested that the matter go back to MANWAC
and the Parks & Recreation Committee for further study and also to
research how other counties are handling the issue.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 28 BOOK 96 FAF. ,3
BOOK 96 PACE -344
Steve Parsons, 73rd Street, owner of a bait shop in the
causeway area, wished to point out that the issue is of more
concern during the summer. Noise is a factor as much as speed. He
suggested designating a jet ski area across from Sebastian where
there aren't any homes to be bothered by the constant whining of
the engines. However, the problem would be enforcement. He didn't
disagree about limiting the accessibility.
Tom Collins, president of Capt. Hiram's Restaurant, advised
that water vehicles are rented at the restaurant site and taken to
the causeway area. They keep an eye on the people renting their
equipment through binoculars. Their business is conducted at the
restaurant site. Mr. Collins was concerned about businesses
conducting business on public property. He contended that business
operators of self-propelled water skis are conducting business at
the causeway since instructional use and monitoring of the water
vehicles is conducted at the.water site. He believed that if the
Board allows this business to carry on there, it will see a
proliferation of watercraft rentals. He felt it is unfair to allow
a man to run a business from public property since it would hurt
other business owners who have got their permits and spent a lot of
money.
Commissioner Bird commented that the business Mr. Collins
referred to has had only six rentals in three weeks.
Mr. Collins advised that the County's Risk Manager has said
that the County has some exposure when someone rents a boat there.
Chairman Macht believed that staff needs to look at the issue
further.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) directed staff to
look at the jet ski issue through MANWAC and Parks &
Recreation Committee and research other counties to
see how they are handling the issue and come back
with a recommendation.
Note: Mr. Louis Moresca came in at the end of today's meeting,
approximately 12:37 p.m., and the Board granted his request to
speak on the jet ski issue.
Louis Moresca, 1085 Morningside Drive, just off Jungle Trail,
stated that he does all the water sports but just wanted to
emphasize how dangerous jet skis are. A person was killed in Ft.
29
OCTOBER 17, 1995
Pierce this past year, and two people were killed in Volusia county
last year. The law says that they have to operate in a prudent
manner, but some operators have no regard for this law. It is up
to the Marine Patrol to enforce this, but they are understaffed.
The law is very weak on this as it is presently written. Mr.
Moresca understood that the Board is going to.look into this. He
had facts and figures if the Board wanted to see him.
Commissioner Adams asked him to give his information to staff.
Mr. Moresca read aloud a letter he received from
Representative Charles Sembler II dated October 2, 1995:
.1 w•• M~a
L� f
a
• f �
'--onto"
Floriala House oiRepresentatives
CHARLES W. SEMBLE.R II
PC.. Box unit) RwRm1NTArnf. DISTRICT ao R14 f/lcuse �:fi:e Brri/dny
Wro B1fJG�! FL-up6i T//J amee, FL.Mtyy.ruxr
407•„^1,5077 '904.4.18-tx32
October 2, 1995
Mr. Louis A. Maresca
1085 Morningside Drive
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Dear Mr. Maresca:
Thank you for your letter expressing your concern regarding
the safety of personal water craft. I am aware of the problem
these vehicles are creating, not only for surfers, but boaters as
well. I agree that some form of education or regulation should be
enacted to prevent future accidents. Please be assured that when
this subject is addressed next session, I will keep your ideas in
minds.
I appreciate your taking the time to write. If I can be of
further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
/Charles W. Sembler II
Cositiriu-i.s. NJrnry/%lenounuc, V'CL-Ch1/r •/4yriru/ume'�L..nrrrnra•r.Servrrrrc • • .4prnpn.e11onn
71111 1UIF11117 YnrMr AN't-Jrn•., Comrrrrlhr
OCTOBER 17, 1995 30 BOOK 96 PAGE345
BOOK 96 PArA4
Chairman Macht informed Mr. Moresca that he would have
additional opportunities to give input on this matter to MANWAC.
MANUEL SILVA'S REQUEST FOR BOARD REVIEW OF
COMMERCIAL VEHICLE PARKING RESTRICTIONS IN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/11/95:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robe t M. esti ,
Community eveldpme.V Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,'jCICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: October 11, 1995
RE: Manuel Silva's Request for Board Review of Commercial
Vehicle Parking Restrictions in Residential Areas
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of October 17, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Mr. Manuel J. Silva Jr., in a letter dated October 5, 1995
(attached), requests the opportunity to address the Board regarding
County restrictions on commercial vehicle parking in residential
areas. More specifically, County Code Section 912.17(1) [also Sec.
911.15.(3)] generally prohibits commercial vehicle parking in
residential areas. An exception, however, allows:
"commercial vehicles not exceeding three-quarters (3/4)
ton rated capacity used by the resident of the premises,
and parked off-street in a garage, carport or driveway.
No construction or similar materials shall be stored or
transported on the outside of such vehicles."
Mr. Silva requests that the Board revise the commercial vehicle
parking allowance size threshold from 3/4 -ton to one -ton rated
capacity. Mr. Silva owns a one -ton commercial "box van" (a.k.a.
step van) , and was recently required to remove the van from. his
property following a County Code Enforcement Board hearing and
order. Mr. Silva's viewpoint is that the present code restriction
of one -ton work trucks in residential areas is "a hardship for many
trades people, and causes them to contract out storage spaces miles
away from their homes". As such, this matter is presented for the
Board's consideration.
31
OCTOBER 17, 1995
ANALYSIS
County restrictions on commercial vehicle parking in residential
areas have remained unchanged since at least 1985. The County Code
definition of commercial vehicle is "any motor vehicle which:
(1) is designed or used principally for business,
governmental, or non-profit organizational purposes
or for carrying passengers for hire; and
(2) has a platform, cabinet, box, rack, compartment, or
other facility for transportation of materials,
equipment, and items other than the personal effects
of private passengers."
The County's definition of commercial vehicle is generally
consistent with the State's definition of "truck", but the State
differentiates between "truck" and "heavy truck" by means of a
5,000 pound net vehicle weight threshold (Florida Statutes Sec.
320.01, attached).
The County's ton -rated capacity threshold is a similar but
different measure of vehicle size. The intent of the County's
commercial vehicle regulations is to promote aesthetics and public
safety, by limiting a use not customarily associated with a
residence or residential neighborhoods. The Code presently strikes
a balance to allow certain trucks, such as vans and pick-up trucks,
that are commonly used for personal, not commercial,
transportation.
This past fiscal year, code enforcement staff issued 45 notices
county -wide to respondents violating commercial vehicle_ parking
restrictions in residential areas. The types of vehicles cited
range from semi-tractor/trailers to box vans, such as that
belonging to Mr. Silva. Changing the commercial vehicle parking
allowance from 3/4 ton to one -ton rated capacity will still
effectively prohibit large trucks such as semi -tractors, but
conversely, may "open the door" to allow a number of types of
vehicles found objectionable by residents in many neighborhoods.
Therefore, any proposed change in the code requirement needs to be
closing scrutinized.
Changes to land development regulations (LDRs) must go through an
established LDR amendment process, including public hearings.. Also,
the County's Professional 'Services Advisory Committee (PSAC),
consisting of individuals representing various professions and
perspectives, is charged with reviewing proposed changes to LDRs
for recommendations to the Board. Staff's position is that the
current commercial vehicle regulations are sufficient. However, if
a revision is to be considered, the proposed commercial vehicle LDR
change warrants further research and PSAC review.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find that
the current commercial vehicle regulations are sufficient and do
not warrant an LDR amendment. If the Board finds that an amendment
is warranted, staff recommends that the Board direct this matter to
the Professional Services Advisory Committee for review and
subsequent recommendations to the Board.
32 BOOK' 96 mu -347 17, 1995
aoa 96 PnE 348
Manuel Silva, resident of Dixie Heights Subdivision, advised
that the State of Florida does not automatically consider one—ton
trucks to be commercial vehicles, as the County does. Although his
vehicle does not break State law, it breaks the County Code. The
County did not receive a complaint from a neighbor on his truck; a
Code Enforcement officer cited his truck while on another call in
his neighborhood. Mr. Silva circulated a snapshot of his vehicle,
emphasizing that there are 10 similar vehicles in his neighborhood
but the County singled out his truck and a truck across the street.
Mr. Silva read aloud the following stipulations concerning the
parking of commercial vehicles in residential areas:
§ 912.17
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE
parking or storing vehicles and the storage of boats '
and recreational vehicles, in residential areas.
(1) Parking of commercial vehicles in residen.
tial areas.
(a) Restrictions on the parking of commer-
cial vehicles in residential areas. No
commercial vehicles shall be parked
overnight nor for an extended period
(more than ten (10) hours in any cal.
endar month) on any residentially used
lot, in the street abutting such lot, or
on residentially zoned -land, not in-
cluding the A-1 and A-2 districts, ex.
cept:
1
2.
3.
Commercial vehicles not exceeding
three-quarters (3/4) ton rated ca-
pacity used by the resident of the
premises, limited to one per prem-
ises and parked off-street in a ga-
rage, carport or driveway. No con-
struction or similar materials shall
be stored or transported on the out-
side of such vehicles.
Commercial vehicles temporarily
parked on a lot for the purpose of
providing construction, transpor-
tation, or other services specifically
for the location where such vehi-
cles are parked.
In no case shall a commercial ve.
hicle which is used for hauling ex-
plosives,
xplosives, gasoline or. liquefied pe.
troleum products be permitted to
be parked for an extended period
in a residential area. /
33
OCTOBER 17, 1995
DEFINITIONS
§ 901.03
Commercial vehicle any motor vehicle which:
(11 Is designed or used principally for busi-
ness, governmental, or non-profit organiza-
tional purposes or for carrying passengers
for hire; and
(2 1 Has a platform, cabinet, box, rack, compart-
ment, or other facility for transportation of
materials. equipment, and items other than
the personal effects of private passengers.
Mr. Silva asked that the Board consider changing the ordinance
to allow one -ton trucks instead of stopping at three-quarters ton
trucks, but Commissioner Bird wondered where the threshold would
stop. However, he thought that a one -ton truck is more of a
conventional truck than it used to be.
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, pointed out
that there are an awful lot of issues involved here, and
Commissioner Adams suggested that the Professional Services
Advisory Committee (PSAC) look at the issue and come back with a
recommendation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner. Adams,.. SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) put Mr. Silva's
Code Enforcement case on hold while the matter is
sent to the Professional Services Advisory Committee
for a recommendation to be brought back to the
Board.
AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE DISASTER RESPONSE &
RECOVERY EQUIPMENT WITH DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL
AWACT MD FUNDS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/10/95:
TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: October 10, 1995
SUBJECT: Authorization to Purchase Disaster Response & Recovery
Equipment With Development of Regional Impact (DRI) Funds
Budget Amendment 001
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the
next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Subsequent to Hurricane Erin, several critiques were held with agencies
and individuals involved in the response and recovery operations. The
following areas were identified as areas needing improvement:
1. Improved Automatic Call Down System
This system allows for a large volume of calls to be made to the
Special Needs population, county employees and municipalities.
Various messages are pre-programmed into the computer and the
OCTOBER 17, 1995 34 BOOK 96 PAGE 349
BOOK Ph,E350
system delivers the messages and retrieves return messages,
releasing staff for other duties- during the emergency. It ,was
determined that contact with the Special Needs population and
county employees needs to be improved. The current computer
calldown system was purchased eight years ago. This was before
Special Needs evacuation and sheltering were made mandatory by
Statute, and the system proved to be substantially inadequate for
the amount of calls required during Hurricane Erin.
Improved Automatic Calldown Computer $3,050
System with Printer and Training
2. Telephone Headsets
Historically, the Department has received a constant barrage of
telephone calls when a tropical disturbance threatens the Treasure
Coast area. It was noted during the critiques that telephone
headsets would provide greater efficiency for the telephone
operators than standard telephone handset receivers and increase
the total number of calls which can be answered. The headsets
would also allow comfort, more freedom of movement, and hands-free
operation for continuing other administrative duties.
Telephone Headsets (2 @ $225) $450
3. Emergency Operations'Center (EOC) Equipment
During the critiques it was determined that the EOC space was not
efficiently utilized, the layout limited movement, and the
Emergency Services Function (ESF) assignments could not easily be
identified due to the current configuration of furniture. It is
the opinion of other county and state agencies that utilization of
separate tables of sufficient size for each emergency function are
best for EOC operations. Also, the smaller tables have a cable
management system which provides for safer and more efficient
management of computer and telephone wiring and allows for rapid
conference room/EOC trans -formation. During routine working days,
these tables can be joined together to allow for a typical
conference room setting.
EOC Tables (12 @ $401) $4,812
4. Atmospheric Recording Sensors
The critiques noted that during Hurricane Erin and other
significant weather events, the Department does not have access to
any local sensors which indicate imperative weather information.
Data reference to local conditions with respect to wind speed,
rainfall, barometric pressures, humidity, wind direction, and
temperature is not readily available. This information is
necessary and essential for emergency operations. All information
during Erin was received by sources out of the area that only
provided estimated data. Having access to these sensors would have
provided a competent source of information that Erin was actually
weakening before making landfall.
Atmospheric Gauges and Recording Equipment $1,880
5. Special Needs Shelter Equipment
During the hurricane, it was noted that operations were hindered at
the Special Needs Shelter when the number of people seeking shelter
exceeded the number of available cots. The purchase of additional
cots is needed to allow for the continually increasing volume of
evacuees. Along with the cots, additional computer software is
needed to . provide for more efficient pre -registration and
registration of those being sheltered. It was also noted in the
35
OCTOBER 17, 1995
M
M
critiques that Special Needs Shelter staff were not easily
identified. Different colored vests would identify medical,
volunteer, and food service providers. k.
Shelter Cots (180 @ $27.26) $4,907
Special Needs Medical Software $ 330
Special Needs Vests (50 @ $10) $ 500
6. Electronic Display and Radar -Cable
Dissemination of timely and accurate information was sometimes
delayed in the Emergency Operations Center because of the number of
people needing hard copies of information. Electronic displays
would be used in conjunction with additional radar cable to
transmit weather information to the EOC and provide timely and
necessary scrolled storm information along with current conditions
to all EOC and rumor control personnel at once.
Electronic Information Display (2 @ $300) $600
Radar Cable for EOC $300
In prior years, the Board approved certain Development of - Regional
Impact (DRI) projects which included funds to enhance Emergency
Management and disaster preparedness capabilities in the County. The
funds have been retained in a reserve account and staff is informed --the
general ledger reflects a balance of $25,483. Funding in the amount of
$16,829 from this account is requested to provide the emergency
operations improvements noted above.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the identified needs during emergency operations associated
with Hurricane Erin, staff respectfully requests approval of the
purchase of the equipment described above with funding from the DRI
Reserve Account in the amount of $16,829. Staff also requests approval
of the necessary budget amendment to appropriate and expend the funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved Budget
Amendment 001 in the amount of $16,829 for the
purchase of the equipment from the DRI Reserve
Account.
36 BOOK 96 PATE .j5�,
OCTOBER 17, 1995
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director R/
BOOK 96 PAGE352
DATE: October 16. 1995
REVISED
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/EMS/
Other Operating Supplies
001-208-525-035.29
$13,779
$0
Office Furniture and Equipment
001-208-525-066.41
$3,050
$0
GENERAL FUND/RESERVES/
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
0
$16,829
APPROVAL OF BASE GRANT AGREEMENT FROM EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT, PREPAREDNESS AND ASSISTANCE TRUST FUND -
BUDGET AMENDMENT 002
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/10/95:
TO: Board of County Commissio3nr
s
THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director �
Department of Emergency Services
FROM: John Ring, Emergency Management Coordinator J(-
Division of Emergency Management
DATE: October 10, 1995
SUBJECT: Approval of Base Grant Agreement from the Emergency
Management, Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund
Contract Number 96CP-05-10-40-01-031
Budget Amendment 002
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the meeting scheduled for October 17, 1995.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In 1993, the Florida Legislature enacted two significant pieces of
legislation to improve disaster preparedness and response
capabilities throughout Florida. These bills, known -as HB 911 and
____SB 1858, strengthen emergency management planning requirements at
37
OCTOBER 17, 1995
77
all levels, provide additional funding for emergency management
programs, and implement numerous additional recommendations of the
Governor's Disaster Planning and Response Review Committee.
Included in this legislation is a funding mechanism created for
local emergency management agencies and other programs in the
Emergency Management, Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund. The
funding comes from an annual non-refundable surcharge of $2.00 per
every homeowner's, mobile homeowner's, tenant homeowner's, and
condominium unit owner's policy, and an annual $4.00 non-refundable
surcharge imposed on every commercial fire, commercial multiple
peril, and business owner's property insurance policy, issued or
renewed.
Indian River County has received the above referenced contract
specifying that $68,535 in non-matching funds is available based on
a formula prescribed by law and detailed in the Rule Chapter 9G-19,
Florida Administrative Code, and by certification of the County to
employ and maintain a full-time Emergency Management Director.
Although a total of $74,535 was allocated to Indian River County,
a deduction of $6,000 has been made by the State for satellite
communications costs per section 9G-19:005 -(3), Florida
Administrative Code.
Staff proposes to use the grant funds for the following purposes:
1. Continued funding of the Emergency Management
Planner position classified as an exempt grade
E-7 with a salary of $24,949 and the
additional expenses related to this position
of approximately $10,594 for an estimated
total of $35,543.
2. In anticipation of receiving this grant
funding for FY -95/96, staff submitted and
received approval during the budgeting process
for the expenditures related to account 001-
238.
3. Use the balance of funds from the grant to
purchase capital equipment and supplement
funds already identified for office
renovations, damage assessment projects,
public shelter projects which will be
submitted to the Board in a subsequent agenda
item during the fiscal year.
No additional funds are needed to qualify for this grant. It
should be noted that funds received from the Emergency Management,
Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund may not be used to.supplant
existing funds.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Base Grant includes a scope of work that must be completed
during the term of the grant. It also provides certain computer
equipment to be used for satellite communications between the State
Emergency Operations Center and the Indian River County EOC. As
mentioned above and noted in the agreement, a deduction of $6,000
has already been made by the state for communications costs per
section 9G-19.005 (3) Florida Administrative Code.
This recent legislation
Statutes compels emergency
following:
now included in Chapter 252, Florida
management agencies to comply with the
OCTOBER 17, 1995 38 Boa 96 PAGE 353
BOOK 96PA E 35
1. Work with the Department of Education and
local school board to- develop new criteria
designed to ensure that new educational
facilities can serve as public shelters for
emergency management purposes.
2. Serve as liaison and coordinator of
municipalities, requests for state and federal
assistance. during post -disaster emergency
operations. r-
3 Identify and register persons in need of
assistance and plan for resource allocation to
meet identified needs. Disabled persons must
be given the option of preauthorizing
emergency personnel to enter their homes
during search and rescue operations of
necessary to assure their safety and welfare.
Emergency Management agencies must work with
HRS, health care agencies, community-based
service providers, and home health care
providers to inform all their incoming clients
of the registry as part of the intake process.
4. Assist in surveying facilities suitable to
serve as public shelters and post -disaster
community service centers.
5. Continue to review comprehensive emergency
management plans for all intermediate care
facilities for the developmentally disabled,
patient care facilities serving seven or more
people, homes serving individuals who have
complex medical conditions. These plan
reviews are required by law to be coordinated
with HRS, Agency for Health Care
Administration, the Department of Community
Affairs, and appropriate volunteer
organizations within 60 days of receipt.
Staff understands that should the Base Grant Trust Fund revenue
cease to be available that the Board is under no obligation to fund
the planner's position from other revenue sources.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board approve the Emergency Management,
Preparedness and Assistance Trust Fund which continues funding for
the Emergency Management Planner and expenditures for non -capital
and capital equipment as noted, with the balance of the grant funds
being retained in a contingency account for later allocation during
the fiscal year. An agenda item will be submitted at the
appropriate time for authorization to commit unobligated funds to
the purchase of capital/operating equipment and renovations for the
Emergency Operations Center, if that project is realized this year.
Staff also recommends the Board to authorize the Chairman to
execute the necessary documents to obtain the funds and approve a
budget amendment to receive and expend the grant funds.
39
OCTOBER 17, 1995
r
r ® �
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved Grant
Agreement and Budget Amendment 002 as recommended by
staff:
GRANT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
TO: Members of the Board - BUDGET Al HMN ENT: 002
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird�� DATE: October 11 _ 1995
OMB Director
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/EM Base Grant
001-000-342-042.00
$0
$3,389
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/EM Base Grant/
Other Charges & Obligations
001-238-525-039.99
$0
$3,389
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING RENOVATIONS -
ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/11/95:
DgtL OctobLT-11, 199:
To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
From: H. T."Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
Subj: County Administration Building Renovations Architect/Engineering Services
BACKGROUND
Earlier this year the Board authorized staff to proceed in accordance with the Consultant's
Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA), to contract with a Architect/ Engineering firm for services
to renovate the Administration Building. A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) was prepared and
thirty invitations were sent out to prospective firms to submit proposals. In response to this RFQ,
nineteen proposals were received.
40
OCTOBER 17, 1995
Boor 96 PrF. 355
BOOK 96 PAGE -356
A selection committee was formed and copies of the proposals along with Evaluation Forms were
distributed to the members. In September the Committee met and "short listed" five firms based on
scores submitted by each committee member. Oral presentations were scheduled for the finalist to
determine a final ranking of the prospective consultants.
ANALYSIS
The "short listed" consultants were judged on their past experience in similar projects, personnel
qualifications, what they perceived to be the important aspects of the project, and how well they
were prepared to perform the various tasks. The committee ranked the consultants based on the
majority votes received and the results are:
1. Dow, Howell, Gilmore & Associates
2. Ray Johnson & Associates
3. Gee & Jenson Engineers -Architects Planners, Inc.
4. Reynolds, Smith and Hill, Inc.
5. Spillis Candela & Partners, Inc.
RECONIlVIENDATION
Staff respectfully request Board approval to negotiate with the number one ranked firm in an
attempt to reach an agreement for a contract to perform the required services. Should we be unable
to reach such an agreement with said firm, we will move down the list as per CCNA. The proposed
contract will be brought back to the Board for approval and execution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) authorized staff
to negotiate with number one ranked firm of Dow,
Howell, Gilmore & Associates, and to proceed in the
manner set out in staff's recommendation.
41
OCTOBER 17, 1995
® - r
AWARD BID #6023 - DALE WIMBROW BOAT RAMP AND
BID #6024 - WABASSO CAUSEWAY BOAT RAMP
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/16/95:
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH:
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
�
FROM:
Terry B. Thompson, P.6�.,�'
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT:
Award Bid #6023 Dale Wimbrow Boat Ramp and
Bid #6024 Wabasso Causeway Boat Ramp
DATE:
October 16, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Subject projects were advertised for bid on October 2 and October 9, 1995. Notices were sent
to twenty-seven (27) contractors. Seven (7) contractors picked up plans and specifications.
Bids were _opened on Friday, October 13, 1995 at 2:00 PM. Two (2) contractors submitted
bids. The Contractors and their total bid amounts are as follows:
Vendor Bid
Dere w bm�r w WebassoCe cAw��
_ y
Premier Dredge & Marine $ 91,795.40 $149,729.80
Sieg & Sons, Inc. $130,140.00 $171,328.00
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Dale Wimbrow Boat Ramp be awarded to Premier Dredge &
Marine, Inc. as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder.
Staff recommends that the Wabasso Boat Ramp be awarded to Premier Dredge .& Marine, Inc.
as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder.
In addition staff requests Board approval of the Attached Agreements as to form, when all
requirements are met and approved by the County Attorney.
Dale Wimbrow Boat Ramp is funded with a $80,000 grant from the Department of
Environmental Protection Special Waterways Project Program. Wabasso Causeway Boat
Ramp is funded with a $120,000 grant from the Department of Environmental Protection
Special Waterways Project Program. There is no matching fund requirement for either of these
projects. The $41,525.20 shortfall will be funded from O p t i o n al S a l e s T a x.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) awarded Bid #6023
and Bid #6024 to Premier Dredge & Marine, Inc. as
set out in staff's recommendation.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (2) ARE ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
42 BOOK 96 PAF,S�
OCTOBER 17, 1995
BOOK 96 FAC€ 358
RECOAMENDMONS OF PARKS & RECREATION CO E
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/11/95:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Committee
DATE: October 11, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
During the regularly scheduled October 5, 1995 meeting of the County Parks and
Recreation Committee, the following recommendations were approved:
1) Approve the Vero Beach Boat Club request for the County to investigate
entering into an agreement with the State of Florida permitting the Parks
Division to maintain picnic facilities and docks on Boat Club Island located
in the Indian River just north of Grand Harbor. The Club will donate
$1,000 for repair of facilities if an agreement can be reached. Required
Board action is to authorize staff to contact the State and prepare an
agreement for future Board action.
2) Approve the Recreation Dept's request to name the Hobart Park Swim Lake
"Lake Big Foot".
3) Designate the southwest 8.2 acres of the County Fairgrounds site as an
"upland preserve" in accordance with the upland vegetation preservation
requirement.
RECOMMENDAMONS AND FUNDING
Approve the above listed recommendations.
43
OCTOBER 17, 1995
M
M
Commissioner Bird advised that the maintenance will be minimal
on the picnic facilities and docks on Boat Club Island.
Commissioner Bird noted that the campers who participated in
the Great Summer Escape Camp sponsored by Leisure Square are
requesting the name of "Lake Big Foot".
In answer to Commissioner Adams' question, Public Works
Director Jim Davis advised that Item #3 would not affect the
Archery Club's lease.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird,; SECONDED by
- Commissioner Tippin, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved the
recommendations of the Parks & Recreation Committee
as set out in the above memo.
LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX REVENUE DISTRIBUTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/6/95:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
Ct-?
SUBJECT: Meeting with Municipalities Regarding Local Option Gas Tax Revenue
Distribution
REF. LEITER: Jim Davis to City Managers dated August 25, 1995
DATE: October 6, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County's six cent Local Option Gas Tax (LOGT) program expires August 31,
1996 and must be re -authorized by local ordinance prior to June 1, 1996. Since
the County's original adoption of the program in 1986, the County has shared the
revenue by interlocal agreements with the five municipalities within the County
using the following mutually agreed upon formula.
"The percentage of total revenue allocated to each eligible entity
equals one-third (1/3) of the entity's percentage of total equivalent land
miles of road plus one-third (%) of the entity's percentage of
transportation expenditures over the previous five (5) years plus one-
third (1/3) of the entity's total percentage of population residing in the
area based upon the population from the Florida Bureau of Economic
and Business Research."
44 600K 96 FAF.�5
OCTOBER 17, 1995
L
BOOK 96 Pr,•,,E360
Due to recent changes in the LOGT legislation, any interlocal agreements
approved must contain a provision which requires a two year review of
distribution methods and percentages. The legislation allows the distribution
formula to be approved by interlocal agreements between the County and
municipalities containing at least fifty percent of the total incorporated area
population. If interlocal agreements are not approved, the funds are distributed
based upon the percentage of total transportation expenditures that each eligible
municipality and the County has expended over the previous five-year period.
Prior to 1994, the City of Vero Beach has contained at least 50% of the total
incorporated population. In 1994, that percentage dropped to 49.47%.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
On October 5, 1995, the County staff met with representatives of all five
municipalities to discuss extending the program and consideration of a
distribution formula. Four municipalities; Fellsmere, Sebastian, Indian River
Shores, and the Town of Orchid,, expressed preference to continue using the
existing three parameter formula. Since the City of Vero Beach's population is
remaining fairly constant and all other entities are gaining population, Vero
Beach's distribution percentage is dropping approximately 2.2%. Vero Beach is
projected to receive $66,000 less revenue annually if the existing formula is
continued: Vero Beach, understandably, could not support continued usage of
the 3 parameter formula but recommended the distribution option based solely
upon past transportation expenditures, whereby the City share would increase
1.2% or $36,000 per year. The meeting amicably adjourned, but without a
unanimous consensus.
Staff presents the following alternatives:
Alternative No. 1
Instruct staff to prepare interlocal agreements for transmittal to all
five municipalities which contain the same distribution formula that
has been in effect over the past 10 years. The three formula
parameters (population, equivalent lane miles of roadway, and past
five year transportation expenditures), will be equally weighed in
calculating a distribution percentage. In addition, instruct -the
County Attorney's office and Public Works staff to prepare an
ordinance to re -authorize the 6f Local Option Gas Tax program for
the next 30 years.
The percentages and estimated revenues are as follows:
Distribution Percentage
Annual Revenue
City of Fellsmere
2.0974%
$ 65,072
Town of Indian River Shores
1.2053%
$ 37,395
Indian River County
67.92170/6
$ 2,107,290
Town of Orchid
0.0073%
$ 226
City of Sebastian
11.9333%
$ 370,234
City of Vero Beach
16.8350%
$ 522.311
100%
$ 3,102,528
45
OCTOBER 17, 1995
Alternative No. 2 -
Same as Alternative No. 1 above, except instead of using the existing
distribution formula, approve the distribution based solely on an
entities transportation expenditure during the past five years. The
percentages are as follows:
Distribution Percentage
Annual
Revenue
City of FeJIsmere
1.34%
$
41,574
Town of Indian River Shores
0.59%
$
18,305
Indian River County
70.51%
$
2,187,592
Town of Orchid
.0%
$
0
City of Sebastian
7.34%
$
227,726
_ City of Vero Beach
20.220/6
$ 627.331
100%
$
3,102, 528
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the existing formula is retained And
the program is extended for 30 years. A Public Hearing would be scheduled in
early 1996.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved
Alternative #1 as set out in staff's recommendation.
ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SELECTION - 43RD AVE. WIDENING
FROM 22ND STREET TO 10TH STREET
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/9/95:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT., Engineering Consultant Selection -
43rd Avenue Five -Lane Widening from 22nd Street to 10th Street
REF. LETTER: Jim Davis to Short Listed Consultants dated 9-25-95
DATE: October 9, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On Friday, October 6, 1995, the appointed Consultant Selection Committee,
composed of Jim Davis, Roger Cain, and Terry Thompson, received formal
presentation from four short-listed engineering firms for the subject project. A
total of 14 engineering flims submitted letters of interest.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 4 6 96 B00K FK)F36.1
BOOK 96 PA E 362
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
After considering several factors including qualifications of the firms, design team,
similar projects that the firm has designed, proximity of the firm to Indian River
County, man-hours estimated to perform the work, etc., the Committee has
recommended the following prioritized short list:
1. Carter & Assoc. in joint venture with Williams, Hatfield, and Stoner.
Inc.
2, Culpepper and Terpening. Inc.
3. Timothy J. Messier, Inc., Palm Beach Gardens
4. Lawson, Noble & Webb, Inc. = Port St. Lucie
Staff recommends approval of the above prioritized short list and authorization for
the Public Works Director to begin contract negotiations.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that he did speak with
Carter & Associates and they.are not really in joint venture with
Williams, Hatfield and Stoner, Inc. Williams, Hatfield and Stoner
will be a sub -consultant to the contract between Carter &
Associates and the County. However, that doesn't change the
selection committee's recommendation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) authorized staff
to begin contract negotiations with the prioritized
firms, as recommended by staff.
VERO TROPICAL GARDENS AND A PORTION OF PARADISE PARK -
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR WATER SERVICE AND PAVING
AND DRAINAGE UNIPROVEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 9/26/95:
47
OCTOBER 17, 1995
� ® r
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
Terrance G. Pinto
Director of Utili ces
PREPARED James D. Chastain,
AND STAFFED Manager of Assessment Projects
BY., Department of Utility Services
James W. Davis, P.E.,_ G
Public Works DirectorL . :
1 _
SUBJECT: VERO TROPICAL GARDENS AND A PORTION OF
PARADISE PARK, UNIT #3 WATER SERVICE
RESOLUTIONS I & II
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95-1 I -DS
ROAD AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - PUBLIC
WORKS PROJECT #9130 - RESOLUTIONS TO SET
PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS
DATE: September 26, 1995
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 16, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
approved scheduling a public hearing for property owners consideration of
providing county water service, road paving and drainage improvements to Vero
Tropical Gardens Subdivision and a portion of Paradise Park Subdivision lying
west of I-95. Conservative preliminary cost estimates were to be used. With
support of the property owners, the Board of County Commissiduers may then
authorize engineering design to proceed.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Vero Tropical Gardens, platted in 1952, is without adequate road access to most
lots for emergency vehicles, a proper drainage system, and quality drinking water
or fire protection. The subdivision is located between 26th Street (Walker Avenue),
20th Street (State Road 60), 98th Avenue, and along the east side of 94th Avenue,
backing against the west side of I-95. There are seven properties consisting of 20
lots (and/or portions ofl, in a small portion of Paradise Park, Unit 3, located east
of Vero Tropical Gardens. The development(s) include 471 platted lots (and/or
portions ofl, and four non -platted parcels, which may benefit from the proposed
improvement. Of the 15 existing homes, seven of the owners contacted have
expressed support for such improvements. The owners of 49 vacant lots, have
local addresses.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 48 BOOK 96 F-vAr
") 363
BOOK
Owners Lots
114 114
X31 (of these 3 own 170 lots) 361
Total 145 475
96 P.�E636
Typical lot sizes are .16 to .21 acre; therefore lots in the project are substandard
or "undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan and the
County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental health, which require that
new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a minimum of one-half acre. Lots not
meeting these minimum standards are called "undersized lots."
The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment projects. The
projects are to be paid through the ' assessment of property owners along the
proposed water line route and fronting roads to be paved. In the interim,
financing will be through the use of impact fee funds for the water project and by
the petition paving account for the road paving and drainage improvements.
Engineering design services for the water project will be completed by the
Department of Utility Services staff. Engineering design for paving and drainage
Improvements will be performed by private consultant or county staff.
The total estimated project cost and amount to be assessed for the water system
is $618,360.42. The total estimated cost per square foot is $0.1563987 for water
line installation. The estimated cost for paving and drainage improvements is
$1,502,423 or $0.38 per square foot.
Since the Utility Services Department and Public Works Department have a
slightly different procedure for collection of special assessments, separate project
resolutions have been prepared, and although the projects are anticipated to be
constructed concurrently, two distinct projects are proposed, including two
distinct public hearings.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
The staffs of the Department of Utility Services and Public Works Department
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached
Resolutions (two for the water project and two for the paving and drainage project)
and set the public hearing date for both projects.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) adopted
Resolutions 95-133 and 95-134 in regard to providing
water service to Vero Tropical Gardens and a portion
of Paradise Park Subdivision Unit #3.
49
OCTOBER 17, 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner- Eggert being absent) adopted
Resolutions 95-135 and 95-136 in regard to certain
paving and drainage improvements to Vero Tropical
Gardens Subdivision and a portion of Paradise Park
Subdivision Unit #3.
Providing (First Reso. )
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 133
- A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR WATER SERVICE TO
VERO TROPICAL GARDENS; PROVIDING THE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT
OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALL-
MENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that the improvements herein described are
necessary to promote the public welfare of the county and has deter-
mined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties to be serviced by a water main extension to Vero Tropical
Gardens and a portion of Paradise Park Unit #3, hereinafter referred to
as Project No. UW -95 -11 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. _ The County does hereby determine that a water line shall be
installed to benefit 475 lots in Vero Tropical Gardens and a portion
of Paradise Park Unit #3, and the cost thereof shall be specially
assessed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 206.01
through 206.09 of the Code of Indian River County.
2. t The total estimated project assessment cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $618,360.42 or $0.1563987 per square
foot to be paid by the property specially benefited as shown on
the assessment plat on file with the Department of Utility Services.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.1563987 per square foot
shall be assessed against each of the properties designated on the
assessment plat. This assessment may be raised or lowered by
action of
the Board
of County
Commissioners after
the public
hearing,
at the same
meeting,
as required by the
referenced
County Code.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 50 BOOK 96 FAu 365
BOOK 96
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid
in full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board
with respect to credits against the special assessments after
completion of the improvements (the "Credit Date") without
interest.
If not paid in full, the special assessments may be paid in ten
equal yearly installments of principal plus interest. If not paid
when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the
principal not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special
assessments shall bear interest until paid at a rate to be
determined by the Board of County Commissioners when the project
Is completed.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a
plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications, and
an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements. All of these
are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utility
Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall
promptly be prepared in connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County
Utility Services Department shall cause this resolution (along with
a map showing the areas to be served) to be published at least
t one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing
required by Section 206.04.
' The resolution was moved for adoption 'by Commissioner
Adams and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p 1 n
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 Absent
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 17 day of October, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RI UNT FLORIDA
Attest:
Kenneth R. cht
fl y dar n, -Zhair=an
51
OCTOBER 17, 1995
Time and Place ( Second Reso . )
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 134
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN :RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE' AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN
VERO TROPICAL GARDENS, AND OTHER
INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE
HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABIL-
ITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER MAIN
EXTENSION, AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO
THE MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS
TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY
ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED
THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 95- 1 33 , determined that it is
necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of the county, and
particularly as to those living, working, and owning property within
the area described hereafter, that a waterline be installed to serve 475
lots in Vero Tropical Gardens and a portion of Paradise Park Unit #3;
and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.1563987 per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an
asseysment roll to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board;
and
WHEREAS, Section 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires
that the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at
which the owners of the properties to be assessed or any other persons
interested therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of
constructing such water main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to
the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be
assessed against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission
Chambers in the County Administration Building at the hour of
9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, November 7, 1995, at which time the
52 BOOK 96 F`r�F.�6d
OCTOBER 17, 1995
BOOK 96 PnE 368
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 134
owners of the properties to be assessed and any other interested
persons may appear before said Commission and be heard in regard
thereto. The area to be improved and the properties to be
specially benefited are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special
assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of
the Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given
by two - publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week
apart. The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of
Utility Services shall give the owner of each property to be
t specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time
and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice
to each of such property owners at his last known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Ad a m s , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i e p i n ,
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 Absent
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 17 day of October, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDI4RICOUN FLORIDAAttest:
By R. acht
Jeffre Barton C Chairman
/lay:-�,
nem flava Ca Ap9roved Date
Admin f 10 f�
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL -
F-G�y t. �
I rusk Mgr. /eN1/ o
53
OCTOBER 17, 1995
Providing (First Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 135
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO VERO TROPICAL
GARDENS SUBDIVISION AND A PORTION OF
PARADISE PARK SUBDIVISION UNIT #3;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST,
METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER
OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE 'AREA `,SPECIFICALLY
SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Public Works Department has
been petitioned for road paving and drainage improvements for Vero
Tropical Gardens Subdivision and a portion of Paradise Park Subdivision
Unit #3; and
WHEREAS, the construction of paving and drainage roadway
improvements by special assessment funding is authorized by Chapter
206, Sections 206.01 through 206.09, Indian River County Code and by
the Public Works Department and the total estimated assessment cost of
the proposed paving and drainage improvements is $1,502,423 or $0.38
per square foot; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall, for
any given record owner of property within the area specially benefited,
be in an amount equal to that proportion of 100% of the total cost of the
project including Tax Collector's fees, which the number of square feet
owned by the given owners bears to the total number of square feet of
property specially benefited; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment shall become due and payable at
the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County 90 days after
the final determination of the special assessment, pursuant to Section
206.08, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said 90 -day
period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate established by
the Board of County Commissioners at the time of preparation of the
final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two equal installments,
the first to be made 12 months from the due date and subsequent
payments to be due yearly; and _
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
OCTOBER 17, 1995 54 BOOK '96 Pa F.369
BOOK
RESOLUTION NO. 95-135
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improvements to Vero
Tropical Gardens Subdivision and a portion of Paradise Park
Subdivision Unit #3 designated as Project No. 9130 is hereby
approved subject to the terms outlined above and applicable
requirements of Chapter 206, et seq., Indian River County Code.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p i n
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 Absent
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 17 day of October, 1995.
BOARD OF C9VNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN 4RIR COUNTY, FLORIDA
AttestBy nnet R. Macht
Jeffrey K. Barton, Cle4 Chairman
djan Rnw Co I Approved Date
Admin.a
Ito�l 9.
116-/6`7 .
^UUt,rl
55
OCTOBER 17, 1995
96 PAGE 970
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 136
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN
VERO TROPICAL GARDENS SUBDIVISION AND
PARADISE PARK SUBDIVISION UNIT #3, AND
OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND
ADVISABILITY OF MAKING PAVING AND
DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO SAID PROPERTY,
AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER
OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE
AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED
AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 95- 135, determined that it is
necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of the county, and
particularly as to those living, working, and owning property within
the area described hereafter, that paving and drainage improvements be
made to said property; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.38 per square foot for each
parcel in the benefited area; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an
assessment roll to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board;
and,
WHEREAS, Section 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires
that the Board of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at
which the owners of the properties to be assessed or any other persons
interested therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of
constructing such paving and drainage improvements, as to the cost
thereof, as to the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount
thereof to be assessed against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission
Chambers in the County Administration Building at the hour of
9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, November 7, 1995, at which time the
56 BOOK 96
OCTOBER 17, 1995
BooK, 96 372
RESOLUTION NO. 95- 136
owners of the properties to- be assessed and any other interested
persons may appear before said Commission and be heard in regard
thereto. The area to be improved and the properties to be
specially benefited are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special
assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of
the Clerk to the Board any week day from 8:30 a.m. until 5:00
p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given
by two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week
apart. The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of
Public Works shall give the owner of each property to be specially
t assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time and
place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice to
each of such property owners at his last known 'address
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
A d a m s , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i nen i n ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A y e
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Absent
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 17 day of October, 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RI R COUNT FLORIDA
Attest:By
,
Kenneth R. Macht
Jeffr. M2+k Chairman`J
11411 RVR Ca AGGrovad Dain
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL Admin 10
d q�
l rgol ( —
8„nyat 1,J �7
Hick )f. �f Jai i_ I ice_ 1. ale
57
OCTOBER 17, 1995
SOUTH COUNTY REPUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN- -
RETAINAGE REDUCTION -
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/4/95:
DATE: OCTOBER 4, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF ILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL E GINEER
BY: DEPART UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH CO REPUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN
RETAINAGE REDUCTIOIIT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -93 -28 -CS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On November 15, 1994, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Hall Contracting Corporation
for the above -referenced project. The project is now being
finalized, and the contractor has requested a reduction in
retainage to 5 percent. The engineer also recommends this action
accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the retainage reduction so that- Pay Request No. 8 may be
processed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved a
reduction in retainage to 5 percent for 'Hall
Contracting Corporation and authorized the
processing of Pay Request No. 8, as recommended by
staff.
58
OCTOBER 17, 1995 Boos 96 ucr -373
BOOK 96 U F374
27TH AVENUE D.O.T. EM PROVEMENT PROTECT - UTILITY
RELOCATION SCHEDULE AND AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/3/95:
DATE: OCTOBER 3, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI ERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. IN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL GINEER
BY: DEPAR ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 27TH AVENUE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT
UTILITY RELOCATION SCHEDULE AND AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) is preparing to bid and construct
improvements to State Road 607 (27th Avenue) from the South Indian River
County line to State Road 60, commencing at the end of 1995. As a result of
this work, approximately 73 valves and 10 fire hydrants will require
adjustment and relocation. The D.O.T. has agreed to handle the adjustment to
all valves within the paved areas which represents 50% ± of the effected
valves. The County will be responsible for the adjustment/relocation of all
remaining appurtenances within the project boundaries. The Utilities
Department will accomplish this work through an agreement with the D.O.T.'s
contractor or with our continuing construction services contractor at an
estimated cost not to exceed $25,000 ±. Funding for this project will be
from the renewal and replacement fund.. Please see the attached proposed
utility relocation schedule agreement and the proposed County resolution for
the D.O.T.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
proposed resolution and utility relocation agreement by the Board of County
Commissioners for signature and request authorization for staff to issue a
purchase order for the work as required.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) adopted
Resolution 95-137, authorizing execution of an
utilities agreement for the adjustment, change or
relocation of certain utilities within certain
right-of-way limits.
59
OCTOBER 17, 1995
a � �
FORM T2Yi6
t-87
--FAct 1 or I
COUNTY I SECTION
STAT[ OF FLORIDA 09"RTMl,&T Qr TRANSFORTATION
o1vlsloO"'oN
COUNTY RESOLUTION
UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT
COUNTY NAME
UTILITY JOB NO. STATC ROAD NO.
gg 1 004 1 3500
607',Inthan River
PARCEL 6 R/W JOS
N/A .
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN UTILITIES AGREEMENT FOR THE ADJUSTAIENT,
CHANGE OR RELOCATION OF CERTAIN
THIS UTILITIES
LITI S WITHIN THE
SHALL RIGHTAKE -OF-WA LIMITS HEREAFTER
DESCRIBED, AND PROVIDING WHEN
RESOLUTION NO. _1.37
ON AIOTION OF Commissioner
Fran Adams , seconded by Commissioner
Richard Bird , the following Resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation proposes to. construct or reconstruct a
part of State Road 607
AND WHEREAS, in order for the State of Florida Department of Transportation to further and complete
said project, it is necessary that certain utilities and/or facilities within the Right -of -Way limits of said State
Road 607 be adjusted, changed or relocated,
AND WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportationdeliver
elihaving
requestedo the State of Florida
e County of
Indian River , Florida, to execute an
Department of Transportation an Utilities Agreement, agreeing to make or cause to be made such adjustments,
changes or relocations of said utilities and/or facilities as set out in said Agreement, and said request having
been duly considered,
the County of
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board
of County that the Chairman1andnClerkoners f of the Board of
Indian River Florida,
County Commissioners be and are hereby authorized to make, execute and deliver to the State of Florida
Department of Transportation an Utilities Agreement for the 6adiustment, change or relocation of certain utilities
within the Right -of -Way limits of said State Road 077 Section 004 ;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be forwarded to the State of Florida Department
of Transportation 21 Tallahassee, Florida.
-
INTRODUCED AND PASSED by the Board of County Commissioners of TNflTAN TtTVF4October 19 �` --•
County, Florida, in regular session, this 17 4IN
day of _
N RIVER U Y,FLORIDA
0 C NTY MMISSIONERS
an of t e Board of County Commissioners
KenneR. Macht
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
J.K. B
-2_
. �2•Aq k,„r CO
ADDrrnd
i ,r• • .'1
s
�Nit
/ .� /1 ct
0 - /6
=Udget
J
rick rAgr
OCTOBER 17 1995 60 800K 96 FATE 375
Boa 96 FAGF 376
STAT F FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TR.1 PORTATION
FORM 710-010-62 DIVISION OF PRECONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN
12/88 UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT
PAGE 1 OF 3 (At County Expense)
WPI I SECTION I STATE ROAD I COUNTY NAME PAR & JOB / FAP 0
4115407 004 607 Indian River N/A Federal Funds
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1.19 by
and between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as
the DEPARTMENT, and the COUNTY OF Indian River a political subdivision of
the State of Florida, acting by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred the
COUNTY.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the DEPARTMENT is constructing, reconstructing or otherwise changing a portion of
the State Highway System designated by the DEPARTMENT as Job No. 88004-3500, Road No. 607 ,
from SR 60 to St. Lucie Cnty. Line which shall call for the relocation of the
COUNTY'S facilities along, over and/or under said highway,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, it is agreed by
the parties as follows:
1. The COUNTY agrees to make or cause to be made all arrangements for necessary adjustments
or changes of its facilities* where located on public property at COUNTY's own expense and in
accordance with the provisions of Rule 014-46.01 "Utility Accommodation Guide," Florida
Administrative Code, dated May 4, 1970; any supplements or revisions thereof as of the date of this
Agreement, which, by reference hereto, are made a part of this Agreement; and the plans, designs and
specifications of the DEPARTMENT for the construction or reconstruction of said portions of the State
Highway System, prior to the advertising for bid on said project. The COUNTY further agrees to do all
of such work with its own forces or by a contractor paid under a contract let by the COUNTY, all under
the direction of the DEPARTMENT'S engineer. -
2. The COUNTY further agrees that said adjustments, changes or relocation of facilities will be
made by the COUNTY with sufficient promptness so as to cause no delay to the DEPARTMENT or its
contractor in the prosecution of such construction or reconstruction work; provided, however, that the
COUNTY shall not be responsible for delay beyond its control; and that such "Relocation Work" will be
done under the direction of the DEPARTMENT'S engineer; and the COUNTY further agrees that in the
event the changes, adjustments or relocation of such facilities or utilities are done simultaneously with
the construction project,- that it will be directly responsible for handling of any legal claims that the
contractor may initiate due to delays caused by the COUNTY'S negligence; and that the COUNTY will
not proceed with the "Relocation Work" with its own forces nor advertise nor let a contract for such
work until it has received the DEPARTMENT'S written authority to proceed.
3. The COUNTY further agrees that it will maintain and keep in repair, or cause to be maintained
and kept in repair, all of such adjusted, changed or relocated COUNTY owned or operated facilities or
utilities within the right of way of said portion of the State Highway System, and to comply with all
provisions of the law, including Rule 014-46.01.
4. The DEPARTMENT agrees to furnish the COUNTY with all necessary highway construction
plans that are required by the COUNTY to facilitate the COUNTY'S "Relocation Work".
61
OCTOBER 17, 1995
5. The DEPARTMENT further agrees that the COUNTY may relocate its facilities upon the State's
right of way, according to the terms of the standard permit required by the State Statutes for
occupancy of public right of way, and all published regulations lawfully adopted by the DEPARTMENT
as of the date of this Agreement.
6. It is mutually agreed that the COUNTY'S plans, maps, or sketches showing any such facilities
or utilities to be adjusted, changed, or relocated are made a part hereof by reference.
7. The COUNTY covenants and agrees that it will indemnify and hold harmless the FDOT and all
of the FDOT'S officers, agents, and employees from any claim, loss, damage, cost, charge or expense
arising out of any act, action, neglect or omission by the COUNTY during the performance of the
contract.
SOUTH COUNTY REPUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN - CHANGE
ORDER #1 - PRIME CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/4/95:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
OCTOBER 4, 1995
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA
TERRANCE G. P.
DIRECTOR OF D
WILLIAM F.
CAPITAL-�M
SERVICES
ENGINEER
LITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL EFFLUENT PUMPING STATION
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND ENGINEERING SERVICZS
INDIAN RIDER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -94 -02 -ED
BACKGROUND
On February 15, 1994, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a contract with Carter Associates, Inc., for
engineering services associated with this project. (See attached
agenda item and minutes.) On April 4, 1995, the Board approved a
contract with Prime Construction Group, Inc., in the amount of
$412,000.00. (See attached agenda item and minutes.) The
Utilities Department is now bringing Change Order No. 1 in the
amount of $19,811.00 to the Board for approval. (See attached
Change Order No. 1.)
ANALYSIS
The change order is comprised of two items. The first is a major
upgrade and relocation of the power service at the station. The
62 BOOK 96 FACE .377OCTOBER 17, 1995
BOOK 96 PAGE 378
second is a relocation of the physical pumping station. The power
upgrade is being done to accommodate the future wastewater
treatment plant expansion and will save bringing an additional
service into the site at the time of expansion. This action will
save the County an additional $35,000.00 expense at the time of
plant construction. The station relocation was done to avoid
mitigation of a swale that the station was being built upon. The
mitigation issue is currently being debated by the South County
Wastewater Treatment Plant engineers (i.e., Camp Dresser and McKee,
Inc.); however, if we had pursued wetland permitting, we would have
increased costs far beyond the $2,580.00 to relocate. Please see
the attached letter from Carter Associates dated September 26, 1995
for details and a recommendation.
RECOMlr1EADATIOA
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 Tippin, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved Change
Order No. 1 with Prime Construction Group in the
amount of $19,811, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER #1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - IST AMERICAN BANKS
(PUTTICK ENTERPRISES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/9/95:
DATE: OCTOBER 9, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. N
AND STAFFED CAPITAL CTS ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 1ST AMERICAN BANKS (I.E., PUTTICK ENTERPRISES)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. CDS/CCS-513
Attached is a proposed Developer's Agreement -with Puttick Enterprises for
reimbursement of offsite utility construction. The agreement is for the
construction of an 8" water main on U.S. 1 and 8th Street" -and from 6th Avenue
to U.S. 1 on 8th Street. Also included, is the oversizing of the facilities
sewer force main to _serve the surrounding area.
63
OCTOBER 17, 1995
� � r
ANALYSIS
Exhibits A and B of the attached agreement identify the cost-sharing between
the developer and the County.
The construction of this system will assist the County in expanding the water
and sewer systems as outlined in the County Master Plan, as well as allow the
owner's property to be served. The total estimated cost to the County is
$27.,017.50, which will be paid from the Utilities Impact Fee Fund. The
project has purchased 6 ERUs of water and sewer.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the Developer's Agreement as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved the
Developer's Agreement with Puttick Enterprises, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SR -60 WATER LINE - 66TH AVENUE TO 62ND DRIVE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/6/95:
DATE: OCTOBER 6, 1995
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI T3? SERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT 0. WISEMEN, P.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINE D,
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY VICES
SUBJECT: SR 60 WATER LINE - 66TH AVENUE TO 62ND DRIVE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -19 -DS
BACKGROUND
It is proposed to connect the water line on the south side of SR 60 from the
existing water main on 62nd Drive to an existing water main at 66th Avenue.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 64 BOOK 96 Ferf 379
Bm 96 PhIF"3S9
ANALYSIS
This project will provide water to the_properties on the south side of SR 60,
as well as to complete a loop in our overall water system on SR 60. (See
attached overall map.) The preliminary estimated project cost, which
includes in-house engineering, permitting, project administration, and
inspection is $112,330.00. Funding will be from the Utilities impact fee
fund (WIP 472-000-169-275.00).
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
project scope as described above and as shown on the attached map.
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATION PROJECT COST
STATE ROAD 60 FROM 62 DRIVE TO 66AVENUE WATERMAIN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT # UW -95 -DS
ITEM
ESTIMATED
UNIT
SUBTOTAL
QUANTITY / UNIT
PRICE
M
W
MOBILIZATION
1.00 L.S
3,000.00
3,000.00
VIDEO RECORD
1.00 L.S
400.00
400.00
TRENCH SAFETY
1.00 L.S
4,000.00
4,000.00
12" DIP WM
2,300.00 L. F
25.00
57, 500.00
12" G.V.
5.00 UNIT
1,500.00
7,500.00
8" G.V. W/ PLUG
2.00 UNIT
750.00
1,500.00
FHA
4.00 UNIT
2,000.00
8,000.00
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT
1.00 L.S
2,000.00
2,000.00
R/W CUT RESTORATION
100.00 L.F
20.00
2,000.00
TRAFFIC CONTROL
1.00 L.S
5,000.00
5,000.00
SEED & MULCH
2,300.00 L.F
0.40
920.00
ACAD AS -BUILT
1.00 L.S
2,000.00
2,000.00
SUB -TOTAL PROJECT COST
93,820.00
CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY
9,382.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
103,202.00
DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
9,128.OQ
INSPECTION, PERMITTING ETC
TOTAL PROJECT COST
$112,330.00
65
OCTOBER 17, 1995
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board by a 4-0vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) approved the
project scope as set out in staff's recommendation.
BLOCK GRANT FOR MEDICAID
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/16/95:
one
_ fW ■ I
ASSOCIA Ro Box s�9ir«, Frond» 3a3os
COU �: sr onz4.3148 � �aia�.se�
XJ
* i i i i * i
.ERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT
THE LEGISLATURE IS LOOKING TO PASS MEDICAID RESPONSIBILITY TO COUNTY
GOVERNMENT! YOUR COUNTY'S RESPONSE IS NEEDED NOW!
Although the U.S. Congress has not completed work on overhauling the current Medicaid program, the Florida
Legislature has begun cunsidering ways to address potential federal Medicaid block grants. The I1ousc Ilealth
conc��ualprro,Z= for Medicaid block$rants to the counties Attached is a copy of the county Medicaid block
grant proposal. Please fax your cnunty'c pnsition and comments no later than Tuesday, October 24 (904/222-
5939). FAC will be testifying at the committee meeting and would like the input of all counties.
To mandate porilcipation of all counties In a state Medicaid Block Grant Program is not acceptable to
FAC due to the varying financial and administrative capacity of counties. Counties could potentially
aacume enormous responsibilities including addltlonal local funding if state and federal monies further
diminish in the out -years; stringent state reporting requirements; costs for data processing system; and
local pressure to provide additional health services. FAC supports a county -option praposal which would
permit a broader participation of counties in assisting in the administration of a state Medicaid program.
OCTOBER 17 1995 66 BOOK 96
c�r:•',�:�,�..:.• •—/'�'
MEMORANnUM
VIA FACSIMILE
TO:
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
County Lobbyists
FROM:
Mary Kay Cariseo, Deputy Executive Director.
Carol L. Bracy, Governmental Liaison�,�
-•-
u:
DATE:
October 16, 1995
RE:
Medicaid Block Grants
THE LEGISLATURE IS LOOKING TO PASS MEDICAID RESPONSIBILITY TO COUNTY
GOVERNMENT! YOUR COUNTY'S RESPONSE IS NEEDED NOW!
Although the U.S. Congress has not completed work on overhauling the current Medicaid program, the Florida
Legislature has begun cunsidering ways to address potential federal Medicaid block grants. The I1ousc Ilealth
conc��ualprro,Z= for Medicaid block$rants to the counties Attached is a copy of the county Medicaid block
grant proposal. Please fax your cnunty'c pnsition and comments no later than Tuesday, October 24 (904/222-
5939). FAC will be testifying at the committee meeting and would like the input of all counties.
To mandate porilcipation of all counties In a state Medicaid Block Grant Program is not acceptable to
FAC due to the varying financial and administrative capacity of counties. Counties could potentially
aacume enormous responsibilities including addltlonal local funding if state and federal monies further
diminish in the out -years; stringent state reporting requirements; costs for data processing system; and
local pressure to provide additional health services. FAC supports a county -option praposal which would
permit a broader participation of counties in assisting in the administration of a state Medicaid program.
OCTOBER 17 1995 66 BOOK 96
The Board requested that OMB
Director Joyce Johnston research
FACo.
BOOK 96 PA F 38?
Director Joe Baird and Welfare
this matter and get comments to
COMMENT ON EPA GROUNDWATER RULES FOR LANDFILLS
The Board reviewed the following item that appeared in a FACo
bulletin:
y, EPA Action On Landfills: County landfills may be able to
�►` benefit from two major policy changes by the Environmental
Protection Agency. The first extends the deadline for Munici-
pal Solid Waste (MSW) landfills to comply with Subtitle D's
financial assurance requirements until April 9, 1997. During
the interim, the EPA will continue to work on developing an
alternative method for local governments to demonstrate
adequate financial stability. Secondly, the EPA has proposed
a regulation giving states the flexibility to allow certain land-
fills to use a less-expensive, alternative method of monitoring
ground«mater. EPA is accepting comments on the proposed
rule until Nov 7. (Smith)
Chairman Macht presumed that staff is on top of the
groundwater rules for landfills, and Utilities Director Terry Pinto
responded affirmatively.
CITRUS WASTE
Commissioner Adams presented the following request for a one-
year moratorium on the collection of tipping fees at the -Landfill
for citrus waste:
MEMORANDUM
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Commissioner Fran Adams
RE: Citrus Waste
On August 22, 1995, we passed a motion authorizing the collection of tipping fees for
citrus wastes rather than inclusion of this waste under the current assessment program. This
new program began in October.
I believe we acted too hastily and did not give the industry time to prepare. Thirty days
was not enough time for some of the companies to find alternatives. So far their alternatives are
few. dump in existing pastures which are and have been too wet to get a truck in and out, or
purchase dryers which will shrink the water content and therefore the amount of wastes. We
currently have no business located here to process all the citrus waste for cattle'feed although I
understand Ocean Spray does process some of their own culls for the feed market.
The history of the problem involves the slumping of whole fruudand culls in the current
landfill cells. Last year the amount tripled and was a total of 11000 tons. This organic product
degrades rapidly if left in the open but once covered in the landfill is preserved for many years.
Additionally there is a high liquid content (82%) which creates a mushy layer and later increased
leachate.
67
OCTOBER 17, 1995
As a case in point, Orchid Island Juice Company is currently hauling 4 large dump truck
loads of waste per day to Brevard County to dairy property at elevated costs. Even though the
company immediately ordered a $500,000 dryer when notified of our impending action, it will be
several months before the dryer can be installed. Before the passage of our motion, Solid
Waste billed Orchid Isle $255,000 for assessment fees for dumping an approximate 6000 tons
of material. Orchid Isle has purchased acreage on Oslo Road for the construction of a new plant
and office with ample space for their operation. Their current location is now inadequate in size
due to gvowth of the industry and the requirement of the dryer. Ft. Pierce is courting them very
heavily and has offered them some economic morsels to convince Orchid Isle they have
immediate space to alleviate the problems we have burdened them with. It is silly to spend a
considerable effort to attract industry and inadvertently run our existing industries out. We are
talking about a company of 40 employees with profit-sharing and benefits, that employs year-
round. Our action has put a hardship on this particular company and probably many others as
the season kicks in.
Citrus is our number one industry in this county. The waste burden is just not the
industry problem, it is our problem as well. This is a perfect example of public-private
partnership that should be initiated to solve a common problem.
I request that we revoke the Previous motion or remotion to suspend the collection of
tippin-a fees for citrus wastes for up to one Year while we help the industry find alternative
sources of disposal. One should be the dumping on current or future landfill property to allow
the natural drying of the material. Another would be the possible entreprenuership of a
commercial drying facility for feed or landfill cover at the new landfill industrial site.
Thank you.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto believed we would be placing an
undue burden on the citrus companies if we simply refused to accept
the material any longer. In effect, by giving them the opportunity
to pay a tipping fee they would be charged for 24 tons when they
actually were taking 7,000 tons into the Landfill. Director Pinto
felt that by waiving the tipping fees, we would be providing a free
service for a company. If that is the case, we would have to
figure out a way to charge a cost for what they are actually
bringing in. If we just automatically suspend tipping fees on
citrus waste in general, other agencies might start to bring in
their citrus waste to the Landfill. Other companies have been
bringing in their waste, but they have been within their
assessment.
Commissioner Adams felt that we have a very tenuous position
here with our No. 1 industry in Indian River County. We have been
operating on an assessment basis all this time and to change it now
doesn't make any difference. In fact, when you look at the Solid
Waste Disposal District budget, the income of $400,000 is not
blocked into the revenues. Commissioner Adams felt we need to be
user friendly and we are not.
Commissioner Tippin understood we are charging them $250,000
in assessment fees, but Commissioner Adams pointed out that was
before we changed it. They don't owe $250,000 in one payment; they
have to pay as they go.
OCTOBER 17, 1995 68 boou 96 P4,0F 38
BOOK, 96 F'DGF .394
Director Pinto pointed out that their actual waste was 7,049
tons but they only paid for 12 tons.
Commissioner Adams wanted Director Pinto to tell us that he
would like to figure out how we can do this, and Director Pinto
assured the Board that he would like to work it out.
Attorney Vitunac advised that the bond covenant says that
there has to be "fair service".
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board by a 4-0 vote
(Commissioner Eggert being absent) waived tipping
fees on citrus wastes for 6 months; continued the
assessment charge to Orchid Isle on 24 tons; and
directed staff to work with the entire citrus
industry to solve the problem.
TREASURE COAST COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - ANNUAL
Commissioner Tippin urged the Commissioners to attend the
annual meeting and dinner of the Treasure Coast Council of Local
Governments on November 1, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. at the Pelican Yacht
Club in Ft. Pierce.
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
Chairman Macht announced that immediately following
adjournment, the Board of County Commissioners would reconvene as
the District Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services
District.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried the Board adjourned at 12:35 p.m.
ATTEST:
. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved IJ' -9 s -
M
OCTOBER 17, 1995
M
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman