HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/19/1996MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, MARCH 19,1996
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2)
Richard N. Bird (District 5)
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3)
John W. Tippin (District 4)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. I WOCATION None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
DELETIONS: 7.I.
14.B.
_ ADDITIONS 9.B. Emergency Permitting for Beaches
11.G.3. Emergency Bridge Repair
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of Proclamation In Support of Treasure Coast
Community AIDS Network, and Lifewalk `96 to be Held
on Sunday, March 24, 1996 in Indian River County 1
6. APPROVAL OF M]NUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: IRC Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report; FY 10/1/94 - 9/30/95
B. Approval for Out -of -County Travel for Comm.
Ken Macht and Jim Davis to attend NATOA
Conference in Las Vegas, April 11-12,1996 no back-up
C. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated March 7,1996) 2-9
D. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver
for Island Club S/D Planned Development
(memorandum dated March 4, 1996) 10-12
BACKUP
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd ):
PAGES
E.
Fiber Optic Cable Right -of -Way Permit
Jeffrey K. Barton. Clerk of Circuit Court:
(memorandum dated March 12, 1996)
13-18
F.
IRC Bid #6039 / Perimeter Fence for Wabasso
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
Scrub Conservation Area
1. Proposed Purchase of Prang Island
(memorandum dated March 7, 1996)
19-22
G.
New Courthouse CCTV System - Final Payment
35-99
2. Proposed Purchase of Fischer -Sebastian
Precision Contracting Services
River LAAC Site
(memorandum dated March 6,1996)
23-24
H.
Award Bid #6042 / Thermoplastic Applicator
LAAC Site
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
25-28
I.
Request for Permission to Advertise the Proposed
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
Ordinance Amending Occupational License Tax
M-1, and to Rezone that 18.4 Acres From
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
29-31
J.
Misc. Budget Amendment #016
170-206
5. County Initiated Request to Amend the
(memorandum dated March 13, 1996)
32-33
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
-
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
Jeffrey K. Barton. Clerk of Circuit Court:
1995 Annual Audit
(memorandum dated March 12, 1996)
34 -
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Proposed Purchase of Prang Island
LAAC Site
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
35-99
2. Proposed Purchase of Fischer -Sebastian
River LAAC Site
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
100-122
3, Proposed Purchase of Cairns Tract
LAAC Site
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
123-169
4. Ben F. Bailey,. III, Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
_
Approximately 18.4 Acres from L-2 to
M-1, and to Rezone that 18.4 Acres From
A-1 to RM -8
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
170-206
5. County Initiated Request to Amend the
Traffic Circulation Element and the Capital
Improvements Element of the Comp. Plan
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
207-273
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
BACKUP
PAGES
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
Old Courthouse Restoration Grant
(memorandum dated March 6, 1996)
274-279
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
Utility Bond Issue
(memorandum dated March 13, 1996)
280-285
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. Donald MacDonald Park - Florida
Recreation Development Assistance
Program Grant Amendment
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
286-287
2. Application and Resolution Authorizing
Staff to Apply for a Florida DEP Beach
Erosion Control Assistance program Grant
for Erosion Control Improvements in the
North Beach Area -
(memorandum dated March 11, 1996)
288-290
H. Utilities
1. South Regional Effluent Reuse Transmission
Main, Change Order # 1 & Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated March 7,1996)
291-303
2. Painting of Vista Royale Wastewater Treatment
Facility
(memorandum dated March 6,1996)
304-308
11. DEPARTMENTAL, MATTERS (cont'd )•
H. Utilities (cont'd.):
3. Sundowner's S/D Water Assessment
Project, Change Order #1 & Final
Pay Request
(memorandum dated March 6, 1996)
4. Work -Authorization for Engineering
Services for Wastewater Facility Issues
(study to respond. to FDEP letter re-
garding Vista Royale Wastewater
Treatment Plant)
(memorandum dated March 6,1996)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Determine if There is a Present Need for the Construction
of Storm Grove Road
(memorandum dated March 6, 1996)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Fran B. Adams
B. Vice Chairman Caroly K. Eggert
C. Commissioner Richard N. Bird
D. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
E. Commissioner John W Tippin
i3At,k L) P
PAGES
309-312
313-316
317-334
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS BACKUP
PAGES
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
Contract Services for Security
-- (backup provided under separate cover) -
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A V'ERBATI'M[ 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. .
Meeting broadcast live on:
TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast 5:00 p.m. Thursday trough 5:00p. m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
INDEX TO MINUTES
March 19, 1996
Regular Meeting of Board of County Commissioners
ADDITIONS & DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS . . . . .
1
INTRODUCTION OF NEW PERSONNEL DIRECTOR . . . . . . . . . . .
1
PROCLAMATION - TREASURE COAST COMMUNITY AIDS NETWORK &
LIFEWALK 196 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
2.
CONSENT AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
A. Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
B. Out -of -Town Travel Approved for NATOA Conference
3
C. Approval of Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
D. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver - Island
Club Subdivision Planned Development . . . . .
9
E. Annual Fiber Optic Cable Right -of -Way Permit and
Interlocal Agreement with Indian River Farms Water
Control District . . . . . . .
10
F. Bid #6039/Perimeter Fence for Wabasso Scrub
Conservation Area - Martin Fence Company . . . .
it
G. New Courthouse CCTV System - Precision Contracting
Services - Final Payment . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
H. Bid #6042/Thermoplastic Applicator - Florida
Transcor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
I. Request for Permission to Advertise the Proposed
Ordinance Amending Occupational License Tax . . .
14
J. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #016 . . . . . . .
14
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FY 1994-1995 AND 1995
ANNUAL AUDIT - J.K. BARTON, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
16
PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF PRANG ISLAND LAAC SITE . . . . 21
PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF FISCHER-SEBASTIAN RIVER LAAC
SITE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF CAIRNS TRACT LAAC SITE . . . . 35
PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS - ±18.4 ACRES AT S.E. CORNER 26TH STREET &
58TH AVENUE - BEN BAILEY, III . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
PUBLIC -HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - TRAFFIC `
CIRCULATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENTS . . . . 70
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - EMERGENCY PERMITTING TO PROTECT
BEACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION - PURSUE SPECIAL CATEGORY GRANT -
APPROVAL OF RUTH STANBRIDGE REIMBURSEMENT . . . . . . 102
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF WATER & SEWER REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
DONALD MacDONALD PARK - FRDAP GRANT AMENDMENT . . . . . . . 110
FLORIDA DEP BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM GRANT FOR
EROSION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS IN NORTH BEACH AREA -
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . 111
EMERGENCY BRIDGE REPAIR - OSLO ROAD & 58TH AVENUE - KNIGHT AND
MATHIS, INC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
SOUTH REGIONAL EFFLUENT REUSE TRANSMISSION MAIN, CHANGE ORDER
#1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST - McGRAND AND ASSOCIATES . . 114
r -
VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - FINAL PAYMENT -
SOUTHLAND PAINTING CORPORATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
SUNDOWNER'S SUBDIVISION WATER ASSESSMENT PROJECT - CHANGE
ORDER #1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST - TREASURE COAST
CONTRACTING, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
WORK AUTHORIZATION - VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT -
CAMP DRESSER AND McKEE, INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
STORM GROVE ROAD - SCHEDULE DATE TO DETERMINE IF THERE IS A
PRESENT NEED FOR CONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
_ Tuesday, March 19, 1996
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, March 19, 1996,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K.
Eggert, Vice Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht; and John W. Tippin.
Richard N. Bird was on vacation. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Administrator
Chandler the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS & DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
It was announced that item 14.B. was deleted and 11.G.3.,
Emergency Bridge Repair was added.
Chairman Adams requested addition of item 9.B., Emergency
Permitting for Beaches.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that Tax Collector Karl
Zimmerman had requested deletion of item 7.1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
(4-0, Commissioner Bird being absent) added
and deleted the above items to the Agenda. -
IN RODUCTION
genda.
INTRODUCTION OF NEW PERSONNEL DIRECTOR
Administrator Chandler introduced Ron B. Baker, the new
Personnel Director, to the Board of County Commissioners.
07 1-f`'-:
March 19, 1996
L J
F,
BOOK 97 fAEE 5'12
PROCLAMATION - TREASURE COAST COMIUMMY AIDS
NETWORK & LEMWALK '96
Chairman Adams read and presented the following proclamation
to Greg Roche, Area Chairman of TCCAN.
PROCLAMATION ' '
WHEREAS, the Treasure Coast Community AIDS Network (TCCAN) is a not-for-profit,
community based organization working with and for people challenged by HIV/AIDS to improve their
quality of life, without regard to race, religion, age, lifestyle or ability to pay; and
WHEREAS, TCCAN provides services, education and advocacy for men, wotffen and children
living with HIV disease, through case management, for the four counties in HRS District 15; and
WHEREAS, TCCAN was incorporated in July of 1990, created as a response to the growing
AIDS and HIV+ population in the four county area of Indian Riva, Martin, Okeechobee and St Lucie;
and
WHEREAS, The Center for Disease Control projects 40 trillion people will be infected with
the HIV/AIDS virus by the year 2,000, and the number of people diagnosed with the virus in the United
States continues to increase, with an estimated I in 250 Americans currently HIV positive and over 118
AIDS cases reported in Indian River County as of December 31,1995; and
WHEREAS, TCCAN believes it is the shared responsibility of individuals, families, community
and government to increase awareness and take part in activities to challenge the further spread of
HIV/AIDS here on our Treasure Coast; and
WHEREAS, a LIFEWALK '96 is being sponsored in the four counties, and will be held in
Indian River County at Riverside Park on Sunday, March 24, 1996 from 9:00 am. to 12:30 p.m.
Registration opens at 8:30 am.:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Florida that
LIFEWALK '96
will be held on Sunday, March 24, 1996 in Indian River County, and the Board urges the community
to join in one voice of compassion and commitment to help make strides to support people with
HIV/AIDS.
Adopted this 19 day of March, 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
F
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
V IQn1_
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Tippin requested the removal of Item 7.F, for
discussion, and Chairman Adams reminded the Board that Item 7.I.
had been deleted.
A. Reports -
The following report has been placed on file in the office of
the Clerk to the Board:
Indian River County Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report; FY 1994-1995
March 19, 1996
2
B. Out -of -Town Travel Approved for NATOA Conference
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved -
out -of -town
pproved"out-of-town travel for Commissioner Macht and Public
Works Director Jim Davis to attend the NATOA
Conference in Las Vegas, April 11-12, 1996.
C. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1996:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 7, 1996
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the
Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to
the Board, for the time period of March 1 thru March 7. 1996.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved the
Warrants as requested.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0017634
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
3/04/96
637.00
0017635
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
3/06/96
5,000.00
0017636-
C A SISU CONTRACTING,INC
3/06/96
8,909.37
0198571
ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC
3/07/96
85.00
0198572
ALBERTSONS SOUTHCO #4357
3/07/96
33.84
0198573
ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
3/07/96
76.60
0198574
ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE
3/07/96
256.00
0198575
ASSOCIATED BAG COMPANY
3/07/96
136.34
0198576
A T C 0 TOOL SUPPLY
3/07/96
17.47
0198577
AMERICAN GENEALOGICAL
3/07/96
48.00
0198578
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
3/07/96
864.39
0198579
ALL FLORIDA BEVERAGE & OFFICE
3/07/96
52.50
0198580
ALRO METALS SERVICE CENTER
3/07/96
88.00
0198581
ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING
3/07/96
66.52
0198582
ASAP SOFTWARE EXPRESS, INC
3/07/96
43.00
0198583
ART KRIEGER CONSTRUCTION
3/07/96
32.00
3
March 19, 1996 Booz 97
r
500K 97 p4GF 544
0198584
AMERICAN INSULATION COMPANY
3/07/96
850.00
0198585
AUTO PARTS UNLIMITED
3/07/96
215.22
0198586
APCO INTERNATIONAL
3/07/96
5,828.00
0198587
A T & T
3/07/96
14.81
0198588
AMERICAN COASTAL ENGINEERING,
3/07/96
180,832.50
0198589
A M S,INC
3/07/96
360.00
0198590
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
3/07/96
2,582.00
0198591
AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOC
3/07/96
117.96
0198592
ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
3/07/96
2.06
0198593
A T S I
3/07/96
470.00
0198594
BAIRD, JOSEPH A
3/07/96
_543.60
0198595
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC
3/07/96
1,086.75
0198596
BAKER BROTHERS, INC
3/07/96
76.02
0198597
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
3/07/96
2,012.00
0198598
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3/07/96
4,779.51
0198599
BEN HOGAN COMPANY
3/07/96
240.00
0198600
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
3/07/96
1,665.81
0198601
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
3/07/96
54.57
0198602
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
3/07/96
7,546.25
0198603
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
3/07/96
1,042.47
0198604
B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
3/07/96
199.70
0198605
BARNETT BAIL BONDS
3/07/96
8,494.00
0198606
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
3/07/96
_ 89.00
0198607
BERRY, MICHAEL F ESQ
3/07/96
1,000.00
0198608
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
3/07/96
136.66
0198609
BRODART CO
3/07/96
93.32
0198610
BAKER & TAYLOR
3/07/96
1.80
0198611
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
3/07/96
363.42
0198612
BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATN
3/07/96
466.06
0198613
BETHEA, WANDA DR
3/07/96
500.00
0198614
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
3/07/96
250.00
0198615
BOOKS ON TAPE
3/07/96
607.50
0198616
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
3/07/96
292.90
0198617
BILL NESPER INSURANCE
3/07/96
7.00
0198618
BELLSOUTH
3/07/96
4,347.41
0198619
BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA, INC
3/07/96
262.50
0198620
BRYANT, JOSEPH LEE
3/07/96
300.00
0198621
FALCON POWER LIMITED
3/07/96
818.66
0198622
COMMUNICATIONS INT, INC
3/07/96
1,977.10
0198623
CONSTRUCTION HYDRAULICS
3/07/96
93.00
0198624
COMPUTER & PERIPHERIAL
3/07/96
270.00
0198625
CHEMSEARCH
3/07/96
244.38
0198626
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
3/07/96
34,937.80
0198627
CROSS CREEK APPAREL
3/07/96
710.92
0198628
COMPUTER SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY
3/07/96
125.00
0198629
CONNECTING POINT COMPUTER
3/07/96
233.60
0198630
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
3/07/96
338.32
0198631
CLAY'S ASPHALT MAINTENANCE,INC
3/07/96
284.25
0198632
COOGAN, MAUREEN AND
3/07/96
540.20
0198633
COMPUTYPE, INC
3/07/96
531.63
0198634
CARTER,_ BECKY
3/07/96
127.50
0198635
C & S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
3/07/96
7,149.98
0198636
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORP
3/07/96
1,619.00
0198637
CYBERMEDIA
3/07/96
37.90
0198638
CAERE
3/07/96
293.75
0198639
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
3/07/96
38.50
0198640
CALHOUN, TARA
3/07/96
25.50
0198641
CAMPBELL, SUSAN
3/07/96
20:00
0198642
CAUDILL, LARRY
3/07/96
50.00
0198643
CARTER INVESTIGATIONS, INC
3/07/96
493.59
0198644
CUMMINGS, LAWRENCE & VEZINA PA
3/07/96
1,500.00
0198645
CENTRAL A/C & SUPPLY CO
3/07/96
115.22
0198646
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
3/07/96
336.00
0198647
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
3/07/96
307.50
0198648
DELTA SUPPLY CO
3/07/96
522.20
0198649
DEMCO INC
3/07/96
68.48
0198650
DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD
3/07/96
500.00
0198651
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
3/07/96
136.29
0198652
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
3/07/96
546.50
March 19, 1996
4
0198653
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
3/07/96
1,096.79
0198654
DON REID FORD
3/07/96
15,183.00
0198655
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
3/07/96
721.97
0198656
DAY -TIMERS, INC
3/07/96
37.45
0198657
DAVIS METER & SUPPLY, INC
3/07/96
4,223.04
0198658
DANKA INDUSTRIES, INC
3/07/96
443.44
0198659
DADE PAPER COMPANY
3/07/96
437.96
0198660
DOLQOWICZ, DAVID
3/07/96
80.00
0198661
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
3/07/96'
17.00.
0198662
EVERHART, MARK
3/07/96
30.45
0198663
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES
3/07/96
33.00
0198664
ENVIRONMENTAL WATERWAY
3/07/96
86.00
0198665
EXPEDITER, THE
3/07/96
17.06
0198666
E I L INSTRUMENTS, INC
3/07/96
637.50
0198667
F G F 0 A/F A C C CONFERENCE
3/07/96
200.00
0198668
FABER PRESS, INC
3/07/96
11500.00
0198669
FACTS ON FILE
3/07/96
401.83
0198670
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
3/07/96
46.50
0198671
FINNEY, DONALD G
3/07/96
97.73
0198672
FIRESIDE THEATRE, THE
3/07/96
20.35
0198673
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
3/07/96
425.47
0198674
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
3/07/96
162.00
0198675
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL SELF
3/07/96
47,129.00
0198676
F P & L
3/07/96
17,444.94
0198677
FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
3/07/96
299,896.36
0198678
FLORIDA RIBBON & CARBON
3/07/96
1,494.02
0198679
FLORIDA SLUDGE SERVICE
3/07/96
5,481.00
0198680
FRASER ENGINEERING & TESTING
3/07/96
400.00
0198681
FRED PRYOR SEMINARS
3/07/96
49.00
.0198682
FUCCI, JOHN P
3/07/96
826.00
0198683
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
3/07/96
122.75
0198684
FLINN,- SHEILA I
3/07/96
77.00
0198685
FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE
3/07/96
59,813.00
0198686
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
3/07/96
1,610.00
0198687
FELLSMERE, CITY OF
3/07/96
39.26
0198688
FOXBORO COMPANY
3/07/96
640.00
0198689
FALZONE, MATTHEW
3/07/96
29.75
0198690
FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
3/07/96
2,006.00
0198691
F A P A ATLANTIC COASTAL SECT
3/07/96
40.00
0198692
FLORIDA AMATEUR
3/07/96
160.00
0198693
GABBERS CONTRACTOR SUPPLY
3/07/96
1,207.94
0198694
GATEWAY FILTER CORP
3/07/96
2,414.51
0198695
GAVIN, BILL
3/07/96
98.14
0198696
GENEALOGICAL PUBLISHING
3/07/96
282.51
0198697
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE3/07/96
3.9.16
0198698
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO, INC
3/07/96
68.45
0198699
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
3/07/96
671.92
0198700
GREEN, MERCHON
3/07/96
127.50
0198701
HARRIS SANITATION
3/07/96
429.37
0198702
HARRISON COMPANY, THE
3/07/96
73.45
0198703
HARRISON UNIFORMS
3/07/96
5,502.86
0198704
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
3/07/96
45,028.27
0198705
H T S CONTROLS, INC
3/07/96
8,550.00
0198706
HORIZON NURSERY
3/07/96
101.00
0198707
HANDI PRO HOMEOWNER SERVICE
3/07/96
240.00
0198708
HOMETOWN PET CARE CENTER
3/07/96
12.00
01987.09
HOUTZ, ROD H.
3/07/96
500.00
0198710
INDIAN RIVER ACE PAINT
3/07/96
42.17
0198711
INDIAN RIVER BLUE PRINT, INC
3/07/96
50.40
0198712
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES
3/07/96
2,159.44
0198713
INGRAM
3/07/96
904.00
0198714
INTERLINK COMMUNICATIONS OF
3/07/96
452.00
0198715
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
3/07/96
272.00
0198716
INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE
3/07/96
291.65
0198717
INFORMATION MANGENMENTT OF FL
3/07/96
663.38
0198718
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
3/07/96
22.50
0198719
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING
3/07/96
3,942.81
0198720
INSURANCE SERVICING &
3/07/96
1,785.00
0198721
INMAC
3/07/96
190.90
0198722
INFORMATION/REFERENCE GROUP
3/07/96
3,227.60
0198723
HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
3/07/96
18.57
5
March 19, 1996 eooK 97 p4a 545
BOOK 97 PAGE 546
0198724
JACOBS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
3/07/96
86.50
0198725
J HERMAN & ASSOCIATES
3/07/96
39.57
0198726
JONES III, MACK
3/07/96
200.00
0198727
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
3/07/96
1,200.00
0198728
KEATING, ROBERT M
3/07/96
8.12
0198729
KELLY-CRESWELL CO INC
3/07/96
171.03
0198730
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
3/07/96
2,700.00
0198731
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
3/07/96
297.57
0198732
KELLY TRACTOR
3/07/96
614.07
0198733
KARL, JAMES W
3/07/96
2.99
0198734
KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY
3/07/96
487.77
0198735
KELT TELEPHONE
3/07/96
44.25
0198736
LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING
3/07/96
82.00
0198737
LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC
3/07/96
605.60
0198738
L B SMITH, INC
3/07/96
387.31
0198739
LANNAMANN, KENNETH A
3/07/96
11.64
0198740
LIBRARY STORE
3/07/96
25.73
0198741
LOGANS SHARPENING AND
3/07/96
3.00
0198742
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
3/07/96
50.55
0198743
MCCALL ELECTRIC, INC
3/07/96
153.50
0198744
MICKLER.'S FLORIDIANA, INC
3/07/96
86.30
0198745
MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC
3/07/96
12.95
0198746
MIKES GARAGE
3/07/96
35.00
0198747
MITCO WATER LAB, INC
3/07/96
36.22
0198748
MYRON L COMPANY
3/07/96
228.81
0198749
MATRX MEDICAL, INC
3/07/96
935.34
0198750
MITRON SYSTEMS CORP
3/07/96
805.50
0198751
MICHIGAN INSTRUMENTS, INC
3/07/96
784.90
0198752
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
3/07/96
164.17
0198753
MARTIN FENCE CO
3/07/96
88,985.40
0198754
MAJESTIC PARTNERS OF VERO
3/07/96
10,020.00
0198755
MERCURY TECHNOLOGIES
3/07/96
220.27
0198756
MERIN, SIDNEY J PHD
3/07/96
300.00
0198757
MICHIE BUTTERWORTH
3/07/96
41.18
0198758
MORELLO, KEN
3/07/96
500.00
0198759
MICROMARKETING ASSOCIATES
3/07/96
97.50
0198760
MORINE, JOHN
3/07/96
20.00
0198761
MIAMI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL
3/07/96
850.00
0198762
MID -FLORIDA FORKLIFT, INC
3/07/96
59.44
0198763
NEW READERS PRESS/PUB DIV
3/07/96
30.18
0198764
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
3/07/96
152.59
0198765
NEFF MACHINERY, INC
3/07/96
254.11
0198766
NATIONAL GUARDIAN SECURITY
3/07/96 _
75.00
0198767
NEAL-SCHUMAN
3/07/96
34.68
0198768
NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY
3/07/96
167.55
0198769
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
3/07/96
901.56
0198770
OSBORN, MERLE RN
3/07/96
220.00
0198771
ORAM DISTRIBUTING
3/07/96
187.95
0198772
PAGENET
3/07/96
13.22
0198773
PARAGON ELECTRIC, INC
3/07/96
2,455.00
0198774
PARKS RENTAL
3/07/96
282.65
0198775
PAVEMARK CORPORATION
3/07/96
17,520.43
0198776
PEPSI -COLA BOTTLING GROUP
3/07/96
57.75
0198777
PERKINS DRUG, INC
3/07/96
286.22
0198778
PETTY CASH
3/07/96
223.31
0198779
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
3/07/96
129.50
0198780
PINTO, TERRANCE G
3/07/96
46.02
0198781
PRENTICE HALL, INC
3/07/96
46.24
0198782
PUBLIX SUPERMARKET
3/07/96
78.98
0198783
PRIDE OF FLORIDA
3/07/96
4,320.80
0198784
PETTY CASH
3/07/96
- 112.99
0198785
P G A PACKAGING
3/07/96
260.13
0198786
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
3/07/96
382.98
0198787
POSTMASTER
3/07/96
96.00
0198788
PARRISH, JAMES L PE
3/07/96
1,764.30
0198789
POST, LAURA M
3/07/96
438.38
0198790
PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
3/07/96
100.00
0198791
PHOENIX AGENCY, INC THE
3/07/96
11,760.00
C
March 19, 1996
I
0198792
PARKER, JOSEPH
3/07/96
21.25
0198793
PARKER, TYLER
3/07/96
102.00
0198794
PRO LINE ENTERPRISES,INC
3/07/96
2,750.00
0198795
PROPERTY DAMAGE APPRAISER,INC
3/07/96
82.50
0198796
PUBLIC MEDIA INC
3/07/96
44.95
0198797
RADISSON PLAZA HOTEL
-CONCRETE,
3/07/96
158.00
0198798
RUSSELL INC
3/07/96
324.00
0198799
RAY -PACE'S WASTE EQUIPMENT,INC
3/07/96_
285.95
0198800
RODGERS, J MD
3/07/96
25.47
0198801
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
3/07/96
12,195.05
0198802
REED REFERENCE PUBLISHING CO
3/07/96
1,820.97
0198803
RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND, INC
3/07/96
836.08
0198804
ROCKBOTTOM BOOKS
3/07/96
1,281.70
0198805
R & G SOD FARMS
3/07/96
120.00
0198806
RELIANCE PETROLEUM CO, INC
3/07/96
230.89
0198807
SAFETY KLEEN CORP
3/07/96
218.48
0198808
SCOTTY'S, INC
3/07/96
2,478.00
0198809
SMITH,_BRUCE J ESQUIRE
3/07/96
1,000.00
0198810
SOUTH FLORIDA TURF
3/07/96
701.44
0198811
SOUTHERN CULVERT, DIV OF
3/07/96
9,981.30
0198812
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
3/07/96
865.20
0198813
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
3/07/96
2,144.29
0198814
ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
3/07/96
37.00
0198815
SUN COAST CLEANING SUPPLIES,
3/07/96
256.61
0198816
SIMON & SCHUSTER CONSUMER
3/07/96
146.68
0198817
SIGNS IN A DAY
3/07/96
35.00
0198818
SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY
3/07/96
1,407.06
0198819
SHADY OAK ANIMAL CLINIC
3/07/96
17.00
0198820
SOUTHLAND PAINTING CORP
3/07/96
1,395.00
0198821
SIMMONS, ANTHONY
3/07/96
136.66
0198822
SYSCO FOOD SERVICE
3/07/96
1,045.39
0198823
STEWART-INDUSTRIES
3/07/96
2,339.48
0198824
SEIG, DUANE L MD
3/07/96
45.00
0198825
SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY EQUIP
3/07/96
1,054.24
0198826
SMITH, VENICE TYRONE
3/07/96
1,241.25
0198827
SCHLITT BUILDERS, INC
3/07/96
500.00
0198828
STAMM MANUFACTURING
3/07/96
1,275.00
0198829
SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO
3/07/96
145.28
0198830
SIMSON, LAWRENCE R JR, MD
3/07/96
1,000.00
0198831
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
3/07/96
12,341.65
0198832
TIME LIFE BOOKS
3/07/96
15.49
0198833
TRODGLEN PAVING, INC
3/07/96
500.51
0198834
TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP
3/07/96
218.35
0198835
TIMOTHY ROSE CONTRACTING, INC
3/07/96
22,782.15
0198836 .
TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC
3/07/96
381:30
0198837
TREASURE COAST SALT
3/07/96
252.00
0198838
TRAFFIC PARTS, INC
3/07/96
1,736.00
0198839
THOMPSON PUMP & MFG CO INC
3/07/96
10,947.00
0198840
ULVERSCROSP LARGE PRINT BOOKS
3/07/96
498.19
0198841
UNIQUE BOOKS, INC
3/07/96
47.96
0198842
UNITED HORTICULTURAL SUPPLY
3/07/96
981.88
0198843
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
3/07/96
89.00
0198844
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
3/07/96
133.92
0198845
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
3/07/96
76.52
0198846
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
3/07/96
1,071.49
0198847
VERO STARTER & GENERATOR
3/07/96
270.00
0198848_._VILLAGE
ANIMAL CLINIC
3/07/96
15.00
0198849
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
3/07/96
46.16
0198850
VVA CHAPTER 567
3/07/96
20.00
0198851
VORTECH PHARMACEUTICALS
3/07/96
131.54
0198852
VEY, CARRIE
3/07/96
144.50
0198853
VERO BEARING & BOLT
3/07/96
664.72
0198854
VANSTAR
3/07/96
12,305.94
0198855
WEST PUBLISHING CORP
3/07/96
778.37
0198856
WESTSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL
3/07/96
15.00
0198857
WOODY'S PAPER & PRINT
3/07/96
63.78
0198858
W W GRAINGER, INC
3/07/96
134.55
0198859
WHITE, THOMAS
3/07/96
145.41
0198860
WILLHOFF, PATSY
3/07/96
130.00
0198861
WOLFE, MEGAN
3/07/96
17.00
7
March 19, 1996 dooK 07 F, u, 547
600K 97 PAGE 548
0198862
0198863
WSCF-FM
XEROX CORPORATION
3/07/96
3/07/96
300.00-
0198864
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICES
3/07/96
1,290.00
0198865
ZIMMERMANN, KARL
3/07/96
109.83
0198866
ZEPHYRHILLS SPRING WATER CO
3/07/96
8 .20
4 4.00
0198867
0198868
GIACCIO, NANCY
WARD, DONALD
3/07/96
1,000.00
0198869
MEDFORD, RICHARD
3/07/96
3/07/96
114.90
0198870
DRADAK, JOHN J
3/07/96
105.40
0198871
FIELDHOUSE, MAUDE
3/07/96
48.91
0198872
CLARK, JACK D
3/07/96
52.59
0198873
JONES, LLOYD
3/07/96
52.58
0198874
JACOBSON, CALVERD F
3/07/96.
110.44
0198875
CLARKE, FRANK J
3/07/96
116.36
0198876
BERRY, HAROLD
3/07/96
114.00
0198877
0198878
FUHR SR, WILLIAM R
CLAWSON, DONALD R
3/07/96
105.30
105.52
0198879
FISHER, GEORGE K
3/07/96
3/07/96
105.54
0198880
JACKEL, JOHN W
3/07/96
105.38
0198881
0198882
BERKER SR, JAMES L
ASKEW JR, TIMOTHY M
3/07/96
105.36
55.10
0198883
SEXTON PROPERTIES/VERO BEACH
3/07/96
3/07/96
52.57
0198884
0198885
MATTISON, ELSBETH
BOOTH, GEORGE L
3/07/96
52.88
105.16
0198886
ROTELLA, ROBERT
3/07/96
3/07/96
109.86
0198887
CHOUINARD, R 0
3/07/96
110.54
0198888
KARCHEFSKI, JEROME R
3/07/96
52.72
0198889
KUPFERER, LEO
3/07/96
55.85
0198890
METANTE, RUBEN L
3/07/96
54.99
0198891
THOMAS, GLENN J
3/07/96
52.78
0198892
0198893
POSEY, CHESTER L
CARLSON, CLIFFORD
3/07/96
52.75
105.84
0198894
PENDERGAST, WILLIAM
3/07/96
3/07/96
97.72
0198895
STONER, ALLAN W
3/07/96
40.00
52.68
0198896
0198897
WILSON, THOMAS C
CHEWNING, TAYLOR
3/07/96
57.05
0198898
WEATHERSTONE, DENNIS
3/07/96
3/07/96
114.48
0198899
SERLIN MD STEPHEN M
3/07/96
80.00
80.00
0198900
0198901
DEAN'S ELITE
MORLEY, MICHAEL & CYNTHIA
3/07/96
3/07/96
52.67
0198902
MC LAUGHLIN, L F
3/07/96
57.06
55.49
0198903
LA PLANT, THOMAS M
3/07/96
52.85
0198904
UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST FELLOWS
3/07/96
53.19
0198905
HOLBROOK, WALTER
3/07/96
52.67
0198906
KAETZEL,JOAN E
3/07/96
52.67
0198907
WILLETTE, PAULINE 0
3/07/96
105.70
0198908
NEALON, PATRICIA A
3/07/96
105.72
0198909
BROOKS, DAVID
3/07/96
78.26
0198910
NAGLE, PAUL A
3/07/96
105.46
8
March 19, 1996
1,118,237.99
D. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver - Island Club Subdivision
Planned Development
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1996:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director ,
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E. I,
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E.
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Island Club
Subdivision Planned Development
REFERENCE: PD-96-03-04/L.D.P. Application No. 95110136-006
DATE: March 4, 1996 CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Knight, McGuire & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Beazer Homes Florida, Inc., the
developers of Island Club Subdivision has requested a waiver of the cut and fill balance
requirement of Section 930.07(2)(d) of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Ordinance. The Planning & Zoning Commission approval of the preliminary planned
development plan was made effective by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of February 20, 1996. The 131 lot single family subdivision is located on the barrier
island on the west side of S.R. A -1-A adjacent to Baytree Village Condominium to the east
and Marbrissa Subdivision to the south. The western 40% of the site is located in special
flood hazard area Zone AE with base flood elevation of 7.0 ft. N.G.V.D. The ten year
stillwater elevation is 5.0 ft. The proposed displacement of the floodplain below 5.0 ft. for
which the waiver is requested is 4500 cubic yards as indicated in the attached letter from the
applicant's engineer dated January 8, 1996.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The project meets the cut and fill balance waiver criteria provided in Section 930.07(2)(d)1.
of being situated in an estuarine environment within the 100 year floodplain along the
Indian River and in staffs opinion it appears that all other Stormwater Management and
Flood Protection Ordinance requirements can be met without adverse impact on other lands
in the estuarine environment. The land development permit application is currently under
review.
Alternative No. 1
Approve the cut and fill balance waiver request.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the waiver request and require re -design to accomplish an on-site balance of cut and
fill.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
March 19, 1996 Roos 97 F A43
BOOK W Flu 550
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved the cut and
fill balance waiver request, as recommended in the
memorandum.
E. - Annual Fiber Optic Cable Right -of -Way Permit and Interlocal
Agreement with Indian River Farms Water Control District
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 1996:
DATE: MARCH 12, 1996
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVIC S
SUBJECT: FIBER OPTIC CABLE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT
BACKGROUND:
The County has a annual Permit and Interlocal Agreement with Indian River Farms Water Control
District for our fiber optic cable between the Sheriff's complex and the new courthouse. The fee
associated with this agreement is $2,076.00 per year.
ANALYSIS:
The District has presented the County with a 1996 agreement for execution. There is no increase in
fees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends board approval of the agreement as presented and authorize their Chairman to
execute the documents.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being 'absent) approved the
agreement -as presented, as recommended in --the
memorandum.
PERMIT AND
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
10
March 19, 1996
F. Bid #6039/Perimeter Fence for Wabasso Scrub Conservation Area -
Martin Fence Company
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1996:
DATE: March 7, 1996
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Directo
General Services 4
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: IRC Bid #6039/Perimeter Fence for Wabasso
Scrub Conservation Area
Sole Bid Received
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed To:
Replies:
No Bids:
BID TABULATION:
Martin Fence Company
Lake Park, FL 33403
ESTIMATED BUDGET:
RECOMMENDATION:
February 14, 1996
February 2, 7, 1996
Ten (10) Vendors
One (1) Vendor
-0-
$13,925.00
$25,000.00
Staff recommends award to Martin Fence Company as the sole
bidder. (See attached memo)
Commissioner Tippin inquired what type of fence was to 'be
installed, why it was necessary, and why there was such a
difference between the estimated budget amount and the bid amount.
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that the
fence was being installed to prevent illegal dumping in the scrub
area.
General Services Director Sonny Dean advised that it was going
to be "hog wire" fencing, not chain link. He advised that staff
had made inquiries on what the cost might be, but when the bid came
in it was much lower.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert., SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved awarding
bid #6039 to Martin Fence Company in the amount of
$13,925, as recommended in the memorandum.
11
March 19, 1996
�ooK 97 PAGF551
aooK 97 Fa,F 552
G. New Courthouse CCTV System - Precision Contracting Services -
Final Payment
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 6, 1996:
DATE: MARCH 6, 1996
TO:_ HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVIC S
SUBJECT: NEW COURTHOUSE CCTV SYSTEM - FINAL PAYMENT
PRECISION CONTRACTING SERVICES (PCS)
BACKGROUND:
Precision Contracting Services (PCS) had the contract to install the CCTV and Court Recording
systems in the new courthouse. This work has been completed and the contractor is requesting
release of retainage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval to release the retainage of $5,500 to PCS.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved release of
retainage of $5,500 to Precision Contracting
Services, as recommended in the memorandum.
H. Bid #6042/Thermoplastic Applicator - Florida Transcor
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 1996:
12
March 19, 1996
DATE: March 11, 1996
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services DirectmA
FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Award Bid #6042/ Thermoplastic Applicator
Traffic Engineering Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date: February 29, 1996
Advertising Dates: Feb. 14, 21, 1996
Advertisement Mailed to: Twenty Four (24) Vendors
Replies: Two (2) Vendors
Statement of "No Bids" Thirteen (13)
VE_ BID TOTAL
Stimsonite Corporation $12,800.00
Atlanta, Ga
Florida Transcor $9,923.00
Jacksonville, F1
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $9,923.00
ESTIMATED BUDGET $9,923.00
Traffic Engincering Capital Outlay Account 111-245-541-066-49
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Florida Transcor as the lowest,
most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the
Invitation to Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved bid #6042
be awarded to Florida Transcor in the amount of
$9,923.00, as recommended in the memorandum.
13
March 19, 1996
eooK 97 PAGE 553
BOOK 97, PAGE 554
I. Request for Permission to Advertise the Proposed Ordinance
Amending Occupational License Tax
DELETED.
Z Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #016
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 13, 1996:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 13, 1996
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 016
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
The attached budget amendment establishes a separate special revenue Native Uplands
Acquisition Fund. Funding is provided by property developers payments for native uplands
mitigation and is used for the acquisition and management of native habitat preserve areas.
These funds were previously accounted for in an escrow account.
2. This entry increases the current year budget for the EDA grant for fund balance carried
forward. The grant project timetable was extended into the current fiscal year.
3. A Joint Participation Agreement was entered into between the Florida Department of
Transportation and the County for a Public Transit Block Grant in December, 1995. This
entry allocates the funds to be passed through to the Council on Aging to provide operating -
assistance and to be used as a portion of the required funding match for the County's
Federal Transit Section 9 Grant.
4. Increase needed in the Parks Department garbage and solid waste budget due to the Budget
Director's underestimation of solid waste assessments for this department.
5. Allocate funding for pumper approved at the March 7, 1995 Board of County Commission
meeting ($193,679) delivered in October, 1995 and tanker truck that was approved at
October 17, 1995 Board of County Commission meeting ($144,645) and was delivered
February, 1996. Due to tight budget constraints, it is necessary to use ALS revenues to
fund fire equipment.
6. Allocate funding for weatherization program approved by Board of County Commission at
the March 5, 1996 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 016.
14
March 19, 1996
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the
Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being
absent) approved budget
amendment #016, as recommended in the memorandum.
TO: Members of the Board
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 016
of County Commissioners
004-223-515-012.13
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
DATE: March 13, 1996
OMB Director
MSTU/EDA Grant/Medicare Match
Entry
$102
$p
MSTU/EDA Grant/Other Contractual Serv.
004223-515-033.49
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1
REVENUE
REVENUE
Native Uplands Land Acq./Cash Forward
001-000-334-045.00
127-000-389-040.00
$100,000
$0
EXPENSE
EXPENSE
-
General Fund/IR Council on Aging
001-110-564-088.32
Native Uplands Land Acq/Engineering Srvs
$0
127-210-537-033.13
$100,000
$0
2. REVENUE
MSTU/EDA Grant/Cash Forward 004-000-389-040.00 $26,134 $0
EXPENSE
MSTU/EDA Grant/Regular Salaries 004-223-515-011.12 $6,921 $0
MSTU/EDA Grant/Social Security 004-221-515-m -7 11 eA')o I On
15
March 19, 1996
BOCK 97 Phu.555
MSTU/EDA Grant/Retirement
004-223-515-012.12
$1,225
$0
MSTU/EDA Grant/Ins. Life & Health
004-223-515-012.13
$645
$0
MSTU/EDA Grant/Medicare Match
004-223-515-012.17
$102
$p
MSTU/EDA Grant/Other Contractual Serv.
004223-515-033.49
$16,812
$0
3.
REVENUE
General Fund/State Transit Block Grant
001-000-334-045.00
$79,430
$0
EXPENSE
-
General Fund/IR Council on Aging
001-110-564-088.32
$79,430
$0
4.
EXPENSE
General Fund/Parks Department
001-210-572-034.33
$7,000
$0
General Fund/Reserve for Contingencies
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$7,000
5.
REVENUE
ESD/ALS Charges
1144000-342-061.00
$145,000
$0
EXPENSE
ESD/Fire Department/Automotive
114-120-522-066.42
$338,324
$0
ESD/Fire Department/Cash Forward
114-120-522-099.92
$0
$193,324
6.
EXPENSE
General Fund/
Economic Opportunities Council
001-110-569-088.20
$2,378
$0
General Fund/Reserve for Contingencies
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$2,378
15
March 19, 1996
BOCK 97 Phu.555
BOOK 97 PAGF 556
COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FY 1994-1995 AND
1995 ANNUAL AUDIT - T.K. BARTON, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 1996:
TO: - HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 12,19%
SUBJECT: 1995 ANNUAL AUDIT
FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT
Berger/Harris/Toombs/Elam & McAlpin, Certified Public Accountants, have completed the 1995
annual audit. P. Ross Cotherman, II, CPA, would like to present to the Board the results of the
annual audit. Please provide the opportunity for Mr. Cotherman at the March 19, 1996 Board
meeting to present his findings.
Clerk of the Circuit Court Jeff Barton introduced Bob Harris
and Ross Cotherman, partners with Berger/Harris/Toombs/Elam &
McAlpin, C.P.A. He wished to thank staff for their preparation of
the report and Berger/Harris, who did an excellent job on the audit
ahead of schedule.
Bob Harris briefly explained the four sections of the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The report contains 26
reports and 267 pages. He reviewed the firm's Report of
Independent Accountants and advised that the County has received an
unqualified opinion, which is the highest level that any entity can
receive.
IC -8 Berger Harris (Toombs I Elam
rc� &McAlpin
Ce nthed Punk( AiL(mintam Chartered
Commonwealth Building
Suite 200
3150 Cardinal Drive
Vero Beach, Florida 32%3
4W/234$4M Report of Independent Accountants
The Honorable County Commissioners and
Constitutional Officers -
Indian River County, Florida
We have audited the accompanying general purpose financial statements and the combining,
individual fund, account group and supporting financial statements of Indian River County,
Florida, as of and for the year ended September 30, 1995, as listed in the table of contents. These
financial statements are the responsibility of Indian River County, Florida, management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.
16
March 19, 1996
s � �
We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and
Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about
whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining,
on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of Indian River County, Florida, as of September 30,
1995, and the results of its operations and the cash flows of its proprietary fund types for the year
then ended, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Also, in our opinion,
the combining, individual fund, account group and supporting financial statements referred to
above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of each of the individual
funds, account groups and supporting financial statements of Indian River County, Florida, as of
September 30, 1995, and the results of operations of such funds and the cash flows of the
individual proprietary funds for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.
In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued a report dated February
2, 1996 on our consideration of Indian River County, Florida's internal control structure and a
report dated February 2, 1996 on its compliance with laws and regulations.
The information presented in the statistical section is presented for purposes of additional
analysis and is not a required part of the general purpose financial statements or the combining,
individual fund, account group and supporting financial statements. Such information has not
been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial
statements or the combining, individual fund, account group and supporting financial statements
and, according, we express no opinion on it.
44,16f ' Xis '
CPAs GSL:.
Vero Beach, Florida
February 2; 1996
Member AICPA
Fort Pierce/lensen BeachNero Beach
1
Memher AICPA Division For CPA Firms
Private Companies Practice Section
Memtwr FICPA
In addition, Mr. Harris advised they have issued internal
control reports on each of the constitutional officers as well as
the Board. The audit also includes reports on compliance with
laws and regulation, management comments, and a report on Federal
and State financial assistance.
Mr. Harris advised that Ross Cotherman, 'the director in charge
of the County's audit, and Tommy Barry, the director in charge of
the Housing Authority audit, were also present. He indicated they
are always willing to meet with any of the Board members to discuss
17
March 19, 1996 �ooF 97 PAGF.5a7
\ ii
F,
BOOK 97 PAGE 558
the reports so that they may gain a better understanding of any
part of the report or audit. He asked if there were any questions.
Commissioner Eggert had two questions. She asked if there was
anything in the Management Comments that he needed to expand upon,
and Mr. Harris referred to and elucidated on the Status of Prior
Year Comments and Current Year Comments found on page 235 and the
responses thereto.
Beer i Hams j Toombs j Elam
& NkAlpm
The Honorable County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
Management Comments
September 30, 1995
Page Three
All comments in the prior year management letter have been sufficiently implemented or
otherwise resolved to our satisfaction except for the following:
The Purchasing Department has their own purchasing package which is incompatible with the
rest of the County's financial applications and requires considerable time from the Clerk's Data
Processing Department to transfer data to and from the PC network to the Clerk's mini -computer.
We recommend that the Purchasing Department explore all possible avenues to utilize existing
hardware and software to meet its needs, thereby providing for more efficient operations.
The County does not have a written policy which prohibits expending grant proceeds for partisan
political activities. We recommend that the County establish a written policy which prohibits the
use of grant funds for any political purposes. All employees should be made aware of this policy
through written notice.
Utility accounts receivable and utility deposits have not been reconciled between the detail and
the general ledger. We recommend that the Utility Department review and_ reconcile these
balances on a monthly basis.
As per Florida Statute 274.05/274.06, Disposition of Surplus Property, the County needs to
advertise the information regarding the items to be sold at public auction by Tampa Machinery in
the local paper.
March 19, 1996
18
_I
Bm 97 PnF, 560
investments versus their carrying costs. He felt it was something
that any governmental official needed to be aware of in these
times.
Then Commissioner Eggert voiced her concern with what has
happened with some of the Housing Authority's holdings, since it
was beginning to affect some of the County's affordable housing
programs. She noticed that some comments seemed to not have been
corrected from the prior year.
Mr. Harris advised that the Housing Authority's administrative
records are actually very well done. The problem had to do with
reports done in the field and, primarily, tangible personal
property, generally not well -identified and not always reported.
A certain process is required by Federal regulations, which needs
to be implemented and addressed.
In addition, Mr. Harris pointed out that from 1993, the last
draw -down of the grants made to build the projects, they had
discovered when analyzing the work papers of the prior auditors an
additional $120,272. These funds are still to be received from the
Federal government and available for projects. He believed it was
necessary to use it for the Orangewood project, but warranted
further study.
There were no further questions of Mr. Harris.
NO ACTION TAKEN.
20
March 19, 1996
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (407) 567-8000
February 8, 1996
BergerlHarris[ToombsIElam & McAlpin
Commonwealth Building
Suite 200
3150 Cardinal Drive
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Gentlemen:
The following is our response to the management comments for the 1994/95 financial statements.
Purchasing System:
The County will work towards making the Purchasing Department's computer package compatible with the County
Clerk's accounting program and financial applications.
Partisan Political Activities:
Indian River County has never expended grant proceeds for partisan political activities and had never intended to do so.
Staff will develop a written policy to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and give all employees
affiliated with grants written notice as required in federally assisted programs.
Utility Accounts Receivable/Utiliry Deposits:
Subsequent to completion of the field work, the IRCU has instituted revisions to the Policy and Procedure Manual,
including assigning personnel to follow-up on reconciling between the detail and the general ledger amounts on a monthly
basis.
Disposition of Surplus Property
In accordance with Florida State Statute 274.05/274.06, the County will advertise in a local publication items sold at
public auction by Tampa Machinery.
We wish to thank the audit staff of Berger�HarrisjToombsjElam & McAlpin for their constructive comments and
assistance in presenting an accurate and detailed report of the financial condition of Indian River County for fiscal year
1994/95.
Sincerely,
A - 80-j'j
Jos A. Baird
OMB Director
Mr. Harris commented that they would like to see a regular
report given to the Board on the fair market value of their
19
97 P
March 19, 1996
���or PVF
PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF PRANG ISLAND LAAC SITE
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter of -a' (0 M�-�
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of w- V 19 9 b
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid 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.
S"m to -and. yubs�ribed.before me this l day of xi. A.D. 19 =1 (Q
�_kBusiness Manager)
m .
PIU.ClK. NOTARY PUBLIC.
r f .rvnmrssrrn i XP June 29, 1
. (SEi1L)'•7)_ Ii' r.airtsao Number. CC300572
I . •. [SARRARA C . PRAr' E
Prang
Island
r
ntvrrK Vr I'HaLIY IRCCLa7Lil, '
Nolloe•.Of ,"9* to .00" Purchase of
environmenta y e, It Cent pro under
pr the
m.
Thesb1� Prenpt�e.kA, -Para-
du MR" operty le We".*- owned by The k1e-
�M111d �el�`A"en � r ay CM
Wen IV,- in Section 8, Township 33 S, Amps 40 E.
see the aboven�p far the k>cdmi
A public nteeUrip at which parties in Interest and
dtbefte ahal have an oppoNtrdty to be heard, will
be held by the Board • ofIndian o<
lift t�bereo'tl� -County Admirtistrift SuYd-
klp, boated at 1840 25th Sbaet, Vero Beech, Flor-
ida ah.Tw*dey, Mamh 19,1998 ata9.05 aTROM&O
m.
which may be made a � toany
l need t as-
sure .VW a varba t record of is
made, which Mcluda USOMW which 1 Is based and evkfertoe upon
ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA.
TION FOR THIS *METM MUST CONTACT THE
..
COUNTY'S AMERIGWS WITH DUBLITES ACT
LC Z1 46 M;Uft IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET -
No,
MAN RNER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COAsuEEIONERS
BY -s -Fran B. Adams, Chakman
Feb.17,1998 i 12798F18
Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois reviewed the
Memorandum dated March 11, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Ki§btl g, AIC
Community Develop�pmeen Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,T�AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: March 11, 1996
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PURCHASE OF PRANG ISLAND LAAC SITE
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of March 19, 1996.
21
March 19, 1996
Pcv 97 PnF.561
bm 97 pace 562
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
County purchase of the Prang Island (a.k.a. Prange Islands) property
using land acquisition bond funds. The purchase contract is
summarized as follows:
Purchaser: Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners / Florida Communities Trust
(Indian River County will hold title)
Seller: The Idlewyld Corporation, Inc.
Cost -Share: Florida Communities Trust (40%).
(includes share of acquisition costs)
Total Price: $696,000 (+$26,274 per acre overall)
Other Costs: +$44,000 (appraisals, survey, environ.
audit, title insurance, management plan)
County Bonds
Expenditure: +$443,736 (not including initial management costs)
Acreage: +26.49 Acres (22.41 uplands; 4.08 wetlands)
Principal Condition:
Closing subject to County Commission and FCT Governing Body approval
of purchase contract and project plan, including management plan.
LAAC Recommendation:
At its meeting on January 31, 1996, the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the proposed purchase and management plan.
The attached Prang Island purchase contract and management plan
were considered by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting
of February 6, 1996, at which time the Board ratified the option
agreement and project plan for submittal to the Florida Communities
Trust (FCT). Subsequently, the FCT approved the Prang Island
project plan at its quarterly meeting on February 8, 1996. This
matter is now being brought back to the Board to fulfill a State
statute requirement that the County hold a public meeting after
having provided at least 30 days advertised public notice to
formally consider exercising its purchase option for the Prang
Island property.
The State requirement that the Board hold a public meeting to
consider exercising its option after having provided 30 days
advertised notice of the meeting applies because the County chose
to keep its appraisals of the subject property confidential until
the seller executed a binding option contract. Once that option
contract had been signed, the appraisals were released and have
been available to the public during the 30 day period prior to the
advertised public meeting. Besides meeting State statute
requirements,_tile hearing on Lhe 'Prang Island purchase will serve
to meet a Land Acquisition Guide requirement that the County hold
a public hearing prior to purchasing any property with land
acquisition bond funds.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The subject Prang Islands) property has been under consideration
by LAAC since the Committee began reviewing sites in 1990. The
Prang Island(s) property is currently ranked 18th out of 20
projects on the LAAC site acquisition list. Since the project was
initially identified for acquisition, the Vero Beach City Council
has expressed strong support of the project acquisition.
22
March 19, 1996
� s s
Site Characteristics
The property consists of two islands in the Indian River Lagoon,
located within Vero Beach city limits just west of Castaway Cove
Wave IV. The larger of the two islands (Prang Island) consists of
+19.5 acres, +2.9 acres of which are mangrove wetlands. A +5 acre
tropical (maritime) hammock exists on the south portion of Prang
Island, with- the.remainder of the island consisting of Brazilian -
pepper and Australian pine. The existence of exotics is primarily
due to past spoil deposit. A make -shift campsite exists under the
Australian pine canopy on the north portion of the island, and a
+4.3 acre seagrass bed exists along the northwest shore of Prang
Island.
The smaller north island, "Little Prang", is +7 acres in size, +1
acre of which is mangrove fringe wetlands. Approximately +4.5 acres
of Little Prang Island are disturbed with Brazilian pepper and
Australian pine vegetation.
Prang Island is located near a known historic Ais Indian village
site on the adjacent barrier island, and an archaeological shell
midden is reported on Prang Island. The island's name comes from
the Prange family who homesteaded the island in the late 1800s.
Evidence of the Prange homestead exists in the maritime hammock
portion of the island.
Prang Island has a land use designation of RL, Low Density
Residential, up to 5 units per acre. Little Prang has a land use
designation of ES, Environmentally Sensitive, with a development
density of up to one unit per 5 acres. The current owner has
obtained preliminary plat approval for 20 single-family residential
lots on Prang Island. However, because the State prohibits bridges
to such islands and public utilities are not available, final
approval for development of the 20 lot subdivision has not been
forthcoming.
•Ownership Characteristics
Currently, the subject property is owned by the Idlewyld
Corporation, I_nc., represented by Ronald Rathburn. Public records
indicate that the subject property was purchased by the current
owner in 1979 as part of a bigger tract that has since been
developed as Castaway Cove. The current tax assessed value is
$122,930.
*Acquisition Cost -Share & Property Management
Two issues which are important with respect to all proposed
purchases are obtaining cost share assistance in property
acquisition and addressing management costs.
• Cost -Share
In 1993; Indian River County submitted an application to the FCT,
which was subsequently approved for 40% cost -share funding,
including 40% of pre-acquisition expenditures (e.g., survey,
environmental audit, appraisals). At that time, the County
retained a "Range of Value Letter" appraisal of the Prang
Island(s), solely for the purpose of providing an estimate of
project cost for the FCT cost -share application. This Letter
appraisal indicated a $700,000 to $1,300,000 range of value. To
ensure that FCT allocated a sufficient amount of funds, the County
used the higher estimate ($1,300,000) in its FCT application.
For this reason, the FCT has reserved up to $540,000 for its
purchase cost -share match. Because the approved appraised value and
23
March 19, 1996 BOOK 97 PAGE 563
FF_
b00K 97 PAGF 64
negotiated price are less than the estimate submitted in the FCT
application, a request for additional FCT funds to satisfy the 40%
match of the actual purchase cost is not necessary.
• Management Costs
Besides cost share, management cost is always an issue with
environmental lands acquisition. The FCT program, which is highly
competitive state-wide, awards points for projects based on the
provision of resource-based public access and.use facilities. In
order to qualify for FCT cost -share funding, the County obligated
itself in its, FCT application to provide limited access and
resource-based facilities on the subject property.
Specifically, conditions of the Conceptual Approval Agreement
include County provision of a limited boat dock (one or two slips),
nature trial, picnic area, and informational display. The County is
also obligated in the FCT Agreement to remove invasive exotic
vegetation, as applicable, and implement a resource management plan
in coordination with forestry and wildlife agencies.
A number of initial site improvements, including exotic plant
removal, and resource management (e.g., native plant revegetation),
can be paid for with bond referendum funds as part of.. -the property
acquisition. Improvements such as a limited boat dock will need to
be funded by a source other than referendum monies. Potential
funding sources include park development grants, county mitigation
funds, and tree removal violation funds. Also, staff has become
aware of Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
funding opportunities relating to exotic plant removal and native
plant restoration, which funding will be pursued.
Relating to long term management, the property will be incorporated
into the county -wide park system and managed by the County Parks
Division in coordination with county environmental planning staff.
Volunteer groups will be asked to assist the County with certain
aspects of property management such as nature trail up -keep,
Brazilian pepper control, and litter patrol.
County staff has initiated discussions with City of Vero Beach
staff regarding City assistance in management and related costs. As
reflected in the draft management plan, county staff plan to bring
this matter to the City Council to determine the extent of City
contribution.
For the Prang Island property, county staff has opted to have a
management plan (see attached) drafted by the county's
acquisition/management consultants, an option which is specified in
the County's contract with FloridAffinity, Inc. Page 21 of the
draft plan summarizes estimated management and development costs.
*Appraisals
In accordance with County Land Acquisition Guide and FCT
procedures, two independent appraisals were obtained (by -the FCT)
to determine an approved appraised value for the subject property.
The two appraisal firms selected were J.T. Namie & Associates, and
Aucamp, Dellenback, & Whitney. The appraisals were subsequently
certified by a review appraiser (Boyle Appraisal Service), as
required by the FCT.
The results of the two appraisals are summarized as follows.
March 19, 1996
24
PRANG ISLAND APPRAISALS
APPRAISER VALUE % DIVERGENCE APPROVED APPR. VALUE
J.T. Namie & Assoc. $722,000 - - -
Aucamp, pellenback $675,000 6.5 % -
& Whitney
$722,000
The negotiated purchase price of $696,000 is 96% of the approved
appraised value.
*Contract
In coming to terms with FCT and county staff on the negotiated
purchase price ( subject to County Commission and FCT approval) , the
seller has executed a standard FCT purchase contract Option
Agreement with minor modifications. A copy of that contract is
attached to this staff report.
ANALYSIS
•Multiple Benefits
• Environmental Education
As with most of the County's proposed acquisitions, the Prang
Island purchase will enhance education in the County. With Prang
Island, the educational function will consist of informational
displays for boaters accessing the site. Also, the campsite
existing on site is proposed to be maintained and made available
for outings by groups such as the Environmental Learning Center and
the Boy Scouts, on an appointment basis.
• Comprehensive Plan Acquisition Commitment
Conservation Policy 6.3 of the County Comprehensive Plan commits
the County to acquire a minimum of 100 acres of coastal/tropical
hammock vegetative community for conservation purposes. The Prang
Island project contributes to fulfilling this policy by conserving
+5 acres of tropical hammock. The project also furthers objectives
in the County (and City) comprehensive plans relating to floodplain
protection, open space, rare species conservation, and protection
of archaeological/historic resources.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Prang Islands) purchase contract by agreeing to exercise its
purchase option. Staff also recommends that the Board authorize
staff to proceed with property closing tasks in coordination with
the FCT, and authorize the Board Chairman to execute any documents
associated with the closing.
25
March 19, 1996 Bm 97 PAGE 5 5
N%Z
N.T.S.
tRZ-0 +1A►iyRpr� it Aa.
-��ALIAW
I L io3 A�
SvOMEN►b�p
i �►sf•86C""�
*4. ..Wool
�j M�K4�tovE �
�N6►E
�• �11RpYN� Zt AG
G ►suwp)
CD C&MKTAL,/
IMMMOG�
gi AG
l'
PRANG ISI AM (S )
BOOK 97 PAGE 566
DRAFT
Castawa
`:
Blvd
APPRoxiJw7S +2eac. LOBIBC n =Q1ATI0R:, R1 A., Single-family residential (1 twit/ac.)
m. OF rax PARCSL S: - 1 RI-As�1� f6lic-4p ily #WA*,'YvA l vnfr/5oc )
10. O! CUMUS: 1
ASGXSSW VALDR ; 85%% =144,620 FUTURE LAD USE RL, Residential Lw (up to 5 units/RC.)
DNSIOIRTIOIIa
9010CIAL DBSCRZP2I01s The subject property contains approximately 8-10 acres of comets'/tropical hassock= +3
acres of mangrove fringe vetlandsf and +15-17 acres of Brazilian pspper/Anstra'ian pines. -A#5 acre eesgraas bed.
axis" in the lagoon on the vest side of Rig Prang Island. The ialands are located in the Indian River Lagoon,
In an area designated as a State aquatic Preserve and an "Estuary of Rational Signiificaacs". The present owner bes
• locally vested subdivision plat for 20 siaglrfamily late an "Sig Prang" (a.k.a. "Paradise Island"). eorwet,
a State bridging and utilities access moratorium over state sovereignty submerged bottontarda has prsysmted
development to data. A makeshift campsite exists an the vest -central portion of Big Prang Island. as
arobasological midden is suspected on-site is association with the tropical bammock, although a survey has not been
conducted. The Florida Cosnuaities Trost baa approved 40% funding of property acquisition.
WAI—c.pug
26
March 19, 1996
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Jim Granse of 36 Pine Arbor Lane spoke in favor of the
purchase. He stressed that if the County were to pay for the
entire acquisition, the State would be out of.the picture and we
would avoid the State's requirements on what needed to be done on
the island. He believed that might prove a problem in the future.
Jim Haeger of 1865 Garden Grove Parkway, Vero Beach, spoke in
favor of the acquisition. He described it as a very diverse
hammock and thought it would be a great addition to the County.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved the Prang
Island purchase contract by exercising its purchase
option and authorized staff to proceed with the
property closing tasks in coordination, with the
Florida Communities Trust, as requested and
recommended by staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED GRANT AWARD AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
COPY OF OPTION LETTER IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WARRANTY DEED DATED 4/4/96 HAS BEEN PLACED
ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
27
March 19, 1996 mcK 97 PAi,E 567
POOK 97 PAGE 568
PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF FISCHER-SEBASTIAN RIVER
LAAC SITE
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a_
in the matter of 199
In the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of `. I �, 1 19 �
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid 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.
q�
Swam found subscribed before me this day of _1_e v A.D. tgq—k—
(Business Manager)
I, J„
f "':'L•r. :: !:I•Rl,GUr. NOTARY PUnLIC.
(t ....... o. 1 r. -3z,. Sy :mimms. , F.p . une
`� ,<•{SEAL] G� „r,.ss,onfJombw. GG30Q572
I .. [..AfitRARA l;"SPRAGUE ,
Naft of rt1eetkq�r I�q
enrlronmentatlY aT0n1}loant. Pry uftaro
Ins ., -111 1 +- as :We• Is
owned W or. f'1� A Fiedler, and located r�i
of Colsdy Road 51 done 'ale east arld west banks
'of are soual of dle iver, SL' SWaHm Rin
Secdm 14 ander Tom* 31, % Ranp 38 E
See ft abov9 �p for th_e bCBaon
A pubic - at which pauaea 'h ilterest and
elftwip 8he1 have an OWWhAtY to be heard, will'
_be hdd by the Board of CouIN CAmmiBebrm of ,
�Charribirs Co of the
�ty the do
4101 1 1 1 at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor-
ida onThy frlalai� y 119, ION at 905 aan.
AnYana wFio wish to appeal any decision
which awe til maybe
at
verbat4n reoord�U1 IneO prooeedrlgs will nud to is
made. which Yohdea testtnlony and evidence upon
which the gppaal IS tl�ed
ANYONE 1NIi0 (NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA-
TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DIBABRrMS ACT
(ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 587.8000 X223 AT
LEAS
T 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET-
BOARD OFCOUNTY COMb1 &04ERS
BY -s -Fran B. Adams, Chakman
Fab 17, 19M .12799fp1
Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois reviewed the
Memorandum dated March 11, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D AR ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert4_XM.K a ing
Community Developmeqy Lirector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: March 11, 1996
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PURCHASE OF FISCHER-SEBASTIAN RIVER LAAC SITE
It. is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of March 19, 1996.
28
March 19, 1996
SDMMMY
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
purchase of the Fischer -Sebastian River property using land
acquisition bond funds. The purchase option contract (already
executed by the seller) is summarized as follows:
Purchaser: Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners / conservation & Recreation
Lands (CARL) Program (State will hold title)
Seller: Dr. Henry A. Fischer
Cost -Share: Conservation & Recreation Lands Program (50%)
(includes share of acquisition costs)
Total Price: $1,490,000 (+$16,719 per acre overall)_
Other Costs: +$40,500 (County share of costs relating to appraisals,
appraisal map, survey, environ. audit, title insurance)
County Bonds
Expenditure: +$785,500
Acreage: +89.12 Acres (76.49 ac. uplands; 12.63 ac. wetlands)
Principal Condition:
• Closing subject to County Commission and Governor & Cabinet
approval; State will hold title and will be responsible for
management in conjunction with the overall Sebastian Creek CARL
project.
LAAO Recommendation:
• At its January 31, 1996 meeting, the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee (LAAO) voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the proposed purchase (see attached LAAC
minutes).
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The subject Fischer property is currently ranked 3rd out of 20
projects on the LAAC site acquisition list, and is contiguous to
the Coraci property of the Sebastian Creek CARL project. The
Coraci property is to the north of the subject property on the west
side of the St. Sebastian River. The State now owns the Coraci
property, having closed on it in late February.
In May, 1995, the County executed a Multi -Party Acquisition
Agreement with the Division of State Lands (DSL) for 50% cost -share
under the CARL program. During the past year, the county's
acquisition consultant, in coordination with county staff, has
overseen pre-acquisition tasks and conducted negotiations.
Procedures adopted by the Board of County Commissioners -for
environmental land acquisition include confidentiality of
appraisals. in accordance with the County's Land Acquisition Guide,
and Section 125.355 of the Florida Statutes, appraisals can be
released for public information once an option agreement is
executed between a seller and the County. Regarding the Fischer
property, an option agreement was executed (binding the seller to
a negotiated purchase price), and subsequently the appraisals were
released from confidentiality.
When a county exercises its confidentiality right in purchasing
real property, Section 125.355, F.S. requires that the county
approve the purchase at a public meeting not less than 30 days
29
March 19, 1996 BOOK 97 PAC 5Gzi
Boa 97 fvF 570
after appraisals are released and public notice of the meeting is
given. Since the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners,
pursuant to authority.delegated by the Board, executed a purchase
option for the Fischer property, and since appraisals of the
property were made public at that time, the Board must now consider
whether to.exercise its purchase option (contingent on the State
exercising its option). Consistent with Chapter 125, F.S.
requirements, this decision will be made at the March 19, 1996
public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. By having
given 30 days public notice of this proposed action, the County
will- have complied with Chapter 125 requirements as well as LAAC
Guide requirements to hold a public hearing before purchasing
property with land acquisition bond funds.
•Site Characteristics
The Fischer -Sebastian River property includes land on the east and
west banks of the South Prong of the St. Sebastian River, just
north of C.R. 512. The portion of the project on the east side of
the river has approximately 4,800 feet of river frontage,
consisting of +25 acres, +6 acres of which are wetlands. This east
property is composed of 19 undeveloped platted lots within San
Sebastian Springs Subdivision.
West of the St. Sebastian River, the project consists of +64 acres
(±6 acres of wetlands) with +10,500 feet of river frontage.
Although the project's west acreage is "raw" undeveloped land, the
current landowner has preliminary plat approval for two
subdivisions west of the river. Of the 79 proposed lots in these
two unplatted subdivisions, 41 lots are located in the acquisition
area.
The +76 acre upland portion of the overall project consists of a
mixture of xeric oak scrub and mesic hardwood hammock. The subject
property is located within the city limits of Sebastian, and has a
zoning designation of RS -20, Single Family District. This zoning
district allows single family development on lots with a minimum
size of 20,000 square feet, roughly 2 units per acre. The number
of existing and proposed platted lots on the subject property
equate to an approximate 1.5 unit per acre density.
*Ownership Characteristics
Currently, the subject property is owned by Dr. Henry A. Fischer.
Public records indicate that the current tax assessed value for the
overall property is $997,670.
*Acquisition Cost -Share & Property Management
Two issues which are important to LAAC staff with respect to all
proposed purchases are obtaining cost share assistance in property
acquisition and addressing management costs.
Cost -Share
As previously mentioned, the County, in May, 1995, executed a
Multi -Party Acquisition Agreement with the DSL for 50% cost -share
of the Fischer property. This Agreement includes 50% cost -share of
acquisition costs, with the exception of appraisals, which were
paid for with County bond funds. Unlike the Korangy Tract LAAC site
purchase, the State will provide its match at the time of closing
(versus reimbursement).
30
March 19, 1996
In contrast to the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) program, the
CARL program is structured such that the State receives full title
to the property. County staff is in the midst of coordinating with
DSL staff to . obtain an interest in the property via a "right of
reverter", for purposes of ensuring that the property and its
resources will remain, as intended, in conservation.
Management Costs
An advantage to the State retaining title is that the property will
be managed by the State in conjunction with the overall Sebastian
Creek CARL project. Therefore, no County management costs are
anticipated. Because of the County's involvement in the
acquisition, however, the County is expected to have input in
management issues as a management plan is developed -by the State.
-•Appraisals
In accordance with County Land Acquisition Guide and State
procedures, two independent appraisals were obtained to determine
an approved appraised value. These two appraisals, however,
diverged by more than 20%, and in accordance with County and State
procedures, a third appraisal was obtained to resolve the
discrepancy. Ultimately, the two closest appraisals used to
determine an approved appraised value were by Real Property
Analysts, Inc. and W.H. Benson & Company, Inc.
The results of the two closest appraisals are summarized as
follows.
FISCHER-SEBASTIAN RIVER APPRAISALS
APPRAISER VALUE % DIVERGENCE APPROVED APPR. VALDE
Real Property Anal. $1,580,000 - -
Benson & Company $1,400,000 12.8% -
$1,580,000
The negotiated purchase price of $1,490,000 is 94% of the approved
appraised value.
•Contract
In coming to terms with DSL and county staff on the negotiated
purchase price (subject to County Commission and State approval),
the seller has executed a standard DSL purchase option contract
with minor modifications. A copy of that contract is attached to
this staff report.
ANALYSIS
•Multiple Benefits
• River Buffer
Conservation of the Fischer -Sebastian River property will help to
preserve the scenic corridor of the river, which is popular for
canoeing and other boating. The Sebastian River is also recognized
by the State as a manatee sanctuary, due to its importance to the
manatee, a federally endangered species known to frequent the area.
Acquisition of the property will help to prevent a proliferation of
31
March 19, 1996
L
poor 97 PAGE571
BOOK 97 PA;E 572
single-family docks and associated boat traffic, which would
otherwise conflict with manatee protection. The property purchase
will also serve to buffer the river from adjacent development,
thereby contributing to water quality protection.
• Comprehensive Plan Acquisition Commitment
Conservation Policy 6.2 of the County Comprehensive Plan commits
the County to acquire a minimum of 50 acres of xeric scrub
vegetative community for conservation purposes.. The Fischer project
contributes to fulfilling this policy by conserving +30 acres of
coastal scrub. -The project also furthers objectives in the County
comprehensive plan relating to floodplain protection, open space,
and endangered species habitat protection.
*Public Access
As previously mentioned, the subject Fischer property west of the
South Prong adjoins the Coraci Tract, which is now owned by the
State. Since the Fischer property is part of the overall Sebastian
Creek CARL project (which includes the Coraci Tract), public access
cane be • addressed in the context of the Sebastian Creek CARL project
as a whole, and therefore public access specific to the Fischer
property is not essential. However, county staff feels it is
important to secure an opportunity for public access to the Fischer
property, both east and west of the river, for flexibility in the
event that the County or State desires some level of public access
(such as a canoe launch) in the future.
Staff is presently working with Dr. Fischer to resolve some
outstanding issues regarding access easements to the subject
property. For this reason, exercise of the County's purchase option
should be contingent on the County (or State) securing sufficient
legal access rights.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Fischer property purchase contract by agreeing to exercise its
purchase option, contingent on the State's approval to exercise its
option, and contingent on the County and/or State securing
sufficient rights for ingress and egress. Staff also recommends
that the Board authorize staff to proceed with property closing
tasks in coordination with the State, and authorize the Board
Chairman to execute any documents associated with the closing.
ATTACHMENTS
•General map of project •LAAC meeting minutes
.*Purchase Option Contract
(Appraisals are available for review in the County Planning Office]
APPROVED:
1eaan Rivdr G0 Approved Date
FOR: C( Admin. �' 13 qG
Legal
BY: Qom`^ \rl\laac\fiachpu.bcc 6Ud-geL
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
32
March 19, 1996
I OZ/z µ
DRAFT.
1T ...i ....I....IIM! O
:W111
N
IX X /% XER1L �lB (+ 3D Ace
X X •'•• x' 'R�vER�ME WETLA�iDS��KOAG,
K �••�.•
.bexx NEstG "Ammoty—
xX
:t r�
n I�j
x x K, sE�TIM4 •. ��ttiyL s,/p
�x Nx x cy
'x jr
� Ix
r x
�x C.
■ 3
CO) 'xx' •:
N.T. S.
1� •
1�
I�
I�
1�
I�
• �I
IS
• �vvr.w�� &ii GNSI" i ilii\ 11i vZi4 iWAi
APPAMCEM S A[ s +118 ac. LOl1m Um Siagls-family Rmidmt4.l ` .
NO. OF UX PSRMat 21
/0. or O1 mmi 1
A8W== VAL= L 85WAs 51,367,785 P01M LEM OSY Low Density Rssidsntial
DASZ®1Tm:
OssMAL 0ZSCREM=t nN anbjact property camsimte of apPrmdmately +30aeass of xeric aorobj +40 acres of
riverias wmt7andaj and xeric +d8 aeras of bammock. The subject projsat aogaisition would provide a scenic buffer
to the Sebastian Awes, and would limit the nsabas of single-family dodo that could otberwism proliferate. =8
Project has been added to the State cum program wort Plen for the larger "8ebsstian Crest" CM project to the
north, for 50% rest snare fnodisg. Tbs Sebastian River Water Control District hm a 200 foot wide f2ca6 my
maintenance saaaaxet along the river in the canter of this Project area. Thr Sebastian River corridor is known
to Contribute to the babitst a number of sass and sodangared species, inela + : mor,&tmm, river otters, asd bald
saglas.
33
March 19, 1996
BOOK 97 PAGE d
moK 97 PAGE 5 74
In response to Chairman Adams, inquiry, Mr. DeBlois advised
that the small parcel, not included in this acquisition, is an
abandoned railroad easement, which he believed is publicly -owned.
He pointed out that staff is working with Dr. Fischer to provide
for access along a roadway as part of the agreement.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Jim Haeger of 1865 Garden Grove Parkway, Vero Beach, spoke in
favor of acquiring this unique piece of property. He spoke of
long -leaf pine, huge water hickories, and huge cypress trees
located on the property that are not easily seen in other remote
areas.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve the Fischer property
purchase contract by agreeing to exercise its
purchase option, contingent on the County and/or
State securing sufficient rights for ingress and
egress, and authorize staff to proceed with property
closing tasks in coordination with the State, as
presented and recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht felt this was probably
the premier piece of property considered for acquisition. He
recommended anyone who has not taken a canoe trip there should do
SO. He felt future generations would be grateful for the
acquisition of -this naturally beautiful waterway.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bird being
absent).
34
March 19, 1996
PUBLIC HEARING - PURCHASE OF CAIRNS TRACT LAAO SITE
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 matter of 04 e1Q1.,41 Cl2nk
lzx .
in the Court, was pub^
fished in said newspaper in the issues of`��?.
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, m 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.
SwtlyA'tb And•subscribed before me this 19M\ day f A.D. 19
T f i l (Busrhess Manager)
f PlIt.C'Mr. 140TARY PUBLIC.
• /r. r f.,.•,.oas.un Number CC300572
1�. •moi. _, t� •"L.::.; CAR[:ARAC SPHAGl1E
'-NOTICE OF PUBUD MEETM '`
Ndtioe of tD oonsider mity'Wdisse of
onvtronmenta9y�. t �ufdier the
amarty poglall
The $Ld* t +- -104 we • property Is p .
owrbd• kv Robert A..�Ptruatee� and, la boated
sa m of sea Dake an " barrier is-
land, from ween to rW, in Secfbn 26,
fTDo�r-rrmtllp 31 , Range 39 E. See the above nap
UM SAMWAL
W t11BO at which parties in Wereat wo
'fill 1I ehel ime an opporharty to -be heard, wo
be held by 'the Board of O= cmuksbms of
Oclurity C0111111118-
elm Chofts of ft Omatty t},eAdnlHetftn BLd&
4 boated at 1840 25th Street,. Vero Beads, Flor-
ida an Tiny, Meat 19,1998 at 9:05 a.m.
A%w . wfio 'may wish to d
wt may be made at title meetlrp vA�
t need
to on -
an fhet a Verbatim retard of the F .;1Adirge B
made, which irckides teetrrtorty and avWfoe L4=
which the armeal k1 based.
ANYONE jkid NEEM A SPEM ACCOWMIIODA-
TNN FOR .THIS MEETM MUST CONTACT THE
COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABLRIES ACT
(ADA) COORDINATOR - AT 5874000 X223 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS. IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET.
tNG.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY -e -Fran B. Adam, Ctiahtan
Feb. 17, ION 1279953
Because of questions why staff was recommending this site
contrary to the voted wishes of the Land Acquisition Committee,
Commissioner Macht reminded everyone that staff has a professional
and technical responsibility to make recommendations based on
certain criteria. He pointed out that it is inappropriate to
criticize staff for -doing what they are required to do and praised
them for an excellent job on all aspects of the land acquisition
program.
Commissioner Eggert added that the LAAO is an advisory
committee which has no final judgment.
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed at length
the Memorandum dated March 11, 1996:
35
March 19, 1996
nor 97 P4GF575
_I
PooK 97 '%E576
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPA TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating AICP
Community Development rector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois, `ICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: March 11,.1996
SUBJECT: PROPOSED PURCHASE OF CAIRNS TRACT LAAC SITE
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of March 19, 1996.
SUMMARY
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
purchase of the Cairns Tract property using land acquisition bond
funds. The purchase option contract (already executed by the seller)
is summarized as follows:
Purchaser: Indian River County Board of county
Commissioners / Conservation & Recreation
Lands (CARL) Program (State will hold title)
Seller: Robert A. Cairns.(as-an individual and as trustee)
Cost -Share: Conservation & Recreation Lands Program (50%)
(includes share of acquisition costs)
Total Price: $10,600,000 (+$78,200 per acre west of AlA;
+$3,680 per oceanfront foot east of AlA)
Other Costs: +$13,000 (appraisals & environ. audit; title insurance
Eo be paid by seller, survey paid by State)
County Bonds
Expenditure: +$5,308,000
Acreage: +104.64 Acres (2 tracts: 87.4 ac. & 17.24 ac.)
Principal Condition(s):
• Closing subject to County Commission and Governor & Cabinet
approval; State will hold title and will be responsible for
management (County may choose to participate in management,
particularly along Jungle Trail).
LAAC Recommendation:
• At its January 31, 1996 meeting, the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee (LAAC) voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners deny the proposed purchase, and recommended that
staff pursue alternatives. The main reasons cited by LAAC for
recommending denial were the high per acre cost (relative to land
costs in other parts of the county) and the potential loss of tax
base (see attached LAAO minutes). _
.DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The subject Cairns property is the main component of the Jungle
Trail South LAAC site, currently ranked 7th out of 20 projects on
the LAAC site acquisition list. The property is located on the
barrier island, south of the Sea Oaks development, extending from
the Indian River Lagoon to the ocean. The ocean front portion of
the property is north and south of the Grand Harbor Beach Club.
36
March 19, 1996
Last year, the County executed a Multi -Party Acquisition Agreement
with the Division of State Lands.(DSL) for a 50% cost -share with
the CARL program. During the past year, the county's acquisition
consultant,__in coordination with county staff,.has overseen pre-
acquisition tasks and conducted negotiations.
Procedures adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for
environmental land acquisition include confidentiality of
appraisals. In accordance with the County's Land Acquisition Guide,
and Section 125.355 of the Florida Statutes, appraisals can be
released for public information once an option agreement is
executed between a seller and the County. Regarding the Cairns
property, an option agreement was executed (binding -the seller to
a negotiated purchase price), and subsequently the appraisals were
released from confidentiality.
When a county exercises its confidentiality right in purchasing
real property, Section 125.355, F.S. requires that the county
approve the purchase at a public meeting not less than 30 days
after appraisals are released and public notice of the meeting is
given. Since the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners,
pursuant to authority delegated by the Board, executed a purchase
option for the Cairns property, and since appraisals of the
property were made public at that time, the Board must now consider
whether to .exercise its purchase option (contingent on the State
exercising its option). Consistent with Chapter 125, F.S.
requirements, this decision will be made at the March 19, 1996
public meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. By having
given 30 days public notice of this proposed action, the County
will have complied with'Chapter 125 requirements as well as LAAC
Guide requirements to hold a public hearing before purchasing
property with land acquisition bond funds.
•Site Characteristics
(ZAI,
The subject Cairns property contains one of the few remaining
sizable maritime hammock/ coastal strand communities in Indian
River County. The property has approximately.lqtll� linear feet of
ocean frontage (497' north of the Grand Harbor Beach Club, 350'
south of the Club). In addition to protecting rare plant
communities, the project would contribute significantly to
endangered sea turtle habitat protection in an area with one of the
highest sea turtle nesting densities in the world. The property is
located in an area with a high probability of having archaeological
sites (shell middens). Therefore, archaeological sites may exist on
the property.
•Ownership Characteristics
Currently, Robert A. Cairns is owner of the +17 acre tract and
trustee of the +87 acre tract. Public records -indicate that the
current tax assessed value for the two tracts combined is
$4,465,350.
•Acquisition Cost -Share & Property Management
Two issues which are important to LAAC staff with respect to all
proposed purchases are obtaining cost share assistance in property
acquisition and addressing management costs.
Cost -Share
37 ROOK 97 PAGE 577
March 19, 1996
F,
BOOK 97 PAGE 5 7
As previously mentioned, the County has executed a Multi -Party
Acquisition Agreement with the DSL for 50% cost -share of the Cairns
property. This Agreement includes 50% cost -share of acquisition
costs, with the exception of appraisals which were paid for with
County bond funds. Unlike the Korangy Tract LAAC site purchase, the
State will provide its match at the time of closing (versus
reimbursement). A survey of the property has been paid for.by the
State. The seller has agreed to pay title insurance, which is
expected to cost +$40,000.
In contrast to the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) program, the
CARL program is structured such that the State receives full title
to the property. County staff is in the midst of coordinating with
DSL staf f to obtain an interest in the property via a "right of
reverter", for purposes of ensuring that the property and its
resources will remain, as intended, in conservation.
• Management Costs
An advantage to the State retaining title is that the State will be
responsible for property management in conjunction with the overall
Archie Carr CARL project. The County, however, may want to
participate in property management along Jungle Trail. In 1989, the
County adopted the Jungle Trail Management Plan, which among other
initiatives, calls for controlled public access along the Trail.
The Cairns property's Jungle trail frontage also provides an
opportunity for the County to consider establishing a limited
public access area, consistent with the intent of the Jungle Trail
Management Plan. Additionally funding for Jungle Trail access
improvements could be forthcoming as part of a Florida Department
of Transportation (FDOT) grant that has been awarded to the County
for overall Trail improvements.
*Appraisals
In accordance with County Land Acquisition Guide and State
procedures, two independent appraisals were obtained to determine
an approved appraised value. The two appraisal firms selected were
Real Property Analysts, Inc., and S.E. Baker Group, Inc.
The results of the two appraisals are summarized as follows.
CAIRNS TRACT APPRAISALS
APPRAISER VALDE S DIVERGENCE APPROVED APPR. VALDE
+87 Acre Tract:
Real Property Anal. $10,000,000 -
S.E. Baker Group $ 9,842,000 2% -
$10,000,000
+17 Acre Tract:
S.E. Baker Group $1,465,000 - -
Real Property Anal. $1,430,000 2% -
$ 1,465,000
TOTAL: $11,465,000
The negotiated purchase -price of $10,600,000 is 92% of the approved
appraised value.
March 19, 1996
38
I
*Contract
In coming to terms with DSL and county staff on the negotiated
purchase price (subject to County Commission and State approval),
the seller has executed a standard DSL purchase contract Option
Agreement with minor modifications. A copy of'that contract is
attached to this staff report.
ANALYSIS
•Environmental Significance & Cost -Share Opportunity
In assessing the Cairns property, staff determined that the
property is considered to be of unusually high environmental value
by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (k*VAI) and the vepartment of
Environmental Protection (DEP) by virtue of its high density turtle
nesting beach, and a large, relatively undisturbed endangered
ecological community, the maritime hammock west of Highway AlA.
As previously mentioned, LAAC ranked the Cairns property relatively
high on its 1995 acquisition list, number 7 out of 20 projects.
Staff interpreted this high ranking as an indication that LAAC
accepted the fact that the Cairns property warranted acquisition
despite its potential expense, since property value is a criterion
of the ranking process.
At about the same time, the State indicated that the Cairns/Irwin
property was important to the State by agreeing to add the property
(out of the normal order of the CARL process) to the Archie Carr
Sea Turtle Refuge CARL Project. Archie Carr was then number 1 on
the CARL list. Both the LAAC's ranking vote and the County's
consideration of the project were critical factors influencing the
CARL action. The State was willing to consider funding for the
entire Cairns Tract in significant part because the County had
indicated a general willingness to fund one-half of the
acquisition.
Based on the apparent willingness of the County and State to
jointly purchase this large and expensive property, county staff
obtained appraisals, persuaded the Division of State Lands to
undertake an expensive survey, and commenced a long course of
negotiation with the landowner. Given the appraised value, and
recognizing that the property's value was several times that of
other single tracts -on the County acquisition list, staff sought
ways to reduce or eliminate County costs. Consequently, the
estimated total of all County costs for this acquisition will be
approximately $13,000, only 0.12% of the purchase price. Besides
the low acquisition cost, another advantage of the acquisition is
that the purchase reflects a discount below the appraised property
value. The negotiated contract reflects a purchase price of 92% of
the property's appraised value, a potential savings below appraisal
of about $865,000.
•Value
Since the inception of the County's acquisition program, staff has
placed a high priority on using appraisers with the highest level
of experience and expertise in appraising the types of property
that the County was considering for acquisition, including large
and expensive tracts such as the Cairns property. Because
appraisals for CARL acquisitions undergo extensive review by State
39
March 19, 1996 X09 97 FIKIF.5 l9
boa 97 PAu. 5%
MAI appraisers, these appraisals must be extremely thorough in
research and analysis. For these reasons, staff is confident that
the Cairns property appraisals accurately reflect the property's
true value.
The appraisers of the Cairns property both have extensive
experience appraising properties in this area, including barrier
island land in Indian River and other east coast counties. For the
portion of the subject property west of AIA, the appraisers found
comparable sales having actual per acre sale prices ranging -from
$70,000 to $110,000. As a result of their analyses, the final
appraised values for the west of AlA property were $83,000
(Goodman) and $85,000 (Baker) per acre. The negotiated contract
price represents an approximate per acre value of $78,200 for that
portion of property.
Both appraisers also independently identified and reviewed
comparable sales for the oceanfront part of the property. These
sales ranged from $3,000 to $6,000 per front foot. Although many
of the most recent sales were at the higher end of the range, both
appraisers felt that the size and development factors applicable to
the' Cairns property required a value near the lower end of the
range for the oceanfront; both indicated $4,000 per front foot as
the value estimate. The negotiated contract price -reflects an
oceanfront value of about $3,680 per front foot. Based on a review
of all the value information available, staff believes that the
Cairns property appraised value represents a reasonable reflection
of the market value for a, large, river -to -ocean property on the
barrier island. Furthermore, staff feels that a negotiated price
of 92% of the approved appraisal amount constitutes a value for the
county and state.
Although the appraised value appears reasonable, an issue raised by
LAAC during its discussion of this potential purchase relates to
the Board of County Commissioners' overall goals for the program.
During discussion of the Cairns purchase, several members of LAAC
raised the valid question as to whether the County should pursue
properties of this magnitude through its environmentally
significant lands program; the County's share of funding for this
one property would amount to almost 20% of the full $26 million
bond issue authorized by the voters. Staff has pursued this
acquisition based on both LAAC's ranking of the property and CARL'S
ranking of the property, as well as on a general determination that
the -environmental significance, open space and Jungle Trail -related
benefits to the community justify the expenditure. The contrasting
viewpoint, raised by LAAC's vote, is that expenditures of this
magnitude for this type of land are not within the scope of the
program's mission.
Staff's position is that, although the Cairns property is expensive
compared to lands elsewhere in the county (i.e., not on the barrier
island), the County should proceed with purchasing this property
(at the negotiated price) if it has any intention of preserving
some of the last remaining sizable areas of native coastal habitat
in the county (and in the state). -
•Multiple Benefits
Jungle Trail
As previously indicated, purchase of the Cairns property will help
fulfill objectives of the Jungle Trail Management Plan by providing
the County an opportunity to acquire controlled public access to
the Trail and Indian River Lagoon.
40
March 19, 1996
• Comprehensive Plan Acquisition Commitment
Conservation Policy 6.3 of the County Comprehensive Plan commits
the County to acquire a minimum of 100 acres of coastal/tropical
vegetative community for conservation purposes. -The Cairns property
would essentially fulfill this policy by conserving close to 100
acres of maritime hammock and coastal strand. .The project also
furthers objectives in the County comprehensive plan relating to
open space, historic resources, and endangered species habitat
protection. The purchase would also serve to maintain low
development density on the north barrier island from the standpoint
of hurricane evacuation concerns.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
Cairns property purchase contract by agreeing to exercise its
purchase option, contingent on the State's approval to exercise the
option. Staff also recommends that the Board authorize staff to
proceed with property closing tasks in coordination with the State,
and authorize the Board Chairman to execute any documents
associated with the closing.
ATTACHMENTS
•General map of project
•LAAC meeting minutes
*Purchase Option Contract&Ca)
[Appraisals are available for review in the County Planning Office]
To avoid confusion, Director Keating pointed out that this
proposed acquisition is only part of Cairns -Irwin tract on the LAAO
list. The difference is that two Cairn parcels, totalling
approximately 104 acres, are being proposed for acquisition today,
but not the 8 -acre Irwin tract. Negotiations are continuing on the
Irwin tract. -.Director Keating referred to the property outline on
page 130 for clarification.
March 19, 1996
L_
1154
Macke? 3 112 Ac.
TAS kWVA!b VAyA , * S,470, J10
fthheas
0/0 w„*14E wL t ww
Y .y
zv/�L
C.R. 510
\
•i e%OS1cs t B t•
\
® ca•a�yAropa� xrw�
\ �
1�4 CokriRl. �f/A.iyDY.F.
P
\
_� PPylV4Mf GALL :7
I6 kl.• \
9,
y Z
Mq{R2. D ASMUM
oinwc r U u^RM
a.gs..s Rte'••
aau/!•a �.
y
lit
\�.•
s
Cw AL low'"
W PNWR6nbl
`
6.1 eum"'M
1
•.•.•1LIL /
7{I.iW
March 19, 1996
L_
1154
Macke? 3 112 Ac.
TAS kWVA!b VAyA , * S,470, J10
fthheas
0/0 w„*14E wL t ww
Y .y
r
Bm 97 N� GE58
Director Keating also pointed out that under "site
characteristics" in staff's memo, that the ocean frontage of 1,155
linear feet is actually 847 linear feet. He noted that 1,155 is
the linear footage of the Cairns and Irwin properties combined.
Director Keating then described other special characteristics of
the property.
Chairman Adams announced that the Board had received 19
letters favoring the acquisition of this property and 1 letter in
opposition.
(Clerk's Note: Copies of letters have been placed on file in
the office of the Clerk to the Board.)
Commissioner Eggert understood that the seller did not want
the property east of U.S. #1 sold separately from the property west
of the highway.
Director Keating advised that she was correct and the owner
was present to address the question specifically.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Robert Cairns, of Orlando and Vero Beach, stressed that he had
fallen in love with this property and purchased it in 1971. He
spoke of the property's tropical and environmental appeal and
presented photographs to the Board for review.
Mr. Cairns outlined the history of negotiations since 1994 for
both private and public purchase. He had discontinued negotiations
on the private purchase because he wanted to preserve as much
property as possible.
Mr. Cairns introduced environmentalist Jim Thomas and
enumerated his- credentials. He asked Mr. Thomas to comment on the
property as seen from his perspective.
Jim Thomas of 14908 Tilden Road, Winter Garden, advised he is
an environmental consultant, a biologist, and has been associated
with the subject property for more than 20 years. As early as
-1976, he had approached the State to purchase it because of its
ecologic value. Property of this type is disappearing from the
coast. He emphasized the biologic value of the property by
pointing out that it is one of the last pieces of almost pristine
coastal scrub and coastal hammock property. It is unique as it is
in a transitional area with both temperate and tropic species
March 19, 1996
42
� � r
present. It is a diverse property with coastal dune system,
coastal scrub, and coastal hammock areas and mostly native plants.
He described low-cost techniques for removal of exotics, which are
found on the property near the Jungle Trail.
Property Appraiser David Nolte of 900 Royal Palm Place, Vero
Beach,- advised that his office had received a copy of the
appraisals late Friday afternoon and almost immediately one was
taken back. They have, therefore, had little time to review the
appraisals of the property. He felt the appraisal was seriously
deficient and enumerated reasons for his opinion, which included
the $114,000 per acre value being based on sales of smaller
parcels. He felt that local appraisers would have been more
familiar with the history of the County and the history of
subdivisions.
Commissioner Eggert asked if Mr. Nolte recalled the sales
price of land on Ocean Road, Johns Island, for the oceanfront
houses.
Mr. Nolte responded that he had not had a chance to do any
original research on comparison sales. He summarized that 1988-89
was the top of the market for sales and it has been soft since. He
also felt the riverfront property sales were not comparable. He
questioned the foundation of the appraisals as being highly
suspect.
In response to Chairman Adams, Mr. Nolte advised that he had
not looked at the appraisals for the other LAAC sites.
Commissioner Macht cited the Sunbeam Oster and Bermuda Bay
property development sales, and Mr. Nolte did not recall having
seen those sales in the appraisal.
William G. Glenn of 1802 Barefoot Place, Vero Beach, president
of the Summerplace Improvement Association and a director of the
North Beach Civic Association, advised that the Board of Directors
of both. organizations have gone on record as opposed to the
purchase of this property. He advised that their main problem with
the purchase of the property would be the removal from the tax
rolls. He asked the Board to support the recommendation of the
LAAO.
Jim Granse of 36 Pine Arbor Lane, concerned citizen, spoke
against the acquisition of the property and agreed that the
property ought not to be removed from the tax rolls. He also
questioned the settlement negotiations.
William Roolage of 11 Vista Gardens Lane, concerned citizen,
commented that the only thing he had heard which might be enjoying
this part of the beach would be the turtles and, frankly, he was
43
9 � F'Q��E ��e�c�
March 19, 1996
BOOK 97 PnE M -
getting a little tired of hearing about saving the turtles, the
scrub jays and the beach mice. He felt the Board should have more
concern for the use of beachfront by future generations.
Bob Bruce of 12396 North AlA, president of the North Beach
Civic Association, commented he would be glad to sell his land
right now for $4,000 a front foot. He reiterated that the Civic
Association's Board had voted in opposition to the acquisition of
this property because of concern that the purchase would remove a
substantial amount of taxes from the ad valorem tax base today and
in the future. They were initially supportive of the Archie Carr
Refuge, but in September 1993, the DEP and the environmental
community established a rule prohibiting people within the Archie
Carr Refuge from protecting their homes from erosion. He warned
that adding these 2i miles of coastline to the Archie Carr Refuge
would cause the properties to come under certain rule guidelines.
Toni Robinson of 1491 Treasure Cove Lane advised that the
Board of Directors of the Indian River Land Trust had authorized
her to ask that Indian River County purchase the Cairns tract as
proposed. She commended staff for their work. She reminded
everyone of the 1992 referendum proposals and advised that none of
the lands had yet been acquired with the allocated County funds.
_She stressed that if they did not act soon, they may lose the CARL
funds. She pointed out some of the economic benefits of conserving
the Cairns tract.
Jim Haeger of 1865 Garden Grove Parkway, Vero Beach, seconded
staff's presentation and that of Toni Robinson. He advised that he
had sat in for Ms. Robinson at the LAAC meeting and did not vote
because he was so dumbfounded that they were all voting against
buying it. He wanted it known that he was not part of that
unanimous vote. He recommended that the property be purchased
since it is about the last piece of hammock along the coast. He
spoke negatively of the over development in Miami and Palm Beach
and offered to- make an educational trail for ecological enjoyment
of this piece of property.
Mr. Cairns returned to the microphone to address concerns
raised by Property Appraiser David Nolte. He felt the appraisal
was in line and advised of a most recent sale of $82,000 per acre
on 40 acres without highway nor river frontage. He added that
another $3,000 per acre was paid for walkways to the beach and to
Jungle Trail.
44
March 19, 1996
Following brief additional comments from Mr. Granse and Mr.
Bruce, it was determined that no one else wished to be heard and
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
In response to Commissioner Eggert, Chief of Environmental
Planning Roland DeBlois confirmed that this was an unusual
discontiguous addition to the Archie Carr Refuge. She wanted it
made very clear in the agreement if this purchase is approved.
In response to Chairman Adams, Director Keating advised that,
before any options are exercised and contracts are closed, staff
will meet with the CARL program and specifically detail exactly
what control the County will have. It has been generally agreed
already that the County will have control to that part which is
contiguous to Jungle Trail and they plan to make that specific
before the closing.
Chairman Adams asked if we could also have control of access
and recreational development of the oceanfront; the management is
a minor part.
Director Keating advised that staff could definitely discuss
that with the State, if the Board wanted to make it a condition,
and report back with their response.
Commissioner Eggert commented on her first awareness of this
property back in 1989. She believed it to be an exceptional piece
of property and regretted there was a variance in memory about the
cost of property on the beach in the last few years, but they have
been high for larger parcels. She felt strongly about the value of
the property which offers so much. She appreciated the view of
LAAO, having chaired it when the bond referendum was initially
proposed.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, to approve the Cairns property
purchase contract by agreeing to exercise its
purchase option, contingent on the State's approval
to exercise the option and the caveat that the
County be provided with access to Jungle Trail and
to the beach.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht advised that this had
been a real struggle for him. He extolled the ecological features
of the property, but had a hard time with the price. Based on
personal knowledge of property sales in that area, he felt it was
45 BOOK 97 Par, `S5
March 19, 1996
BooK 97 uGF 58
a reasonable price for a unique piece of property and that it is in
the best interest of our citizens, now and in the future, to
purchase it.
Commissioner Tippin was in a quandary because he did not
support the $26 million bond issue in the beginning primarily
because of so much public ownership in the county. He feared that
after the $26 million has been spent on acquistion of environmental
lands, taxes will not support the demand for services. However, he
indicated he probably would support the motion because he loved
this particular piece of property. He wanted to know
geographically the percentage of publicly -owned lands in Indian
River County versus neighboring counties.
Chairman Adams shared a different perspective of this with her
fellow Commissioners. Twenty-five years ago she had worked with
the Department of Natural Resources, Division of Recreation and
Parks, and in 1970 did the first outdoor recreational survey for
the State of Florida. The #1 thing that people- wanted was
oceanfront/waterfront property and pristine hammock, and that
hasn't changed over the 25 years. She knows it takes vision to
look further to see what it will mean for future generations and
she looks at it more for a "people" thing rather than a "critter"
thing, because the people will have to solve the mistakes made in
the past. She looks at saving this property as a place they can
look at in the future of how to do things right.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Bird being
absent)
46
March 19, 1996
I
PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND
REZONING - +/-18.4 ACRES AT S.E. CORNER 26TH STREET & 58TH
AVENUE - BEN BAILEY, III
P.O. Bos 1268 veno Beech. Rcriaa 32061 562.2315
COUNTY OF MIMI RIVER it k �J]°IItllil
SfATEOFF7ARWA YY
seem�1Ovam�1Oet..n'�`ow'�o.�w
Ven eeeeb Pn:a•l,unel, o ,n.•woer w6IleMA et Vem eeem i,
4tlW RMr Ce,nt). FlanOa: ILu
A1�DlAU m�iAl�'ar�9.�
�91,I �r
.., wwe6e, 6a om ,eeePePer N Ne <m+(p
/�n/!c l /1N ��ilo diJ DAA 0 R
seeopb.ea Wmane.bbef/aemeRW
ON
ap:�O'�A • ?s
10; Cr xaee
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CHANGING
LAND USE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
will consider a proposal to adopt an amendment to its comprehensive
plan changing the use of land within the unincorporated portions of
Indian River County and changing the text of the Comprehensive Plan.
A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, March 19,
1996, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will
make a final decision whether to amend the county's comprehensive
plan. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordi-
nance entitled:
_2 'I
VERO BEACH
_PfO�
1
....,..
M-1 R'C/I
RTAMM°oa
L-2
,
�MOVPM42
oeNTee
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHAN-
GING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
+/- 18.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTH-
EAST CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND 26th
STREET, FROM L-2 TO M-1; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing
regarding. the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public
at the Community Development Department located on the second
floor of the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. on weekdays.
The proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public during
regular business hours at the office of the Clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
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_pro-
ceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal will be.based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must
contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator
at 567-8000 extension 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By. -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
47
N00� 9 7
March 19, 1996 58 7
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 PrasaJoumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a _ f tb-1 ♦�. D
In the matter ofd-�.rrid.TY'�Iwsf.
In the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of T ' 1 9 Q �
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty. Florida. for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid 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.
,Protlt1,'tt!•aq i subscribed before me this ayof p- hg
0 (Business Manager)
•My Comm. Expires
June 29. 1997 BARBARAQ BARBARAcnwar:t rc Tt w o..m r
State of Florida. MySion Exp. jum 29. 199
b 00672 r CC300572
:. ���• A�Lt,G • O�.:e
N.16OF F1O�d�• SOW:
a..woo••'••1 NMmy: aANBAM C. SPHA E
48
March 19, 1996
nox 907 PAGE MS
NOTICE OF WENT TO
REZONBIG — PLIC H .Mm
_ The Board Of County Cornmissioners of titian
River Courtly, Florida, wE consider the adoption of
outdual MMM ��S a=) land to R Mt1d)-
de Fa�Respirdot3ertyryt � ownedb�by d Ben F. M.
Thecornersat the southeast
58th A1rera� and 26th Street
is
tafnS aPproxiInately 18.4 acres. Theprth
"ilea in the northwest w section o al 4p,
To*Tship 33S, Range 40E. yang and being In Indian
River County, Florkla.
Ao A pulft hes" which parries in interest and
opportunity to be heard, wig
be held by the Board ofCTI Conerlissioners of
Florida, In
Sion hambersamrds-
Indian River soofy�the Admhstrtft Build.
Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Fior-
poposed
Ida an Tuesday, Mania 1�g, 11196, at 8:05 am. The
ordinance is AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1 TO RM -8, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 58TH AVE-
NUE AND 26TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
the � regular bAl ordinance es hours Of -
floe be Inspected
of the to the Board of Courtly Commis.
slohers,1840 25th Street, Vero Beads, Fkridamm. a�yy
another zw" district The Board of � adopt
district ,
vided is is within the same general use
Anyone who may wish to winany decision
sure thwhich at a�verrbbatn trecocord of the�proo�e to is
made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal Is based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for
this must contact the caahty's American
with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000
otterislon 223 at least 48 hours In advance of
Indian eo�diverCotmtycommissloners
By: -s -Fran B. Adams, Chairman
March 7,1996 1285081
With the aid of an overhead map of the area, Community
Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the Memorandum dated
March 11, 1996:
TO: _James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ENT HEAD CONCUR NCE
01 OF
Ketng, PoC
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP"
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel Gp"
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 11, 1996
RE: Ben F. Bailey, III, request to amend the comprehensive
plan to redesignate approximately 18.4 acres from L-2 to
M-1, and to rezone that 18.4 acres from A-1 to RM -8
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 95-07-0103
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 19, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to change the land use designation of
approximately 18.4 acres from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to
6 units/acre) to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/
acre), and to -rezone that property from A-1, Agricultural District
(up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 8 units/acre). Located at the southeast corner of
26th Street and 58th Avenue, the subject property is owned by Ben
F. Bailey, III. The purpose of this request is to secure the land
use designation and zoning necessary to develop the site at a
higher residential density.
On October 12, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for their review.
On November 21, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for
their review.
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed
amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report. The ORC Report, which planning staff received on
February 16, 1996, did not contain any objections to the proposed
amendment.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not
to adopt the requested land use amendment. At this time, the Board
must also act on the proposed rezoning.
49
March 19, 1996
8m 97 PAGE 5,S9
BOOK 97 PAGES,90
Existing Land Use Pattern
Consisting of an abandoned grove, the subject property is zoned A-
1. Land abutting the site on the east is zoned RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) and consists of a single-
family subdivision. The Ryanwood Shopping Center borders the site
on the south. That shopping center is zoned CG, General Commercial
District. TO the west of the site, across 58th AvPnup; land IR
zoned RS -6, and is developed with a church and a single-family
subdivision.
In this area of the county, 26th Street is the boundary between the
city of Vero Beach and unincorporated Indian River County.
Consequently, the property to the north of the subject property,
across 26th Street, is within the Vero Beach city limits. That
property is zoned R -1A, Single -Family Residential District, on the
city's zoning map. The density of that property is governed by the
land use designation, which in this case allows up to 5 units/acre.
Currently, that land is heavily wooded and undeveloped.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and properties to the east are designated L-2
on the county future land use map. The L-2 designation permits
residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. Land abutting
the subject property on the south, is designated C/I, Commercial/
Industrial,on the county future land use map. The C/I designation
permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. West
of the site, land is designated M-1 on the county future land use
map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities
up to 8 units/acre. The land north of the subject property in the
-City of Vero Beach is designated RL, Residential Low, on the City's
future land use map. The RL designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 5 units/acre.
Environment
Being a site that has been cleared for agriculture, the subject
property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands
or native upland plant communities exist on site. According to
Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain
any flood hazard areas.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Transportation Svstem
The property's west boundary abuts 58th Avenue which is classified
as an urban principal arterial road on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 58th Avenue is a two-lane
paved road with approximately 85 feet of existing public road
right-of-way. This portion of 58th Avenue is programmed for
expansion to four lanes and 120 feet of public road right-of-way by
2010. Public works staff anticipates obtaining the needed 35 feet
50
March 19, 1996
of additional public road right-of-way from property on the west
side of 58th Avenue.
The Indian River Farms Water Control District owns canal right-of-
way between the subject property and 26th Street, along the
property's -north boundary. With District permission, 26th Street
could provide access to the subject property.
Classified as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map, 26th Street is paved east of 58th Avenue. This segment
of 26th Street is a 2 -lane road with approximately 30 feet of
existing public road right-of-way. This portion of 26th Street is
programmed for expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by
2010. Due to the canal right-of-way abutting the subject property,
public works staff anticipates obtaining the needed 50 feet of
additional public road right-of-way from property on the north side
of 26th Street.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. Specifically, this section will
include:
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public
facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on the county's
residential allocation ratio;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the
county's comprehensive plan;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the
surrounding area; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on
environmental quality.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The Comprehensive: Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For land use amendment requests, conditional concurrency
review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use
amendment requests are not projects, county regulations call for
the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested land use designation.
For residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use
(according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units
that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and
51
March 19, 1996 RooK 97 PAE 501
BOOK 97 mF.592
the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The
site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±18.4 acres
2. Existing Land Use . Designation: L- 2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6
units/acre)
3. Proposed Land Use Designation:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing Land
Use Designation:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed Land
Use Designation:
- Transportation
M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up 'to 8
units/acre)
110 single-family units
147 single-family units
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the maximum number of units allowed on -the subject
property under the proposed land use designation indicates that the
existing level of service "D" or better on impacted roadways would
not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
is as follows:
Existing Land Use Designation
.1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
3. Peak Direction of 26th Street, from 43rd Avenue to 58th
Avenue: Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound F.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(110 X 1.01 X .65 X .80 = 58)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(110 X 10.1 = 1,111)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
52
March 19, 1996
i
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
-ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
3. Peak Direction of 26th Street, from 43rd Avenue to 58th
Avenue: Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(147 X 1.01 X .65 X .80 = 77)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday. Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(147 X 10.1 = 1,485)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 26th Street, at a Level of
Service "D": 630 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of 26th Street:
173 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 1,111. This was determined by multiplying the 110
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 1,485. This was determined by multiplying the 147
units (most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the
peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways.
According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the
p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m.
peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The
peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on 26th Street is
westbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 58. This was determined --by multiplying the total
number` of units allowed (110) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65%
(72) will be inbound and 35% (39) will be outbound. Of the inbound
trips, 80% or 58 will be westbound.
To determine the number 'of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed land use designation,the total
number of units allowed under the proposed amendment (147) was
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to
determine the total number of trips generated (148). Of these
53
March 19, 1996
E00K 97 PAGE 593
LOOK 97 PAGE 51.4
trips, 65% (96) will be inbound and 35% (52) will be outbound. Of
the inbound trips, 80% or 77 will be westbound. Therefore, the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land
use designation would generate 19 '(77 - 58 = 19) more peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 58 that would be
generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the
existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the -network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips,
whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of 26th Street -adjacent to
this site is 630 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing traffic volume on
this segment of 26th Street is 173 trips (peak hour/peak
season/peak direction). The additional 77 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips created by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed amendment would increase the
total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment
bf 26th Street to approximately 250.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 26th Street and
all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips
without decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in
this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Segment
Roadway
Segment
Road
_
From
To
capacity
LOS "D"
1920E
S.R.
60
82nd
Avenue
66th
Avenue
2,210
1920W
S.R.
60
82nd
Avenue
66th
Avenue
2,210
1925E
S.R.
60
66th
Avenue
58th
Avenue
2,650
1925W
S.R.
60
66th
Avenue
58th
Avenue
2,650
1930E
S.R.
60
58th
Avenue
43rd
Avenue
2,650
1930W
S.R.
60
58th
Avenue
43rd
Avenue
2,650
-1935E
S.R.
60
43rd
Avenue
27th
Avenue
2,650
1935W
S.R.
60
43rd
Avenue
27th
Avenue
2,650
1940E
S.R.
60
27th
Avenue
20th
Avenue -
2,330
1940W
S.R.
60
27th
Avenue
20th
Avenue
2,330
1945E
S.R.
60
20th
Avenue
Old Dixie Highway
2,328
1945W
S.R.
60
20th
Avenue
Old Dixie Highway
2,328
1950E
S.R.
60
Old Dixie
Highway
10th
Avenue
2,328
1950W
S.R.
60
Old Dixie
Highway
10th
Avenue
2,328
2470N
27th
Avenue
16th
Street
S.R.
60
830
24705
27th
Avenue
16th
Street
S.R.
60
830
2925N
43rd
Avenue
12th
Street
16th
Street
830
29255
43rd
Avenue
12th
Street
16th
Street
830
54
March 19, 1996
Roadway
Sent
Road
426
From
739
To
Y
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
2930N
43rd
Avenue
16th
Street
S.R.
60
830
29305
43rd
Avenue
16th
Street
S.R.
60
830
2935N
43rd
Avenue
S.R.
60
26th
Street
830
29355
43rd
Avenue
S.R.
60
26th
Street
830
2940N
-43rd
Avenue
26th
Street
41st
-Street
690
29403
43rd
Avenue
26th
S%r@et
4166
Sheet
690
302ON
58th
Avenue
12th
Street
16th
Street
690
30205
58th
Avenue
12th
Street
16th
Street
690
3025N
58th
Avenue
16th
Street
S.R.
60
1,770
3025S
58th
Avenue
16th
Street
S.R.
60
1,770
303ON
58th
Avenue
S.R.
60
41st
Street
1,770
30305
58th
Avenue
S.R.
60
41st
Street
1,770
4720E
26th
Street
66th
Avenue
58th
Avenue
630
4720W
26th
Street
66th
Avenue
58th
Avenue
630
4730E
26th
Street
58th
Avenue
43rd
Avenue
630
4730W
26th
Street
58th
Avenue
43rd
Avenue
630
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1920E
1045
426
1471
739
5
Y
1920W
971
391
1362
848
3
Y
1925E
945
411
1356
1294
10
Y
1925W
'991
396
1387
1263
5
Y
1930E
985
700
1685
965
13
Y
1930W
1147
681
1828
822
24
Y
1935E
1102
457
1559
1091
13
Y
1935W
1156
435
1591
1059
24
Y
1940E
791
345
1136
1194
8
Y
1940W
896
331
1227
1103
14
Y
1945E
919
308
1227
1101
5
Y
1945W
708
294
1002
1326
10
Y
1950E
885
239
1124
1204
3
Y
1950W
742
232
974
1354
5
Y
2470N
225
36
261
569
5
Y
2470S
428
41
469
361
3
Y
2925N
667
30
697
133
5
Y
2925S
505
28
533
297
3
Y
2930N
667
67
734
96
10
Y
29305
505
67
572
258
5
Y
2935N
340
114
454
376
14
Y
2935S
413-
116
529
301
8
Y
2940N
416
52
468
222
3
Y
2940S
285
53
338
352
5
Y
302ON
191
53
244
446
5
Y
30205
138
54
192
498
3
Y
3025N
423
240
663
1107
10
Y
30255
416
238
654
1116
5
Y
303ON
538
147,
685
1085
34
Y
30305
388
161
549
1221
96
Y
4720E
87
8
95
535
10
Y
4720W
173
7
200
450
5
Y
4730E
87
63
150
480
41
Y
4730W
173
52
225
405
77
Y
- Water
With the proposed land use designation, the subject property could
accommodate 147 residential units, resulting in water consumption
at a rate of *147 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 36,750
gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250
gallons/ERU/day. The subject property is presently served by the
South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 2,100,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. When
the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant is complete, it will serve
the subject property. This plant, which is currently being
designed, will have a capacity of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the additional demand
generated by the proposed amendment.
55
March 19, 1996 97 Fa F 5 05
BOOK 97 wF 5 J6
- Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed
amendment, development of the property will have a wastewater
generation rate of approximately 147 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU), or 36,750 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of
service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater lines
extend to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of more than
800,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater
generated by the proposed amendment.
- Solid Waste -
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. The county's adopted level of
service standard for landfill capacity is 2.37 cubic yards/person/
year. With the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit,
a 147 unit residential development would be anticipated to house
approximately 338 people (2.3 X 147). For the subject request to
meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic
yards/person/year, the landfill must have enough capacity to
accommodate approximately 801 (338 X 2.37) cubic yards/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 895,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on the analysis, staff determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed zoning district.-
.- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian
River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the
property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess
of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved
IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do not apply, since the property does not lie within a
floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge
standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the
proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be
approximately 240,451 square feet, or 5.52 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch
discharge requirement, would be approximately 569,736 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant would be required to retain approximately 436,152 cubic
feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the
subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff
rate is 96.05 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard
would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum
discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and requiring
retention of the 436,152 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense
use of the property.
56
March 19, 1996
� � r
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand
that would _result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the proposed amendment indicates that
the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below
illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed
development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by
park type.
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Impact on the Residential Allocation Ratio
Of particular importance to this request is the impact of the land
use change on the county's Residential Allocation Ratio (RAR). A
RAR is the measure of total residential units allowed under the
land use plan compared to the number of residential units expected
to be needed through the plan's planning horizon, based on
population projections.
In 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, it allowed over
119,000 units. In this case, the proposed amendment would increase
the maximum number of residential units allowed on the site by 37.
That increase would have an insignificant impact on the county's
RAR.
More than off -setting the 37 unit increase that would occur with
the proposed amendment is the reduction in build -out units that has
resulted from land use plan amendment approvals since plan
adoption. Since plan adoption, several land use amendments
involving residentially designated land within the urban service
area have been approved. The effect of these amendments has been
a net decrease of 1,169 units in the county's build -out projection.
The following table depicts the information used to determine the
change in the number .of units. Since the C/I, RC, and C-1
designations are not intended for residential uses, land use
amendments redesignating land from residential to C/I, RC, or C-1
reduce the number of units allowed. Similarly, land use amendments
redesignating land from one type of residential to a lower density
residential reduce the number of units allowed.
In contrast, amendments redesignating land from C/I, RC, or C-1 to
residential, or from one type of residential to a higher density
residential, increase the number of units allowed. Staff estimates
57
March 19, 1996
POOK 97 PAGE 507
LOS
Project
(Acres per
Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 population)
Acres
Acreage
Urban District
5.0
1.69
180.818
Community (south)
1.25
0.42
8.054
Beach
1.5
0.51
64.645
River
1.5
0.51
25.642
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Impact on the Residential Allocation Ratio
Of particular importance to this request is the impact of the land
use change on the county's Residential Allocation Ratio (RAR). A
RAR is the measure of total residential units allowed under the
land use plan compared to the number of residential units expected
to be needed through the plan's planning horizon, based on
population projections.
In 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, it allowed over
119,000 units. In this case, the proposed amendment would increase
the maximum number of residential units allowed on the site by 37.
That increase would have an insignificant impact on the county's
RAR.
More than off -setting the 37 unit increase that would occur with
the proposed amendment is the reduction in build -out units that has
resulted from land use plan amendment approvals since plan
adoption. Since plan adoption, several land use amendments
involving residentially designated land within the urban service
area have been approved. The effect of these amendments has been
a net decrease of 1,169 units in the county's build -out projection.
The following table depicts the information used to determine the
change in the number .of units. Since the C/I, RC, and C-1
designations are not intended for residential uses, land use
amendments redesignating land from residential to C/I, RC, or C-1
reduce the number of units allowed. Similarly, land use amendments
redesignating land from one type of residential to a lower density
residential reduce the number of units allowed.
In contrast, amendments redesignating land from C/I, RC, or C-1 to
residential, or from one type of residential to a higher density
residential, increase the number of units allowed. Staff estimates
57
March 19, 1996
POOK 97 PAGE 507
r
BOOK 97 FAu 5 S
that 25% of land designated for residential uses is used for
infrastructure such as roads and stormwater retention. Therefore,
the net developable acreage is 75% of the total acreage.
LAND
USE AMENDMENTS
RESULTING
IN
A NET
CHANGE IN # OF UNITS
AMEND.
NET
MAX.
UNITS/
MAX.
NET CHANGE
NAM
FWH
Ta-=SiAC.
ACRES
ACRES
UNITS
TO
ACRE
UNITS
IN VAITS
Oslo Park
C-2
1/40
233.00
174.75
4
C-1
0
0
-4
M-2
10/1
65.00
48.75
487
C-1
0
0
-487
Tarby
M-1
8/1
130.30
97.73
781
AC
0
0
-781
Rhodes
R
1/1
159.00
119.25
119
L-1
3/1
357
+238
Brewer
L-1
3/1
6.40
4.80
14
AG -1
1/5
1
-13
RSR Groves
M-2
8/1
8.40
6.30
50
C/I
0
0
-50
C/I
0
8.40
6.30
0
L-2
6/1
37
+37
Korine
L-1
3/1
15.00
11.25
33
C/I
0
0
-33
Smith
L-2
6/1
1.86
1.40
B
C/I
0
0
-8
Koerner
M-1
8/1
0.31
0.23
1
C/I
0
0
-1
Feldman
AG -1
1/5
40.00
30.00
6
R
1/1
30
+24
Windsor
C/I
0
15.33
11.50
0
L-2
6/1
69
+69
Sob. Assoc.
L-2
6/1
4.00
3.00
18
C/I
0
0
-18
Seb. Assoc.
M-1
8/1
4.00
3.00
24
C/I
0
0
-24
Ames
L-1
3/1
20.00
15.00
45
C/I
0
0
-45
Rockwell
L-2
6/1
0.32
0.24
1
C/I
0
0
-1
McRae
M-2
10/1
6.80
5.10
51
C/I
0
0
-51
Oslo Plaza
L-2
6/1
4.83
3.62
21
C/I
0
0
-21
TOTAL
-1169
Because the comprehensive plan allowed over 119,000 units when it
was adopted, the 37 unit increase associated with the proposed
amendment would have a negligible impact on the county's RAR, even
if land use amendments had not lowered the number of units allowed
by the plan. When considering the 1,169 unit reduction in build-
out projections resulting from land use amendments, it is obvious
that the reduction more than compensates for the additional 37
units associated with this request. For these reasons, the
proposed amendment's impact on the county's RAR is insignificant.
Consistencv with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the LDRs, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way
as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to
Section 163.3177(2) F.S." Amendments must also show consistency
With the overall designation of land uses as depicted on -the Future
_ Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential,
recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses
and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the.plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
58
March 19, 1996
related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all
comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have
more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment
requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following objectives and policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets policy 13.3's third criterion.
The subject property is located adjacent to the S.R. 60 and 58th
Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. On July 19, 1994, the Board of
County Commissioners approved a land use amendment that enlarged
that node by 130.3 acres. That land use amendment was associated
with the Indian River Mall Development of Regional Impact (DRI) for
a regional shopping center consisting of approximately 1.5 million
square feet of retail space. A Development Order for that DRI was
also approved on July 19, 1994. On June 8, 1995, approximately
1.275 million square feet of that shopping center received site
plan approval from the county.
The Indian River Mall land use amendment and development approvals
directly affect land surrounding the node in 2 ways, both related
to housing. First, the Indian River Mall will make the node one of
the county's largest employment centers, thus generating a
substantial increase in the need for moderately -priced nearby
housing.
Additionally, the Indian River Mall land use amendment resulted in
the loss of 130.3 acres of M-1 designated land. Thus, that
amendment not only helped create additional demand for medium -
density housing, but it also reduced the amount of land designated
for that use.
Since these actions constitute a change in circumstances, the third
criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 has been met, and
the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future -Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will
have a compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl. By
increasing the density of land currently within the -urban service
area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county
can efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or
sacrificing compactness. For these reasons, the proposed amendment
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that the M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1 land use designation is intended for areas
59
March 19, 1996 BOOK PAU 5 9
BOOK � / PAGE � jt','
which are suitable for urban scale development and intensities, and
are within the urban service area.
The following factors demonstrate that the site is suitable for
urban scale development and intensities:
1. The site is located within the urban service area.
2. Potable water and sanitary sewer service are available to the
site.
3. The location of the site, at the intersection of 2 major roads
with other major roads nearby, indicates that the
transportation demands of urban scale development on the site
can be met.
4. The site abuts a major commercial/industrial node.
5. The site is across the street from land currently designated
M-1.
Since the site is suitable for urban scale development and
intensities, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.13.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4
Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that the county will
reduce the number and length of trips on county roads by
implementing a land use pattern which places residential areas near
commercial and employment areas.
The site is located near several employment centers including the
Vero Beach Municipal Airport, Dodgertown, and the S.R. 60/58th
Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. Since the S.R. 60/58th Avenue
Commercial/Industrial Node is one of the county's fastest
developing nodes, it will soon become one of the county's largest
employment centers. Most people who will work in that node will
live in moderately -priced medium -density housing. The proposed
amendment places land designated for medium -density residential
uses adjacent to that node. Therefore, the proposed amendment will
increase the opportunity for people who work in the node to live
near their job, thus reducing the length of their trips to and from
work. For this reason, the proposed amendment implements Future
Land Use Element Objective 4.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1
Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1 states that land use categories
shall be designated in a manner which concentrates urban uses,
thereby discouraging urban sprawl.
By increasing the density of land currently within the urban
service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the
proposed amendment concentrates growth in the area designated for
urban uses. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1. ---
- Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4
Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4 state that the county
will encourage and direct growth into the urban service area and
areas near urban centers. Since the proposed amendment would allow
and encourage more development on the subject property, and the
subject property is within the urban service area and near an urban
AM
March 19, 1996
center, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5
and 4.4.
- Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5
Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5 address the use
of incentives, including increased densities, to reduce the cost
per housing unit and to encoiiraere the nrovi a i nn of a f forded-hle
housing. By allowing increased density on the subject property,
the request would implement Economic Development Element Policies
8.1 and 8.5.
- Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2
Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2 states that the -county will,
through the future land use element, provide higher densities along
major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass
transit provision. Since the proposed amendment will increase the
allowed density along and near several major transportation
corridors, this request is consistent with Mass Transit Element
Policy 1.2.
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed
request to all the objectives and policies in the plan and found no
conflicts. Therefore, staff's position is that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that granting the request to redesignate the
subject property to M-1 and to rezone it to RM -8 would result in
development which is appropriate for the site and that such
development would be compatible with surrounding areas. Because
the area is located near an urban center of the county, with
convenient access to employment and shopping, the area is
particularly suited for medium -density multiple -family development.
Since land to -.the west is designated M-1, the request is for the
continuation of an existing land use designation pattern.
The primary impacts of development on the site would be on the
abutting single-family zoned area to the east. The western portion
of that area, containing the partially developed Walkers Glen West
subdivision, is presently in the platting process. While
considering the impacts of multiple -family development, staff
considered that :the site plan approval process can somewhat
mitigate those impacts on adjacent single-family lots. Through
required separation and buffers, county LDRs can often lessen the
impacts of development.
In this case, single-family zoned lots east of the subject property
wouldlikely abut the subject property with their front or rear
yards which would be required to be a minimum of 20 feet wide. The
approved preliminary plat for Walkers Glen West shows only 2 lots
abutting the subject property. Both of those lots contain a 20
foot wide drainage easement along their border with the subject
property. Additionally, the preliminary plat depicts a 6 foot high
fence located 20 feet east of the subject property along the entire
length of the subdivision. Finally, both lots are at least 90 feet
wide, which allows the option of siting the buildings further from
the subject property.
Under the requested RM -8 zoning district, development on the
subject property would be required to provide a landscaped buffer
61
March 19, 1996
ROOK U17
PAf,F 01
BOOK 97 PAGE 602
yard that is at least 10 feet wide along the property's eastern
border. Additionally, building coverage for multiple -family
development on the site would be restricted to a maximum of 25% of
the lot, while a minimum of 40% of the site must be open, or green,
space. Finally, LDR chapter 926 requires perimeter landscaping, as
we11 as landscaping of parking lots, and open space.
For these reasons, Staff feel S the reel lested land use designation
and zoning district would be compatible with the surrounding area.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Environmental impacts of residential development on the subject
property would be the same under either the existing or the
proposed land use -designation. The site has been cleared, and
'contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or
uplands. Therefore, development of the site is anticipated to have
little or no impact on environmental quality. For this reason, no
adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are
anticipated.
DCA Objections
As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this
staff report, DCA did not have any objections to the proposed
amendment.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land
use designation and zoning district are compatible with surrounding
areas, consistent with the comprehensive plan, meet all concurrency
criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality,
and meet all applicable land use designation amendment and rezoning
criteria. The data and analysis demonstrate that the proposed
amendment will have an insignificant impact on the county's RAR.
Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed
suited for medium -density multiple -family residential uses. For
these reasons, staff supports the request.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve
this request to redesignate the subject property to M-1 and rezone
the subject property to RM -8.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
Rezoning Application
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
Zoning Location'Map
Approved Minutes of the October 12, 1995
Commissinn Meeting
Amendment Application
Location Map
Planning and Zoning
Approved Minutes of the November 21, 1995 Board of County
Commissioners Meeting
DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Ordinance
Zoning Ordinance
62
March 19, 1996
/W
f1^
C
a
N \� rSubject Is
m- \\
�\ operty
4 3 �� \ 247M ST
OL ARM s 5 a
�\\\��•
RIVERA ES�
_ \\ L .2 ►" to 1-
6 1
R.5 22NO 77
2 1 3 2 i
� W
U7 to J
7
1 I 1 sT
1 1 1 o
I I u or
I
C/I '1 z
Z
_. W In z H
W
I + u
_ S.R. 60
TR.12 1 TR.I I
I 1
REPLA 1 1
I
NAME
t I
ACRES C/' 1
1
_ I
1
LAND USE
- ATT,4CI�;�(' 3
63
March 19, 1996 �'�'� PAGE 603
9 12
! I --
I s 2
iI
'w
RS -3
A-1
ITR8 `
RM -6
Ixx
I �
QG
\
go
C -T
G
M&AI
ORANK
ACRES
i
March 19, 1996
ZON NO ATTAQWX 4
64
800K 97 PAGE 6104
`— —
T,
\
CL
s � �
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, advised he was
present to answer any questions. He felt that staff had done a
good job and he hoped the Board would approve the request.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) adopted Ordinances
96-07 and 96-08 to redesignate the subject property
to M-1 and rezone the subject property to RM -8, as
recommended by staff.
ORDINANCE NO. 96-07
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR #18.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST_
CORNER OF 26TH STREET AND 58TH AVENUE, FROM L-2 TO M-1; AND
PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,••the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1995 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 12, 1995 after
due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 21, 1995,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
65
March 19, 1996
BOOK 97 wr 0
ORDINANCE NO. 96-07
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the ,
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 7, 1995, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on February 16, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections to this
comprehensive plan amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing .
on March 19, 1996, after advertising pursuant. -to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property
situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit:
THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 4, SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 33
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT
OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOR 21 PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; SUBJECT TO ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OF
RECORD AND CONTAINING 18.365 NET ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Is changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre)
to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) and the
Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
MR
March 19, 1996
ORDINANCE NO. 96-07
SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of. this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 5. Effective Date
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan
amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the
Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida
Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders,
development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may
be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final
order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission,'
this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption at a
public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740
Centerview Drive, Tallahassee,'Florida 32399-2100.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 11th day of March, 1996 for a public hearing to be held on
the 19th day of March, 1996 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner Tippin ,
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 3/19/96
APPROM As. To FOYM Aero BY: 10. ,_ -
eeGAr. SUFFICIENCY Fran s Irma
WS G. Collins II tp County Attorney
fume . ea s,TP_
ATTEST BY:
Cc®unity Develo nt Di otos yee�K.,Bar
Clerk
/Qyah
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State o Florida
this 27th day of March , 1996.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 2nd
day of April , 1996, at it �0 A.M. /R�x and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Boar of County "i�issioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
67 BOOK 97 F,u.6 7
March 19, 1996
nox 917 Fk,lF 608
ORDINANCE NO. 96-08
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE - -
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO
RM -8, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 26TH
STREET AND 58TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public --hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners' of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conforman=e with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezon_ng request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property Situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 4, SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 33
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT
OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER F; -.RMS COMPANY AS RECORDED IN
PLAT BOOR 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA; SUBJECT TO ALL RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS OF
RECORD AND CONTAINING 18.365 NET ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from A-1 to RM -8.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
Effective Date: -This ordinance shall become effective upon the
issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs -of a Notice
of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 96- in
compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a
final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced
amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10).
68
March 19, 1996
ORDINANCE NO. 96- 08
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 19th day of March, 1996.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 7th --day of March, 1996 for a public hearing to be held on
the 19th day of March, 1996 at which time it was moved for adoption -
by Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner
Tippin , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner John W. Tippin
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Aye
Aye
Absent
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 3/19/96
Fran B. Adams, Chain
ATTEST BY:
Je y K. Bar , lerk
William G. Colli I, Deputy County Attorney
Community Devel
Indian giver Cn AgprOved Date
Admim sCp t
Legal
Budget
Deot. /l A. i
Risk Mgr.
This, ordinance was .filed with the Department of State on the
following date: March 27, 1996
u\v\j\bfbrzon.ord
69
March 19, 1996
����
BOOK 9'j PAGE
Boa 97 PAu.610
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEMENTS
P O. Boa 7265 Vero Beach. ROW0 32961 562.2315
0011w"OFINDLIN RIVER ilk ^J� A
SPATE OF FLORIDA ''//� W 3
SeAmum4 h. ==.—.=
b &+tlns� Nd b�
Vm mcb Pnm.Jmm.L • w -'.0-9m' P-na.bd a vm men b
bbl -n RN--c.n Fbrb-;by
—p-blbbd b..br "-WI.OA ftam
OA) PAOL
S�/v/y/n�/b�-A wb dW bd—m-tbb
iLyyyT l9�AD
cA a.
Fpp PlaP•'" 1(
March 19, 1996
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CHANGING
LAND USE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
will consider a proposal to adopt an amendment to its comprehensive
plan changing the use of land within the unincorporated portions of
Indian River County and changing the text of the Comprehensive Plan.
A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, March 19,
1996, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will
make a final decision whether to amend the county's comprehensive
plan. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordi-
nance entitled: OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
4---UF7
I L-2
6C/1
AN ORDINANCE
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND AMENDING
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHAN-
GING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
+/- 18.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTH-
EAST CORNER OF 58th AVENUE AND 26th
STREET, FROM L-2 TO M-1; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFEC-
TIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing
regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public
at the Community Development Department located on the second
floor of the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. on weekdays.
The proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public during
regular business hours at the office of the Clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
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 pro-
ceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must
contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator
at 567-8000 extension 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.
70
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a
Memorandum of March 11, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
obert M. Kea i , AIC
Community Devel pment 'rector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel /W
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 11, 1996
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
ELEMENT AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 95-07-0133
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 19, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive
plan. As required by state law, all development activities must be
consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county activities
must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be
updated to reflect the latest and best available information and to
address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must
periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the
community's changing needs and desires, as well as changes to state
law and requirements. For those reasons, the county has initiated
this amendment.
Recently, staff determined that two elements of the plan need to be
revised. The affected elements are the Traffic Circulation Element
and the Capital'Improvements Element.
The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown on
attachment 2. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by
strike throughs, while additions are shown as underlined. Maps and
Tables are labeled as either existing or_ proposed.
O%VV "-i �5, ����, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the
Proposed amendment, with one modification, to the State Department
of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. The modification
recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission involves the
proposed changes to the Capital Improvements Element. While the
amendment, as proposed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, would
have allowed up to a three year period between the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for a development project and the
construction of roads needed to serve that development, the
71
March 19, 1996 booK 97 F'� rF fti
Bou 97 fr�k61
i
Planning and Zoning Commission felt that the three year "lag"
period was too long and that a one year "lag" period was more
reasonable.
On November 21, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to transmit the proposed amendment request, containing a two year
"lag" period, to DCA for their review.
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed
amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report. The ORC Report, which planning staff received on
February 16, 1996, did not contain any objections to the proposed
amendment.
The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not
to adopt the requested amendment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY ELEMENT
Ing this section, the proposed amendments to
be discussed. The purpose is to identify
the plan needing amendment and to present
amendment requests.
Traffic Circulation Element
each plan element will
the various portions of
justification for the
Since the 1990 adoption of the current comprehensive plan, Vero
Beach and the densely developed area surrounding it have been
designated "urban" by the Census, and a Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) has 'been established. Consisting of
representatives from each local government in the county, the MPO
is the primary transportation planning agency for the county.
On June 14, 1995, after substantial public participation, the MPO
adopted a 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan. That plan is based
on the latest and best available data.
While working on the transportation element of the county's
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), county staff -discovered
several minor inconsistencies between the MPO plan and the county
comprehensive plan. Consistency between these plans facilitates
their implementation and administration. Additionally, state and
federal regulations require such consistency. To ensure
consistency between the comprehensive plan and the MPO plan, this
amendment request was initiated.
The Traffic Circulation Element amendment consists of adding new
Table 4.7.4, which consists of improvements scheduled for 1996-2010
in the MPO plan, and new Policy 1.5 which adopts Table 4.7.4 and
gives that table priority where it conflicts with other tables in
the element. In the future, all tables in the Traffic Circulation
Element will be updated and revised. This will be done in
conjunction with plan amendments associated with the county's
comprehensive plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
prVrVccd aaua,ivau�.a v t./ v aa. .r::ffic Circulation Element will also
update Figure 4.5.2, the Existing Roadway Functional Classification
Map, and Figure 4.13.21 the Future Roadway Functional
Classification Map. The proposed amendments to these maps involve
changing the functional classification of the portion of S.R. 60
between I-95 and 100th Avenue from Rural Principal Arterial to
Urban Principal Arterial. This change will reflect the urbanized
area designation established after the 1990 census.
72
March 19, 1996
a � �
Capital Improvements Element
One of the principal components of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985
was a requirement that each local government in the state include
a concurrency management plan as part of its capital improvements
element. As enacted, the state planning law defined concurrency
strictly, essentially requiring that adequate facilities (for
potable water., sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, parks, and
roads) be available concurrent with the impacts of new development.
Recently, however, the legislature amended the concurrency law,
providing local governments more flexibility in implementing the
concurrency requirement. This proposed amendment to the capital
improvements element would allow the county to apply the state's
more flexible concurrency regulations.
Although six types of facilities are subject to the state's
concurrency mandate, the major focus is on transportation.
Statewide, it has been the lack of adequate roads which has delayed
or eliminated development projects. This has occurred not only
because of the cost of building new roads or widening existing
roads, but also because of the long lag time between identification
of a roadway level -of -service problem and completing a major
roadway improvement project.
For these reasons, the legislature recently modified several
provisions of the state concurrency law. Among those changes, the
most significant was a modification of when a roadway improvement
would have to be in place in order to consider the capacity
provided by the improvement available to accommodate the demands of
new development. Previously, state law required that a roadway
improvement necessary to serve a development project either be in
place or be under construction prior to issuance of a development
order for a project needing that improvement.
Besides those transportation concurrency provisions, state law also
allowed issuance of a development permit for a project, where
roadways impacted by the project would not maintain adequate
service levels, as long as the needed roadway improvements were
guaranteed by an enforceable developer's agreement or an executed
contract to be under construction within one year of development
order approval, or were included within the first three years of
the local government's or FDOT's five year capital improvements
program with the condition that minimum level of service standards
for the roadways be maintained. As amended, the state concurrency
law now allows local governments to approve development projects
where existing roads are inadequate to accommodate additional
development, but necessary roadway improvements will be under
construction within three years of issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the project.
The major difference between state law as it was before and as it
is now is that previously a local government could approve a
development project where adequate roads to serve the project were
not in place at the time of development order approval if the local
government had requirements in :lace '-,o esesare that adequate roads
would be in place to accommodate the project's impacts. Under
present state law, a local government may approve a development
project, where adequate roads to serve the project do not exist,
even if the needed roadways will not be under construction until
three years after issuance of the development project's certificate
of occupancy --with no requirement to maintain minimum acceptable
levels of service.
73
March 19, 1996
BOOK 97 PAGE 613
dooK 9 7 PGF 6.1
development orders for projects needing roadway improvements
reflected in the county's capital improvements plan must be
modified.
The modification of the portion of the Capital Improvements Element
which allows roadway improvements within the county's capital
improvement program to be considered in determining roadway
capacity available for development projects involves several
components. These are that the improvement must be in place or
under construction not more than two years from issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for a development. project needing the
improvement; that the capital improvements element include the
improvement's estimated date of commencement of actual construction
and the estimated date of completion; and that the Capital
Improvements Element include a requirement that, if this allowance
is used to meet the concurrency requirement for a project, then a
comprehensive plan amendment will be required: if any roadway
improvement project needed to maintain levels of service is
deferred, delayed, or eliminated.
To use these provisions to approve a development project where
existing roadways are not adequate. to accommodate the impacts of a
project but where a roadway improvement that would accommodate the
project's demand is in the county's or FDOT's capital improvement
program, the needed roadway must be identified in the capital
improvements element with specific start and completion dates.
Recognizing that certain roadways are approaching capacity but are
programmed for improvements, staff has prepared Table 13.24. That
table lists several roadway improvement projects along with their
start and completion dates. In adopting Table 13.24 as an
amendment to the capital improvements element, the county will
allow development projects that might be denied because of level -
of -service deficiencies with the roadways shown in Table 13.24 to
be approved based upon the county's commitment to make the required
improvements in the referenced timeframes.
To implement the proposed changes, the Capital Improvements Element
amendment must update the text of the Capital Improvements Element
to reflect changes in state law. That update includes new table
13.24 which gives the estimated date of commencement of actual
construction and the estimated date of project completion for
priority transportation projects.
The Capital Improvements Element amendment includes new policy 5.13
which specifically adopts table 13.24. The amendment also includes
changes to tables 13.8, 13.18 and 13.23 to maintain the internal
consistency of the element.
ANALYSIS
Following a discussion of the consistency of the proposed
amendments with the comprehensive plan, this section will present
an analysis of the reasonableness of each of the proposed
amendments.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency
with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section
800.07(1) of the.county code, the "comprehensive plan may only be
amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S."
The goals, objectives and policies -are the most
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements
identify the actions which the county will take
74
March 19, 1996
important parts of
in the plan which
in order to direct
To take advantage of the more flexible state concurrency law, the
county must amend the concurrency management plan component of its
capital improvements element. The principal changes involve
modifying the timeframe for commencing construction of a needed
roadway facility to be constructed pursuant to a binding contract
or a developer's agreement. The proposed amendment would change
that.timeframe from one year after development order approval to
two years after issuance of a certificate of .occupancy for the
project. ---=In addition, the provision to allow issuance of -
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability to these proposed amendments are the
following policies and objectives.
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating any comprehensive plan amendment request, the most
important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in
order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment. These criteria
are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances.
Based on its analysis, staff believes that the proposed amendments
meet the third criterion.
- Traffic Circulation Element
When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the county did not have an
MPO. Since that time, an MPO has been established, and that MPO
has adopted a 2020 Long Range Transportation Plan that Is based on
the latest and best available data. The establishment of an Indian
River County MPO, and the development of the MPO's 2020 Long Range
Transportation Plan, constitute a substantial change in
circumstances.' For that reason, the proposed amendment meets
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third criterion and is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
The third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 also
applies to the changes to Figures 4.5.2 and 4.13.2. These changes
update the functional classification from Rural Principal Arterial
to Urban Principal Arterial for S.R. 60 between I-95 and 100th
Avenue.
After the 1990 Census, the boundary of the county's urbanized area
expanded west along S.R. 60 from I-95 to 100th Avenue. The
expansion of the urbanized area constitutes a substantial change in
circ.iaLw Lances . ror that reason, the proposed amendment waists
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third criterion and is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Capital Improvements Element
State law determines the conditions under which programmed
improvements to a roadway may be considered when assessing the
roadway's capacity. Since plan adoption, state law regarding this
issue has been changed. That revision to state law constitutes a
substantial change in circumstances. For that reason, the proposed
amendment meets Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third
criterion and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy
13.3.
75
March 19, 1996 BOCK 97 F,�GF, 615
8m 97 FArF 616
Consistency with Other Comprehensive Plan Policies and Objectives
While Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is of special relevance
to all comprehensive plan amendments, other objectives and policies
are also applicable.
- Transportation Element
Transportation Element Policy 8.1 specifically states that the
county recognizes that the county will be designated "urban" and
that an MPO will be established. Policy 8.1 -also states that the
county will work for a coordinated transition to MPO status.
Additionally; Economic Development Element Objective 9 states that
the county will facilitate coordination and cooperation among
governmental jurisdiction and agencies. By eliminating
inconsistencies between the comprehensive plan and the MPO plan,
the proposed amendment implements Transportation Element Policy 8.1
and Economic Development Element Objective 9.
- Capital Improvements Element
The proposed amendment increases the county's flexibility for
determining when facility infrastructure capacity can be considered
available. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent
with several plan policies that require the maintenance of minimum
LOS. Those policies include Capital Improvements Element Objective
3 and Policy 3.5, and Traffic Circulation Element Policies 1.1 and
2.1.
While the referenced objectives and policies, including Future Land
Use Element Policy 13.3, are particularly applicable to this
request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have
relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request
for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. .Based upon
that analysis, staff determined that the proposed -changes to the
Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvements Elements are
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Traffic Circulation Element
The proposed changes to the Traffic Circulation Element will
incorporate the latest and best available data into the
comprehensive plan. They will also cause the plan to more
accurately reflect current conditions and programmed improvements.
The proposed amendments ensure that the county plan will be
consistent with the MPO's long range plan. Since all state and
federal highway improvement expenditures must be approved by the
iaJ.J. %A iuv, Laic 1GV is the county's primary transportation
planning agency. By giving priority, when conflicts occur, to new
table 4.7.4, which is consistent with the MPO plan, the new Policy
1.5 will ensure that the comprehensive plan is consistent with the
MPO plan. With the adoption of the EAR recommended comprehensive
plan amendments, all of the tables in the transportation element
will be consistent with each other and with the MPO plan.
Capital Improvements Element
The proposed capital improvements element amendment would have a
number of implications for the county. While the added concurrency
provisions would provide the county more flexibility in approving
development projects where adequate road capacity to accommodate
the impacts of new development projects does not presently exist,
the result would be more congestion and roadways operating below
76
March 19, 1996
minimum acceptable levels -of -service. Consequently, adoption of
this amendment and application of the flexible concurrency
provisions could adversely affect quality of life in the county.
As structured, the more flexible state concurrency law reflects a
philosophy that inadequate levels -of -service (in terms of traffic,
this means_ more congestion) are acceptable for a short period of
time (essentially up to three years) as long as improvements needed
to meet service level standards are committed and will be
constructed within three years of project certificate of occupancy.
By adopting more flexible standards, the county would be accepting
a tradeoff. As a result, the county could allow development
projects to be approved and constructed even though adequate
roadway capacity to serve those projects does not exist, with the
tradeoff being that the public would experience congestion on
affected roadways.
Besides the level-of-service/congestion issue associated with the
proposed capital improvements element amendment, there is another
important issue which must be considered. That issue relates to
the county's liability in case programmed improvements are delayed
or eliminated.
As indicated in the proposed amendment wording, the county must
commit to timeframes for beginning and completing roadway
improvements identified in the capital improvements program if the
capacity to be produced by those improvements is to be considered
available in approving new development projects which otherwise
would not meet concurrency requirements. Another condition for
applying the capacity from future road improvements to new
development projects is that the county must commit to submitting
a comprehensive plan amendment if any of the programmed improvement
projects needed to accommodate the impacts of new development
projects are delayed, deferred, or eliminated.
This last condition imposes potential liability on the county if
for some reason, either financial, legal, technical, or other, the
county cannot start or complete a project on time. Because that
condition requires a comprehensive plan amendment in the case of
project delay, deferral or elimination, the state then would be
involved in the process. In its review of an amendment to delay,
defer or eliminate an improvement project needed to serve
development projects that have already been approved and may
already have been constructed, the state could potentially require
the county to rescind development orders, withhold certificates of
occupancy, construct alternative roadway improvements, or take
otaiar ac Z--ioraa . "I rI .Z t ices coiAnty will approve development orders
based upon its commitment to make roadway improvements, the county
must be prepared to meet its commitments or incur unknown
consequences.
Although the state's concurrency law has been changed to allow -more
flexibility in implementing concurrency, the county is not
obligated to adopt these provisions. By retaining its current
requirements, however, the county will probably soon be in a
position where it must deny development project applications
because of roadway level -of -service problems. Adopting the
proposed amendment will allow the county to approve such projects,
but at a cost. The cost will be more, but temporary, traffic
congestion on some roads, and added financial risk to the county if
programmed projects are not started or completed on time.
77 �q �?.g
I PAGE U1 7
March 19, 1996 BOOK 9
sooK 97 PnGF 618
For the reasons identified above, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners not take full advantage of the state's more flexible
concurrency requirements. Recognizing that allowing roadways to
operate below minimum acceptable levels of service for more than
three years would adversely affect the quality of life in the
county, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the
three year concurrency allowance be changed to one year.
At the transmittal public hearing the Board of. County Commissioners
agreed that allowing roadways to operate below minimum acceptable
levels of service for more than three years would adversely affect
the quality of life in the county. The Board, however, indicated
a preference for more flexibility than the one year concurrency
allowance recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. For
that reason, the Board voted to transmit the proposed amendment
with a two year concurrency allowance.
Given those considerations, staff's position is that adopting the
two year concurrency allowance will be sufficient. While giving
the county less than the maximum concurrency flexibility allowed by
state law, this alternative will ensure that any traffic congestion
and quality of life impacts will be of shorter duration. At the
same time, development projects can be approved, and growth will
not be restricted. And over a longer timeframe, level -of -service
standards will be adequate.
CONCLUSION
The proposed amendments will enhance the plan by updating the
Traffic Circulation and Capital Improvement Elements to reflect new
conditions and information, as well as changes to state law. The
analysis also demonstrates that these amendments will maintain the
plan's internal consistency. For these reasons, staff supports the
adoption of the proposed amendments.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the attached ordinance amendmening the
comprehensive plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application
2. Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan
3. Approved Minutes of the October 26, 1995 Planning and Zoning
Commission -Meeting
4. Approved Minutes of the November 21, 1995 Board of County
Commissioners Meeting
5. DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report
6. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Ordinance
Director Keating advised that Table 13.24 shows several
roadways that are close to capacity and could be a problem sometime
_ in the future. Public Works Department has indicated they feel
comfortable with the projected dates for these projects. He
explained that there could be development projects coming in that
might put one of these roadways over capacity and the Board would
have the discretion of approving that development project as long
78
March 19, 1996
as construction of the roadway would begin not more than 2 years
after certificate of occupancy for the project under consideration;
the project would have to be completed in the time frames
referenced.
- PROPOSED
Table 13.24
Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program
Facility From To
Improvement
Type
Estimated
Begin Date
Estimated
Completion Dats
Estimated
Cost
3rd Avenue 26th Shed 12th Street
Widen to 4 lanes
Feb 1997
Dec 1997
51,000,000
C.R. 512/Fellu= Rd I-95 CR 510
Widen to 4 laces
Sep 1997
Dec 1998
S3,750,000
12th Stroet 12th Avemu 27th Avenue
Widen to 4 lames
Sep 1998
Sep 1999
51,250,000
58th Avenue 33rd Street 23rd Street
Widen to 4 hues
Sep 1996
Sep 1998
5650,000
58th Avenue SR 60 17th Street
Widen to 4 lanes
Sep 1996
Sep 1998
$650,000
58th Avenue 17th Strad 4th Shed
Widen to 4 lanes
Oct 1997
Oct 1999
$1,950,000
16th/17th Strad US 1 W of 14th Ave
Widen to 5 lanes
Sep 1999
Sep 2001
511500,000
Old Dixie Hwy Oslo Road 4th Street
Widen to 3 hues
Sep 1999
Sep 2001
S2.625.000
Old Dixie Hwy 4th Shed 12th Shed
Widen to 3 hues
Sep 1998
out 1999
s1,250,000
Old Dixie Hwy 12th street 16th Street
Widen to 3 lames
Sep 1997
Oct 1998
$750.000
27th Avenue Oslo Road 4th Street
Widen tD 3 lanes
Sep 1999
Sep 2000
52,000,000
4th Street 20th Avenne Old Dixie Hwy I
Widen to 3 lams I
Sep 1999 I
Sep 2000 I
51.000,000
He emphasized that there are trade-offs when deciding to use
flexibility in capital improvements elements. The trade-offs are
that you can approve development projects, but for a limited time
period we would probably have a little more congestion. In
addition, to the extent that a road may not be completed in the
time frame identified, we may be subject to DCA getting involved in
the process. But, staff feels that this is a good flexible
position for the County to have and that the County can exercise it
with discretion and use it as it needs to be used.
He called attention to backup pages 261-262, one of the
attachments to the. proposed ordinance, wording under Capital
Improvements Element, Availability of Capacity, should be changed
from: rr ... not more than two years after ... rr to read: rr . . . up to
2 years ...rr according to the intent expressed at the November 21,
1995, meeting. He asked for discretion to reword it so it will
make sense and incorporates the Board's intent.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out the Board's discussion in
Minutes of November 21, 1995, seen on page 246 of the backup:
79
March 19, 1996 �UDK 97 PAGE 619
97 FnFIF. 620
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert felt that 2 years might
be too much leeway and preferred i year.
Commissioner Tippin suggested a compromise of "up to 2 years" .
ON NOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the board unanimously adopted
Resolution 95-145 approving the transmittal of a
proposed amendment to the Indian River county
Comprehensive Plan to the State: of Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review;
with an amendment to the level of concurrency being
changed to "up to 2 years".
ATIAIUt9FNf 4
NOVEhUM 21, 1"S
3?
Director Keating understood and will make the change in
accordance with the direction of the Board.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, the Chairman
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) adopted Ordinance
96-09 amending the traffic circulation element and
the capital improvements element of the
Comprehensive Plan with the correction of "up to 2"
years" as discussed.
Commissioner Tippin wondered what percentage of road projects
have been finished on time.
80
March 19, 1996
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
TEXT OF THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT AND THE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING _
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
- WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county initiated a comprehensive plan amendment
application during its July 1995 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 26, 1995 after
due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency made a recommendation
regarding this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 21, 1995,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 7, 1995, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Reco.,-mon:ations, and Comments (ORC) Rc"ort from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on February 16, 1996, and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections to this
comprehensive plan amendment, and
F
PUOK � AGF. �''�
March 19, 1996 81 �
BOOK 97 PAGE 622
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on March 19, 1996, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(-b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE- IT- ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Af fairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
• Addition of Policy 1.5 to the Traffic Circulation Element, as
shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to Objective 2 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as
shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to Table 4.7.4 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as-
shown
s-shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to Figure 4.5.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to Figure 4.13.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
• Addition of Policy 5.13 to the Capital Improvements Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to the Data and Analysis of the Capital Improvements
Element, as shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to Table 13.8 of the Capital Improvements Element, as
shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to Table 13.18 of the Capital Improvements Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
• Revision to Table 13.23 of the Capital Improvements Element,
as shown on Attachment A.
• AdYi lion of m" Lia 13.24 to tho Capital Improvem%.nts Element,
as shown on Attachment A. -
SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
March 19, 1996
82
0
I
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
SECTION 4. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore., --the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION'5. Effective Date
The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan
amendment, shall be the date a final order is -issued by the
Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission
finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida
Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders,
development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may
be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final
order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission,
this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption at a
public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740
Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 11th day of March, 1996 for a public hearing to be held on
the 19th day of March, 1996 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Tippin.
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 3/19/96
BY:
Fran
ATTEST BY:
Acknowledgment by the Department of Sf
this 2nd day of April , 1996.
Acknowledgment from the Department of
day of - April , 1996, at 10:30-
the
0:30-
the office of the Clerk of the Board
Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
Wil+iam G. Collins
i�Va+Gi V aa. ,L%==L.ilLy,
Community Developu
. Barton C r
he State of rid`a
State received on this 8th
A.M./Botox and filed in
of County Commissioners of
,;Deputy County Attorney
t D
83
InAion Siva CQ
BGG, OYeO Date
Admin
Legal C 3
Budget r!
Dept.
Risk m2r. '3 4
u\v\j\cpa7-95.ord
March 19, 1996 noK 97 FAGF 623
C.
BOOK 9 PAGE 624
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
ATTACHMENT A
REVISIONS TO THE CONPRE ENSIVE PLAN
1. Traffic Circulation Element Policy 1.5 and Objective 2
2. Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.7.4
3. Traffic Circulation Element Figure 4.5.2
4. Traffic Circulation Element Figure 4.13.2
5. Capital Improvements Element Policy 5.13
6. Capital Improvements Element Data and Analysis page 50
7. Capital Improvements Element Availability of Capacity Section
8. Capital Improvements Element Table 13.8
9. Capital Improvements Element Table 13.18
10. Capital Improvements Element Table 13.23
11. Capital Improvements Element Table 13.24
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT
POLICY 1.5: The county hereby adopts the 2010 Major Roadway
Improvements schedule incorporated in this element (Ref.: Table
4.7.4). The improvements shown in the 2010 Major Roadway
Improvements table are those that are included in the 1996-2010
years of the Indian River County MPO's adopted 2020 Long Range
Transportation Plan. Where conflicts arise.between the 2010 Major
Roadway Improvements table and other tables in this element, the
2010 Major Roadway Improvements table will prevail.
OBJECTIVE 2 ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The county traffic circulation system will operate at or above the
minimum service levels specified in Policy 1.1, and traffic system
improvements (identified in Tables 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, and 4.7.4)
needed to ensure operation of roadways at or above the adopted
level of service standard will be provided.
84
March 19, 1996
® s �
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
Table 4.7.4
2010 Major Roadway Improvements
Facility From To
Project
Length (Mi.
Exist Rdwy
Type*
Improvement
Type
Estimated
Cost
U.S. 1 4th St St Lucie County
4.3
4LD
Add 2 Lns
$6,957,940
S.R. 60 66th Ave 82nd Ave
2.0
4LD
Add 2 Lns
$2,942,600
S.R. 60 82nd Ave I-95
2.0
4LD
Add 2 Lns
$2,942,600
C.R. 512/Fellsmere Rd C.R. 510 Roseland Rd
1.4
2LU
Add 2 Los
$2,554,400
C.R. 512/Fellsmere Rd 1-95 C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd
2.6
2LU
Add 2 Los
$3,750,000
Citrus Highway St Lucie Co Line C.R. 510
9
—
New 2Lns
$10,398,400
Oslo Rd/9th St S.W. Old Dixie Hwy 27th Ave
2.0
2LU
Add 2 Los
$3,500,200
Oslo Rd/9th St S.W. 27th Ave 82nd Ave
5.1
2LU
Add 2 Los
$8,387,580
27th Ave 12th St St Lucie County
3.4
2LU
Add 2 Lns
$5,452,070
53rd St U.S. 1 58th Ave
2
—
New 4 Lns
$1,994,100
66th Ave S.R. 60 Oslo Rd/9th St S.W.
3.15
—
New 2 Lns
$1,249,480
66th Ave/Schumann Dr U.S. 1 Barber St/Stratton
1.9
2LU
Add 2 Lns
$2,961,020
Barber St/Stratton Ave C.R. 512 U.S. 1
3.7
2LU
Add 2 Lns
$1,000,000
C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd C.R. 512 66th Ave
4.2
2LU
Add 2 Lns
$5,000,000
C.R. 510/Wabasso Rd 66th Ave U.S. 1
1.6
2LU
Add 2 Las
$2,494,520
66th Ave/Schumann Dr C.R. 510 S.R. 60
7.6
2LU
Add 2 Lns
$12,627,080
26th St 43rd Ave 58th Ave/Kings Hwy
1.0
2LU
Add 2 Lns
$2,094,800
26th St 58th Ave 66th Ave
1.0
—
New 4 Lns
$2,211,200
Roseland Rd U.S. 1 C.R. 512
3.7
2LU
Add 2 Lns
$5,720,420
*Key:
2LU - 2 Lane Undivided Roadway
4LD - 4 Lane Divided Roadway
These projects are consistent with the 1996-2010 interim year sets ofthe Indian River County MPas adopted
2020 Long Range Transportation Plan.
Traffic Circulation Element
3/11/96
TCEMPOTB.XLS
85
FAr,F ���'�
March 19, 1996 RLT4
_I
Flyurq 4.8.2
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
W/. +•, - EXISTING TRAFFIC
— r— — — i- ............
CIRCULATION MAP
'1 (L.A.F.) SERIES
pa I1
All
s
a
•
//q /T
' — N
Me 1T
//q /T
Sea
/1q K
dome
///a /T
03
i• atm K
— 1/1..T ]3j
{.
I111a /T
aq /T
/q /T `
1.1 ST a's
1q /t /• ,
aqK •� _ •
I
,.la .t O ..
ITIa./Tt .� 6
l •1 111.1 /T 6: Nl.a.a ` HH I"
aau at aa/ z CZ?
r r r
O
r ,�1
• i a s s s i 10 w z 7c
' � r r • w � a r «� • lTJ
z
Scale: ° ' ' ' ia11i• ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
Date : Dec. 1989 COUNTY ROAD SYSTEM %D
Revised: Oct. 1995 ti Urban Principal Arterial 7M Rural Principal Arterial ..1.a/..a1 Minor Arterial I
Source: Florida Dept, of Tranaportatlon. July 1988 Urban Minor Arterial Rural Minor Arterial to
Urban Collector
(L.A.F.) Limited Access -Faclllty
r
Flours 4.13.2
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1�
�l
'••' FUTURE TRAFFIC
CIRCULATION MAP
f.►
(L.A.F.)
SERIES
sl = 0 -
it :-Moundunicipal
I
•, .
Baries
, ::::1
•lb
=� 07211 ST
N
ttlk at
.
m m
3. i taro aT
..';. •
o e am ST
I
e sIla
•1N •
w
• 1 a •
•
112.41 •
Nla
fm •
00
It
46168
Aloes
�'• '.
stl► sT
— —
auk ST
loul *T
IIfu
or
;'•;.
so ST
4111 or
•,
1.1 at s
alk p s
�
.
I
aLaT •
• g i
(L.A.F.)
talk or s/
O
C7
sl le T 1
r
ftl/l aT t/ '
r r
f f f f f
f
r r
i i i ► > i
f f f f f f
Scale: ' ' _ '1.11••
FUTURE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS & THOROUGHFARE PLAN — 2010
T
Date : Dec. 1989
Rw10ed :Jan. tYYt a 0ct.1995
1111111.1 Urban Principal Arterial
J%M Rural Principal Arterial
Source: Indian River County Planning Division,
Aug.1989
Urban Minor Arterial
P --Rural Mirror Arterial
Collector
(L.A.F.) Limited Access FacIIIty
I 1
1
F
Lj
BOOK 97 pnF62S
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
POLICY 5.13: The county hereby adopts the Priority Transportation
Capital Improvements Schedule (reference: Table 13.24). Table
13.24 provides the project description, estimated date of
commencement of actual construction, estimated date of completion,
and estimated cost for projects that will increase roadway capacity
on priority facilities. The Priority Transportation Capital
Improvements Schedule is consistent with the Schedule of
Improvements (Table 13.23) and the first three years of the -adopted
Florida Department of Transportation Five -Year Work Program.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
Fiscal Assessment Summary
This section provides an analysis of the county's revenues and
expenditures for its capital improvement needs for the seven year
period beginning in fiscal year (FY) 1993-94 and ending in FY 1999-
2000. The estimated costs of the county's capital improvement
needs for this seven year projection period are derived from each
applicable comprehensive plan element's capital improvement
schedule or program and other identified facility needs. The
estimated costs of these capital improvements are summarized by
individual element and year in Table 13.18. Also, Table 13.23
summarizes each individual element's capital improvement needs,
along with their cost, timeframe, and revenue source(s). Table
13.24 provides further data specific to priority transportation
improvements.
The estimated revenues to be used to pay for the projected capital
improvements needs consist of existing revenue sources and proposed
revenue sources. For purposes of this analysis, proposed revenues
are assumed to have been approved and implemented -as required in
order to balance anticipated revenues and expenditures.
Table 13.18 provides a summary of the projected revenues and
expenditures by element category for capital improvements needs for
fiscal years 1993-94 through 1999-2000. This table identifies each
revenue by source and amount of revenue for each year by element.
The table also identifies the amount of estimated expenditure costs
and revenue for each element by year. The resulting balance of
each element's costs versus its revenues is also provided in Table
13.18.
The projected revenue from the adopted One -Cent Local Option Sales
Tax identified in Table 13.18 is carried over from year to year.
The tax became effective June 1, 1989. The county anticipated
revenue from the tax is approximately $5.3 million per year for a
maximum of 15 years. It is projected that the tax will have a 5%
to 6% growth factor per year beginning in fiscal year 1989-90.
For the Traffic Circulation element, estimated revenues consist of
gas taxes, traffic impact fees and a portion of the adopted One
Cent Local Option Sales Tax. As indicated in Table 13.18, the
revenues are expected to fund -the anticipated costs of the
identified traffic circulation capital improvement needs for the
seven year period. The estimated revenue from gas taxes is not
exclusively for capital improvement financing. These revenues are
also used to fund other transportation related expenditures such as
operating costs.
The Drainage element's revenue sources consist of the use of funds
from the road and bridge, transportation improvement and park
improvement funds. Also, revenues are proposed from the adoption
88
March 19, 1996
-I
L-1
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
Availability of Capacity
Facility capacity can be assessed two different ways. First,.
facility capacity can be determined by facilities that are existing
and available; examples would be existing treatment plants and
existing roadways with a set number of lanes. The second manner
for assessing facility capacity is to consider both existing, in -
the -ground facilities as well as facility expansions or new
facilities which are programmed but are not yet existing.
For purposes of assessing facility capacity, the capacity of
existing, in -the -ground facilities will be considered in all cases.
Programmed facilities will be considered in assessing capacity for
each public facility category when the following conditions are
met:
C For sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste and drainage
facilities:
- a development order or permit is issued subject to the
condition that, at the time of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, the necessary facilities and
services are in place and available; or
- facility is currently under construction; or
- facility is guaranteed by an enforceable development
agreement.
O For recreation facilities:
- at the time the development order or permit is issued,
the necessary facilities and services are in place or
under construction; or
- facility expansion is the subject of a binding executed
contract providing for commencement of construction --or
property acquisition within one year of issuance of a
certificate of occupancy; or
- facility expansion or property acquisition is guaranteed
in an enforceable development agreement providing for
facility expansion/property acquisition within one year
of issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
C For transportation facilities:
at the time the development order or permit is issued,
the necessary facilities and services are in place or
under construction; or
a development order or permit is issued subject to the
conditions that the necessary transportation facilities
needed to serve the new development are incluu&u ;.n Table
13.24, the county's adopted five-year schedule of
priority transportation capital improvements, and are
scheduled to be in place or under actual construction not
more than two years after issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the development. By reference, the
schedule of capital improvements recognizes and includes
89
March 19, 1996 Kcl 97 PAGE 629
DOOK 97 PAGE630
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
transportation projects included in the first three years
of the applicable, adopted Florida Department of
Transportation five year work program. Table 13.24 also
includes the estimated date for the commencement of
actual construction and the estimated date of completion
for each of the transportation capital improvements.
Where a development- order or permit is issued pursuant to
the- provisions of this section, a comprehensive plan
amendment will be required to eliminate, defer, or delay
construction of any transportation facility improvement
which is listed in the five-year schedule of capital
improvements, and which is needed to maintain the adopted
level of service standard. In approving a development
permit, the county may impose'conditions requiring that
transportation facilities necessary to serve the project
be in place or under construction by a date certain which
shall not exceed two years from the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy; or
- at the time a development order or permit is issued, the
necessary transportation facilities are the -subject of a
binding executed agreement which requires the necessary
transportation facilities to serve the new development to
be in place or under construction not more than two years
after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
development. In approving a binding. executed agreement,
the county may impose conditions requiring that
transportation facilities necessary to serve the project
be in place or under construction by a date certain which
shall not exceed two years from the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy; or
at the time a development order or permit is issued, the
necessary transportation facilities are guaranteed in an
enforceable development agreement, pursuant to Section
163.3220, F.S., or an .agreement or development order
issued pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S., to be in place or
under actual construction not more two years after
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the
development. In approving a development agreement, the
county may impose conditions requiring that
transportation facilities necessary to serve the project
be in place or under construction by a date certain which
shall not exceed two years from the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
* only applicable for consideration for the project to which the
development order does or will apply.
all
March 19, 1996
CA
t0
Fj
�p
0
T
M
Table 13.8
Indian River County
7 -Year Capital Improvements Expenditures
Fiscal Year 1993-94 through 1999-2000
Element or Category
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
11998-99
1999-2000
::
E
Recreation 6 open space
0
200,000
1,140,000
300,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
0
3,840,000
rains a
2,080 000
330,000
480,000
1,160 000
100,000
0
0
4,150,000
raffia Circulation
10 910,700
3,980,000
8 230 000
4,590,000
7,930 000
36,185,000
13,685,000
85,510,000
onservation/Aquiler
barge
18,000,000
18,000,000
10,000,000
0
0
0
0
46,000,000
anitary Sewer
10,150,000
13,440,000
9,040,000
4,430,000
2,430,000
5,670,000
4,720 000
49,880,000
otable Water
8 600 000
4,270,000
5,690,000
9,600,000
7 830,000
2,810,000
1,190,000
39,990,000
olid Waste
2,140,000
5,140,000
3,260,000
1,640,000
1,040,000
10,540,000
2,810,000
26,570,000
er Public Facilities
courthouse
7,500,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,500,000
TOTAL
59,380,000.00
45,360,000.00
37,840,000.00
21,720,000.00
20,330,000.00
56,405,000.00
22,405,000.00
263,440,000.00
u\v\j\cpa7-95.rev
1
4
to
1
1
TABLE 13.18
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMARY OF
REVENUES 6 KXPENDITURES PROJECTIONS
BY ELEMENT CATEGORY FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FISCAL YEARS 1993-94 THROUGH 1999-2000
($ MILLIONS)
ELEMENT '
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97 1997-98
1998-1999
1999-2000
Total
Drainage
Expenditures by Revenue Source
2..08
0.33
0.48
1.16 0.10
0
0
4.15
Stormwater Utility Charges
0.13
0.13
0.13
1.08 0.00
0
0
1.47
Spacial Assessments/MSTU
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.00 0.10
0
0
0.31
Transportation Improvement
1.84
0.09
0.24
0.04 0.00
0
0
2.21
Road 8 Bridge Dept. Funds
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04 0.00
0
0
0.16
TTAL
2.08
0.33
0.48
1.16 0.10
0
0
4.15
Revenue
2.08
0.33
0.48
1.16 0.10
0
0
4.15
Balance
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
N Sanitary Sewer '
Expenditures by Revenue Source
10.,15
13.44
9.04
4.43 2.43
5.67
4.72
49.88
Impact Fees
10..15
6.54
9.04
4.43 2.43
5.67
4.72
42.98
Revenue Bonds
0.00
6.9
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
6.90
TOTAL
10 15
13.44
9.04
4.43 2.43
5.67
4.72
49.88
Revenue
10.15
13.44
9.04
4.43 2.43
5.67
4.72
49.88
Balance
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
Potable Water
Expenditures by Revenue Source
8..60
4.27
5.69
9.60 7.83
2.81
1.19
39.99
Impact Fees
6.19
1.90
3.25
6.47 6.08
1.56
1.19
26.63
Revenue Bonds
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 1.75
1.25
0.00
3.00
O
Assessments
2.41
2.37
2.44
3.13 0.00
0.00
0.00
10.36
0
TOTAL
8..60
4.27
5.69
9.60 7.83
2.81
1.19
39.99
H
co
o
Revenue
8.60
4.27
5.69
9.60 7.83
2.81
1.19
39.99
CD
Balance
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
z
Solid Waste
n
W
Expenditures by Revenue Source
2.14
5.14
3.26
1.64 1.04
10.54
2.80
26.56
Bonds
0.00
3.50
1.50
0.00 0.00
10.00
0.00
15.00
zRevenue
Assessments1.07
0.82
0.88
0.82 0.52
0.27
1.40
5.78
Users Charges
1.0.7
0.82
0.88
0.82 0.52
0.27
1.40
5.78
TOTAL
2.14
5.14
3.26
1.64 1.04
10.54
2.80
26.56
tD
Revenue
2.14
5.14
3.26
1.64 1.04
10.54
2.81
26.57M
I
)
Balance
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
V0
1
1
1
nTABLE
13. 18
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUMMARY OF
REVENUES 6 EXPENDITURES PROJECTIONS
BY ELEMENT CATEGORY FOR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
f..1
FISCAL YEARS 1993-94 THROUGH 1999-2000
(S MILLIONS)
ELEMENT
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1995-97 1997-98
1998-1999
1999-2000
Total
_Recreation a Openspace,
Expenditures by Revenue Source
0.00
2.00
1.14
Ad Valorem
0.00
2.00
0.09
0.30 1.00
1.20
0.00
3.84
Grant
0.00
0.00
1.05
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
One Cent Local Option
0.00
0.00
0.30 1.00
0.50
0.00
2.85
TOTAL
0.00
2.00
0.00
1.14
0.00 0.00
0.70
0.00
0.70
Revenue
0.00
2.00
1.14
0.30 1.00
1.20
0.00
3.84
Balance
I 0
0
0.30 1.00
1.20
0.00
3.84
0
0 0
0
0
0
Conservation
Expenditures by Revenue Source
18.00
18.00
General Obligation Bonds
10.00
10.00
10.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
46.00
10
Grant
8.00
8.00
6.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
26 .00
W
Revenue
18.00
18.00
4.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
26 .00
Balance
0
0
10.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
46.00
0
0 0
0
0
0
Other Facilities
Expenditures by Revenue Source
7.50
0.00
0.00
One Cent Local Option
7.50
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
Revenue
7.50
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
Balance
0
0
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
7.50
0
0 0
0
0
0
Traffic
Expenditures by Revenue Source
10.91
3.98
Traffic Impact Fees A Taxes
8.46
3.41
8.23
4.59 7.93
36.185
13.685
85.51
City o! Sebastian
0'�
0.02
0.83
2.41 7.83
10.515
13.655
47.12
State
0.85
0.55
0.00
0.00 .00
0
0.03
0.00
0.05
Vero Beach
0.83
0.00
6.42
1.85 0.05
24.64
0.03
34.38
Developers
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.83
Federal Aviation
0.77
0.00
0.98
0.00
0.33 0.05
1.00
0.00
2.35
Ravenna
10.91
3.98
8.23
0.00 0.00
4.59
0.00
0.00
0.77
Balance
0
0
7.93
36.185
13.685
85.51
�
0
0 0
0
0
0
m
CZ
1
1
1
1
1
4 1
TABLE 13.23
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
7 -YEAR SCBEDULE OF IMPROVEMENTS
FISCAL YEARS 1993-94 TO 1999-2000
($ MILLIONS)
�POJECT DESCRIPTION
Y 1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
Y 1997-98
1998-99
1999-2000
]REVENUE
IC CIRCULATION FACILITIES
510/8.R. AIA, intersection improvements
.390
SOURCE
(J=504,
.R. ALA, Johns Island to CR 510, W. to 3 Ins
1.000
ST=504
(J)
510 bridge, widening feasibility study
.500
J)
510 ICWW to S.R. AIA, widen to 5 lanes
1.000
J
J
(J)
Corin s Blvd./SR AlA intersect, improvements
.150
R Alk Castaway Blvd to Moorings, widen to 3
lanes
.700
eland Road Ext., CR 512 to LaConia 8t.,
iden to 3 ' lana
. 430
(J)
laming 8t. Ph. 1 collector ext, feasibility
study, CR 512 to US 1
. 180
(J)
. Sob. Bi hlande Corridor Access Stud
.150
J
510/US #1, intersection improvements
.145
J
chumann Dr./U.S. il, intersection improv.
.020
(J)
CR 510/CR 512, intersection improvements
.150
(J
Bay St./U.S. 91, intersection improvements
'
.060
(BE -33%,
J=334,
ST=334)
c
0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1993-94
Y 1994-95
Y 1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
Y 1999-2000
REVENUE
SOURCE
.S. #l/Main St., intersection improvements
0.020
(5E=33%,
J=�33%,
ST=338)
CR 510/66th Ave. intersection impzovements
.085
(J)
99th Street/U.S. #1 intersection improvemento
.070
ST
I.R.Drive/U.S. #1 intersection improvements
.060
(5E=508,
J=50%)
eland Road, add lane
1.200
(J)
510, US# 1 to 58th Avenue, ROW
2.500
J
57th St. U.S. #1 to 58th Ave. new road
.500
J
53rd St., U.S. #1 to 58th Ave., now road
.100
J)
41st St. U.S. #1 to I.R. Blvd, new road
.500
(J)
45th St. U.S. #1 to IR Blvd new road
.500
J
U.S. #1/45th 8t., intersection improvements
.100
J
69th St./U.B. #1, intersection improvements
,050
(J)
45th St./ODH, intersection, ovemente
.040
(J)
41st St./43rd Ave. intersection Improvements
.100
J
58th Avenue/41st St., intersection
improvements
.060
(J)
li45thSt./58th Ave., intersection improvements
.090
(J)
.S. #1/Grand Harbor, intersection
improvements
.050
(D=508,
3T=508
65th St./U.S. #1 intersection improvements
.050
(J=504,
3T=308)
CR 510/58th Ave., intersection Improvements
,050
(J)
1
1
1
1
09
PDJECT DESCRIPTION
Y 1993-94
Y 1994-95
Y 1995-96
E1996-97
E1997-98
1998-99
Y 1999-2000•
REVENUE
80URCS
U.S. #1/53rd St., intersection improvements
.050
(J=50l0
3T=50$
U.S. #1, 53rd St. to 41st, widen to 6 lanes
4.100
ST)
41st St., IR Blvd. to 58th Ave., ROW
1.000
(J)
45th St.f IR Blvd. to 58th Ave. 1XW
.600
J
53rd St., U.S. 91 to 82nd Ave., Rt1W
3.960
J
Airport perimeter Road
2.300
(VB=33i,
ST=33%,
=33$
12th St./27th Ave. intersection improvements
.040
J
U.S. N1/17th St., intersection improvements
.250
(ST)
27th Ave./S.R. 60, intersection improvements
.250
(J)
0th Avenue/16th St.,•intersection
improvements
.060
(J)
16th St./ODH, intersection ovoments
.100
J)
16th St./43rd Ave., intersection improvements
.250
(J)
17th St./I.R. Blvd., intersection i rovements
.030
J
12th St./20th Ave., intersection improvements
.060
J
12th St./U.S. 91, intersection improvements
•060
(J)
12th St./I.R. Blvd., intersection improvements
.050
J)
U.S. iii/ODH, intersection improvements
.025
(J=508,
ST=50%
I.R. Blvd./Royal Palm Blvd., intersection
improvements
.025
(J)
I.R. Blvd/21st St. intersection improvements
.020
(J)
to
J
R JSCT DESCRIPTION
1993-94
Y 1994-951995-96
Y 1996-97
Y 1997-98
Y 1998-99
Y 1999-2000
REVENUE
SOURCE
20th Place/6th Ave., intersection improvements
.050
J
DH, 16th St. to 12th St., widen to 3*lanes
.750
J
43rd Ave. 26th St. to 12th St., w:.den to 4
lanes
1.000
(J)
16/17th St., U.S. #1 to west of ld.th Ave.,
Iden to 5 lanes
1.500
(ST)
12th St., 12 Ave. to 27th Ave. widen to 4
lanes
1.250
(J)
10th Ave., U.S. #1 to 17th St., widen to 4
lanes
.070
(VB)
27th Ave., S.R. 60 to airport perimeter road,
Iden to 3 lanes
1.850
(ST)
41st St., I.R. Blvd. Lo 43rd Ave. ROW
.300
J
5th St. S.W. 27th Ave. to 18th Are, new road
.300
J
4th St./43rd Ave., intersection improvements
.080
(J)
Highland Drive/CDH, intersection -IP)
.075
(J)
4th St./20th Ave., intersection improvements
.110
J
27th Ave./Oslo Road, intersection improvements
.150
(J=50+60
ST -50%)
St. S.W. intersection
.075
(JB.
V7thAve./let
1/I.R. Blvd intersection rovements
.270
STRoad/ODE
intersection improvements
.500
J
DH/4th St., intersection improvements 1
1.140
(J
43rd Ave./Oslo Road, intersection rovemsnte
.070
(J)
0
6
H
n
tij
z
O
1
1
n
v
IC
O1A
kD
00
F4=CT DESCRIMOA
1993-94
b
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
E
1997-98
.S. 91/1st St. S.W., intersection
iMProvements
43rd Ave./let St. S.W., intersection
Improvements
.075
ighland Dr./6th Ave. S.W., intersection
imProvements
.040
DH, 12th at. to 41h 8t., widen to 3 lanes
1
810 Road, U.S. 91 to ODH, widen to 4 lanes
1.050
12th St., 12th Ave. to 27th Ave., widen to 4
anes
1.250
DH, 4th St. to Oslo Road, widen to 3 lanae
R 512/CR 507, intersection rovemente
.100
510, 66th Ave. to CR 512, wifti to 4 lanes
R 512 I-95 to CR 510 widen to 3 lanes
5
3.750
12th St., 82nd Ave to 90th Ave., stew road
.350
6th Ave., 0810 Road to SR 60, new road
1.000
45th St./50th Ave., intersectionLmErovmnfmta
.060
16th St./43rd Ave., intersection Lmprovements
.050
R 60/82nd Ave., intersection ixTrovements
.050
R 60/66th Ave., intersection rovemsnts
.050
58th Ave./16th 8t., intersection improvements
.100
58th Ave./SR 60, intersection improvements
.100
R 60, 58th Ave. to 66th Ave., widen to 6
lanes
2
O
rp
H c
z
n
tIj CC)z
0
• a
c-�
0\ C"
C
to On
W
CT DBRCRIpTiCIN ,FY
1993-94 ,
1994-95
1995-96
Y 1996-97
IY 1997-98
Y 1998-99
EY 1999-2000
REVEBUE
58th Ave., 33rd at. to 23rd St., widen to 4
lanes
.650
30URCE
(JP50$,
D=50$
58th Ave, B.R. 60 to 17th 8t., widen to 4
lanes
.650
(D)
58th Ave., 17th at. to 4th at., widen to 4
lanes
1.95
J=50$
R 60, Osceola County line to I-95, widen to 4
lanes
18.000
(ST)
R 60, Osceola countv line to I-95 ROW
6.000
ST
ebastiaA Highlands S/D Loop Connector Phase
1, Barber St. from CR 512 to Stratton Ave. a
tratton Ave from barber at. to U.S. #1,
orridor stud
.100
(J)
512, Roseland Road to Delaware wident to 2
lanes
1.750
(J)
512, Delaware to U.S, il', add two lanes
.750
(J)
J
ibson at. thro h the City of Sebastian ROW
.300
507f realign RB 8 SB lanes
•
.500
J
512/CR 507, intersection ro•,emantp
27th Ave, Oslo Rd to 4th St widen to 3 lanes
.100
2.000
1.000
(J)
(J)
(J)
4th St, 20th Ave to Old Dixie Hwy,. Widen to 3
lanes
10.91
3.98
8.23
.59 17.93
36.185
13.685
\u\v\j\cpa7-95-ord
O
H
z
0
tilz
0
J
1
1
1
L
4
A
Mme►
v
N
ON
N
O
O
lionCT Mammon
1993-94
Y 1994-95
Y 1995-96
Y 1996-97
Y 1997-98
Y 1998-99
Y 1999-2000
SOURCE
58th Ave., 33rd St. to 23rd St., widen to 4
lanes
.650
(J=50$,
D=50$
58th Ave, S.R. 60 to 17th St., widen to 4
lanes
.650
(D)
58th Ave., 17th at to 4th St., widen to 4
Janes
1.95
(D=50$,
J=50$
R 60, Osceola County line to I-95, widen to 4
lanes
18.000
(ST)
R 60, Osceola county line to I-95, ROW
6.000
ST
ebastian Highlands S/D Loop Connector Phase
, Barber St. from CR 512 to Stratton Ave. &
.100
(J)
tratton Ave from barber at. to U.S. il,
I
orridor stud
R 512, Roseland Road to Delaware wident to 2
lanes
1.750
(J)
CR 512, Delaware to U.S. 91, add two lanes
.750
(J)
ibson St. through the City of Sebastian, ROW
.300
J
507, realign RB & SS lanes
.500
J
512/CR 507, intersection improvements
.100
J)
7th Ave, Oslo Rd to 4th St, widen to 3 lanes
2.000
(J)
4th St, 20th Ave to Old Dixie Hwy, widen to 3
lanes
1.000
(J)
10.91
3.98
8.23
4.59
7.93
36.185
13.685
\u\v\j\cpa7-95.ord
ORDINANCE NO. 96-09
Table 13.24
Priority Transportation Capital Improvements Program
Facility From To
Improvement
Type
Estimated
Begin Date
Estimated
Completion Date
Estimated
Cost
43rd Avenue 26th Street 12th Street
Widen to 4 lanes
Feb 1997
Dec 1997
$1,000,000
C.R. 512/Fellsmere Rd I-95 CR 510
Widen to 4 lanes
Sep 1997
Dec 1998
$3,750,000
12th Street 12th Avenue 27th Avenue
Widen to 4 lanes
Sep 1998
Sep 1999
$1,250,000
58th Avenue 33rd Street 23rd Street
Widen to 4 lanes
Sep 1996
Sep 1998
$650,000
58th Avenue SR 60 17th Street
Widen to 4 lanes
Sep 1996
Sep 1998
$650,000
58th Avenue 17th Street 4th Street
Widen to 4 lanes
Oct 1997
Oct 1999
$1,950,000
16th/17th Street US 1 W of 14th Ave
Widen to 5 lanes
Sep 1999
Sep 2001
$1,500,000
Old Dixie Hwy Oslo Road 4th Street
Widen to 3 lanes
Sep 1999
Sep 2001
$2,625,000
Old Dixie Hwy 4th Street 12th Street
Widen to 3 lanes
Sep 1998
Oct 1999
$1,250,000
Old Dixie Hwy 12th Street 16th Street
Widen to 3 lanes
Sep 1997
Oct 1998
$750,000
27th Avenue Oslo Road 4th Street
Widen to 3 lanes
Sep 1999
Sep 2000
$2,000,000
4th Street 20th Avenue Old Dixie Hwy I
Widen to 3 lanes 1
Sep 1999
Sep 2000
$1,000,000
Capital Improvements Element
3/19/96
CIERDTBL.XLS
101
March 19, 1996 Bo®K'�PvA
600K PAGE 642
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - EMERGENCY PERMIrrING TO
PROTECT BEACHES
Chairman Adams pointed out that in last week's incredible
storm, the City of Vero Beach and oceanfront properties lost a
great amount of beach sand. Chairman Adams requested, in
accordance with State statute and County ordinance and in order to
provide protection to property and life, that'the Board authorize
staff to issue the necessary emergency permits.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) authorized staff to
issue the necessary permits.
(Clerk's Note: Following the vote on the next item, the
Chairman recognized Vero Beach City Attorney Larry Braisted in the
audience and asked if he wished to speak.)
City Attorney Larry Briasted wanted to make sure that the City
and County coordinate efforts.
IRC EMERGENCY PERMIT FOR POST -STORM DUNE RESTORATION
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION - PURSUE SPECIAL CATEGORY
GRANT - APPROVAL OF RUTH STANBRIDGE REEWBURSEMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 6, 1996 and Dronosal:
DATE: MARCH 6, 1996
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: OLD COURTHOUSE RESTORATION GRANT
BACKGROUND:
The Board has previously indicated to again pursue the Special Category Grant for restoration of the
Old Courthouse as was submitted last year. In accordance with these instructions, Ruth Stanbridge,
consultant for the grant preparation, was instructed to proceed with the application.
102
March 19, 1996
ANALYSIS:
- Mrs. Stanbridge has submitted an estimated cost schedule for her time and expenses to perform the
services this -year. The total cost is somewhere between $1,500 and $2,600 as indicated in the
attached schedule.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since these dollars are not budgeted, staff is requesting the Board to appropriate funds and authorize
staff to disperse these dollars upon receipt of properly submitted receipts of expenditure.
PROPOSAL FOR RESUBMITTAL
e
Project: INDIAN RIVER COURTHOUSE
SPECIAL CATEGORY APPLICATION
FEE SCHEDULE
Presentation Days - April 2 -3rd
TRAVEL, LOBBYING - TALLHASSEE: 5200 $500
(SI00/day plus expenses)
April 1- May 31st
UPDATE, DOCUMENTATION,
COMPILATION of APPLICATION,
SITE VISITS: S1,Q00 Sl, 500
(20 to 30 hours)
Review Days - August/September
TRAVEL, LOBBYING, AND
PRESENTATION - TALLAHASSEE: ------_ 5300 5600
(5100/day plus expenses)
Estimated TOTALS S1,500 52,600
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) appropriated funds
and authorized staff to disperse the dollars upon
receiving properly submitted receipts of
expenditure, as requested in the memorandum.
103
March 19, 1996
8uoK 97 FAGE 643
ROOK 97 PAGE 644
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF
WATER & SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1996
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 13, 1996:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 13, 1996
SUBJECT: UTILITY BOND ISSUE
OMB AGENDA ITEM
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County was scheduled to issue the $38,380,000 Water and Sewer Revenue bond issue
on March 11, 1996. The Preliminary Official Statement was printed on Thursday, March 7, 1996.
Unfortunately on Friday, March 8, there was a significant change in the interest rates upwards which
did not benefit the County. Due to this change and the volatile interest market, County staff, the
County Financial Advisor and the Underwriter decided not to market the bonds on Monday, March
11, 1996.
Since the market has been volatile for the last several months, it is stall's opinion as well as the
County Financial Advisor and the Underwriter, to be able to enter the market when the opportunity
arises. To do this, the Board will need to approve a resolution delegating authority for staff to enter
into the market if conditions seem beneficial to the County.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolution and the
exhibits.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Exhibit A - Bond Purchase Contract (on file in Clerk's Office)
Exhibit B - Commitment for Municipal Bond Insurance
and Debt Service Reserve Fund Policy (on file in Clerk's Office)
Exhibit C - Preliminary Official Statement (on file in Clerk's Office)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) adopted Resolution
No. 96-42, which amends and supplements Resolution
No. 93-80 and authorizes the negotiated sale of not -
to -exceed $45,000,000 Indian River County, Florida,
Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1996, and
other pertinent actions, as recommended in the
memorandum.
104
March 19, 1996
BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT (dated 5/21/96 @ $38,900,000)
HAS BEEN PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THEL=CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 96-42
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF _
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING
RESOLUTION NO. 93-80; AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATED SALE OF
NOT TO EXCEED $45,000,000 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1996 TO WILLIAM R.
HOUGH & CO. AND SMITH BARNEY INC., SUBJECT TO THE TERMS
AND CONDITIONS OF A BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT; APPROVING THE
FORM OF SUCH PURCHASE CONTRACT RELATING TO THE NEGOTIATED
SALE; DELEGATING THE AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AND DELIVER THE
BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT TO CERTAIN OFFICERS; AUTHORIZING
THE DISTRIBUTION AND EXECUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL
STATEMENT AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH
THE DELIVERY OF THE BONDS; CANCELING THE REMAINING
AUTHORIZED BUT UNISSUED BONDS; AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE
OF MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE; AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF
A DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND POLICY; AUTHORIZING THE
EXECUTION OF A FINANCIAL GUARANTY AGREEMENT WITH
FINANCIAL GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY; PROVIDING CERTAIN
OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE AND DELIV-
ERY OF SUCH BONDS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida (the "Issuer"), has by Resolution No. 93-80 adopted
by the County on April 13, 1993 (the "Master Bond Resolution"), as
supplemented from time to time, particularly by Resolution No. 96-
30, adopted on February 20, 1996 (the "1996 Resolution"), autho-
rized the issuance of not to exceed $45,000,000 Indian River
County, Florida, Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1996 (the.
"Bonds"); and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds are to be used to (i) make
certain capital improvements and additions to the water and sewer
system owned and operated by the County; (ii) reimburse the County
for the cost -of acquiring a water and sewer system from the City of
Sebastian, Florida; (iii) make a deposit to the Reserve Account
established under the Master Bond Resolution; (iv) fund the Sinking
Fund in an amount to pay a portion of the interest first coming due
on the Bonds; and (v) pay certain costs incurred in connection with
the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer intends to negotiate the sale of the Bonds
as hereinafter provided to William R. Hough & Co. and Smith Barney
Inc. (the "Underwriters") for the reasons set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer wishes to approve the form of an agreement
for the purchase of the Bonds authorized to be sold -hereby; and
-WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to delegate to the Chairman or
Vice Chairman and the County Administrator or the Director of
Management and Budget the authority to award the sale of the Bonds
to the Underwriters;
March 19, 1996
L_
105 POCK 97 p4i[..05
BOOK 07 PKIF 646
RESOLUTION NO. 96-042
WHEREAS, the Issuer desires to ratify the distribution of and
use by the Underwriters of a Preliminary Official Statement, to
authorize the execution and distribution of an Official Statement
in connection with -the issuance of the Bonds -and to take certain
other actions_ in connection with the issuance and sale of the
Bonds;
WHEREAS, the Issuer has authorized the purchase of municipal
bond insurance and has received a commitment for such insurance
from Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (the "Bond Insurer"); and
WHEREAS, the Issuer has authorized the deposit of a Debt
Service Reserve Fund Policy in the Reserve Account and desires to
purchase such Reserve Policy from Financial Guaranty Insurance
Company and to authorize the execution of a Financial Guaranty
Agreement in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer will be provided all applicable disclosure
information required by Section 218.385, Florida Statutes, at the
time of execution and delivery of the Bond Purchase Contract; and
WHEREAS, this resolution shall constitute a supplemental
resolution under the terms of the 1996 Resolution and all
capitalized undefined terms used herein shall have the meanings set
forth in the Resolution;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. There is hereby authorized and directed to be
issued the Issuer's Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1996 (the
"Bonds"), in the principal amount not to exceed $45,000,000. The
Bonds shall be issued under and secured by the Master Bond
Resolution. The Bonds shall mature in the amounts and at the
times, shall bear interest at the rates, be redeemable at the
redemption prices and upon the terms and shall have all of the
other characteristics, all as to be approved by the Chairman or
Vice Chairman and the County Administrator or the Director of
Management and Budget prior to sale of said Bonds, as provided in
this resolution. The Bonds shall be executed, authenticated and
delivered by the officers of the Issuer authorized below in
substantially -the form set forth in the Master Bond Resolution in
fully registered form.
SECTION 2. It is hereby found and determined that due to the
complexity of the financing and the need to coordinate matters
among the Issuer and the Underwriter, it is in the best interest of
the Issuer to negotiate the sale of the Bonds. The disclosure
required by Section 218.385, Florida Statutes, as amended, shall be
provided to the Issuer, as evidenced by a schedule attached to the
Bond Purchase Contract wherein the Underwriter agrees -to provide
disclosure to the Issuer prior to execution by the Issuer of the
K
106
March 19, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-042
Bond Purchase Contract. The negotiated sale of not to exceed
$45,000,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1996 at the
subsequent determination of the Chairman or Vice Chairman and the
County Administrator or the Director of Management and Budget at a
price not less than 99% (exclusive of any original issue discount
on the Bonds) of the aggregate principal amount of such Bonds is
hereby approved to the Underwriter upon substantially the terms and
conditions set forth in the Bond Purchase Contract, which is hereby
approved in substantially the form attached hereto -as Exhibit A.
The Bond Purchase Contract, with such changes, alterations and
corrections as may be approved by the Chairman or Vice Chairman and
the County Administrator or the Director of Management and Budget,
such approval to be presumed by his execution thereof, is hereby
approved by the Issuer and the Issuer hereby authorizes said
Chairman or Vice Chairman and the County Administrator or the
Director of Management and Budget to execute and deliver (attested
by the Clerk) said Bond Purchase Contract in the name of and on
behalf of the Issuer, all of the provisions of which, when executed
and delivered by the Issuer as authorized herein shall be deemed to
he a part of this instrument as fully and to the same extent as if
incorporated verbatim herein. Award of the Bonds to the
Underwriter with the true interest cost (taking into consideration
underwriter's discount and original issue discount) on the Bonds
not exceeding 5.80% per annum, and maturities on the Bonds being
not later than the year 2026, may be approved by the Chairman or
Vice Chairman and the County Administrator or the Director of
Management and Budget, as attested by the Clerk, without need of
further authorization of the Issuer. The Bonds are hereby sold to
the Underwriter (subject to such conditions) in the amount, at the
price and upon the final terms set forth in the Bond Purchase
Contract as may be approved by the Chairman or Vice Chairman and
the County Administrator or the Director of Management and Budget,
as attested --by the Clerk. The authorization for any Bonds
authorized but not purchased by the. Underwriter under the Bond
Purchase Contract shall be canceled.
SECTION 5. The Bonds shall be issued under and secured by the
Master Bond Resolution, as supplemented, particularly by the 1996
Resolution and shall be executed and delivered by the Chairman of
the Issuer and the Clerk in substantially the form set forth in the
Master Bond Resolution, with such additional changes and insertions
therein as conform to the provisions of the Bond Purchase Contract
and this resolution and such execution and delivery shall be
conclusive evidence of the approval thereof by such officers.
SECTION 6. As previously authorized in the Master Bond
Resolution, insurance to insure the -holder of any Bond- the
scheduled payment of principal and interest on behalf of the Issuer
shall be purchased from the Bond Insurer and payment for such
insurance is hereby authorized from Bond proceeds in accordance
with the Commitment for Municipal Bond Insurance from the Bond
Insurer attached hereto as Exhibit "B." All provisions of the
3
107
March 19, 1996
BOOK 97 PAGE 6 1
1. J
Master Bond Resolution applicable
Series 1993 Bonds shall be equally
for -the Series 1996 Bonds. _
BOOK 97 PAGE 648
RESOLUTION NO. 96-042
to the Bond Insurer for the
applicable to the Bond Insurer
SECTION -7. As previously authorized in the Master Bond
Resolution, the Issuer shall fund the Reserve Account in the Debt
Service Fund with a debt service reserve fund policy purchased from
Financial Guaranty Insurance Company. The Chairman is authorized
to execute and the Clerk is authorized to attest a Financial
Guaranty Agreement in substantially the form attached to the
Commitment for Debt Service Reserve Fund Policy attached as Exhibit
B hereto, with such changes, insertions and omissions as may be
approved by such officers.
SECTION 8. The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., New York, New York
is hereby appointed Paying Agent and Registrar for the Bonds.
SECTION 9. The distribution by the Underwriters of the
Preliminary Official Statement, a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit "C" is hereby approved, confirmed and ratified, and the
Issuer hereby confirms and ratifies the prior determination of the
County Administrator that such Preliminary Official Statement was,
as of its date, in nearly final form within the contemplation of
Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The
distribution of a final Official Statement of the Issuer relating
to the issuance of the Bonds is hereby approved, such final
Official Statement to be in substantially the form attached as
Exhibit "C" hereto, with such additional changes, -insertions and
omissions as may be made and approved by officers of the Issuer
executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of any
such approval. The Chairman and the County Administrator are
hereby authorized to execute such Official Statement in substan-
tially the form attached hereto. The execution of such Official
Statement by such officers is hereby approved with such additional
changes, insertions and omissions as may be made and approved by
such officers.
SECTION 10. Section 17(B)(7) of the Master Bond Resolution is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(7). Seventh, the balance of any moneys remaining
may be used by the County for any lawful purpose;
provided, however, during any period in which the Reserve
Policy is in effect, the County has covenanted to
withdraw such balance only as of the end of any fiscal
year.
SECTION 11. All prior resolutions of the Issuer inconsistent
with the provisions of this Resolution are hereby modified, supple-
mented and amended to conform with the provisions herein contained
and except as so modified, supplemented and amended hereby shall
remain in full force and effect.
4
108
March 19, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-042
SECTION 12. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
(or in her absence, the Vice -Chairman), the Clerk, the Director of
Management and Budget, the County Administrator, the County Finance
Director and the County Attorney or any other appropriate officers
of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute any and
all certifications or other instruments or documents required by
the Master Bond Resolution, the 1996 Resolution, this Resolution,
the Bond Purchase Contract or any other document referred to above
as a prerequisite or precondition to the issuance of the Bonds and
any such representation made therein shall be deemed to be made on
behalf of the Issuer. All action taken to date by the officers of
the Issuer in furtherance of the issuance of the Bonds is hereby
approved, confirmed and ratified.
SECTION 14. This resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED the __L.?_ day of VrdAel,.2 , 1996.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Ap oved as to form and
legal sufficiency
W c
z�6�
Charles P. Vitunac
County Attorney
March 19, 1996
L_
5
WIM
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
�0_,,Vt_ a -
Chairman Fran B. Adams
:nti:•-e Co
Rq;roved Date
I Ory3l
y Vii• Mgr.
I
BOOK 97 fiA.aE 6
I
F,
800K PAGF.650
DONALD MacDONALD PARK - FRDAP GRANT AMENDMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 1996:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director -
FROM: Tent' B. Thompson, P.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Donald MacDonald Park - Florida
Recreation Development Assistance Program
Grant Amendment (FRDAP)
DATE: March 11, 1996
The Board of County Commissioners accepted a FRDAP grant for construction of
a boardwalk, pavilion and parking area 'at Donald MacDonald Park on June 21,
1994. The grant required completion of construction by April 1, 1996. Due to
delays in obtaining permits, staff requested a one (1) year time extension.
Attached is an amendment to the FRDAP Agreement that extends the construction
completion date to April 1, 1997.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the
Amendment. This grant does not require matching funds.
ATTACHMENT
Grant Amendment
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being _absent) authorized the
Amendment to the FRDAP Agreement extending --the
construction completion date to April 1, 1997, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
COPY OF AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
March 19, 1996
110
FLORIDA DEP BEACH EROSION CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
GRANT FOR EROSION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS IN NORTH
BEACH AREA - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT. Application and Resolu 'on Authorizing Staff to Apply for a Florida DEP
Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program Grant for Erosion Control
Improvements in the North Beach Area
DATE: March 11, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Staff requests authorization to apply for a grant in the amount of $277,500 from
the State DEP for preliminary engineering studies to begin a Coastal Erosion
Control Program for the north beach areas of Wabasso, Golden Sands area, and
Treasure Shores Park. If approved, the County share would be $92,500.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Funding grants from DEP under this program are very competitive, however, staff
is of the opinion that the application is appropriate.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board approve the authorizing resolution and
submission of the application to the state. No funding is required at this time, but
can be addressed if the grant is approved.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, 'SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) adopted Resolution
96-43 approving submittal of_ an -application under
the state of Florida Beach Erosion Control
Assistance Program, as recommended in the
Memorandum.
COPY OF APPLICATION
IS ON FILE WITH RESOLUTION
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
111
March 19, 1996 BOOK 97 FnF.651
I
pooK 97 PAGE 652
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 43
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION
UNDER THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION
CONTROL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, Indian River County has had damage to structures and/or
coastal lands by storms and erosion in areas of public lands, and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida has established a Beach Erosion Control
Assistance Program providing for financial assistance for erosion control
and preservation of the sandy beaches within the State.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, as follows:
1. The County, hereby approves the submittal of an application
under the Beach Erosion Control Assistance Program for the
purpose of requesting State financial assistance with
implementation of erosion control improvements within Indian
River County at Wabasso Beach Park, Golden Sands Park, and
Treasure Shores Park.
2. The County hereby designates James W. Davis, P.E., of Indian
River County, as the Project Engineer and Agent for the purpose
of preparing and processing this application on behalf of the
County.
3. The County agrees to implement the beach improvement program
under the procedures set forth in the Florida Administrative
Code.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Macht and
seconded by Commissioner Eggert ,and, being put to a vote, was as
follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Kenneth Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 19 day of March , 1996.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA _
BY
ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMUSSIOVERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
ATTEST:
Jef rP��C o ourt
EROS 9 .RES
112
March 19, 1996
r
MAA A
rMANA10 1
=II
r
EMERGENCY BRIDGE REPAIR - OSLO ROAD & 58TH AVENUE -
EMGHT AND MATHIS, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 18, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
J
SUBJECT: Emergency Bridge Repair -
Oslo Road Bridge over Lateral "B" Canal (58th Avenue)
REF. LETTER: Claud Mathis to Jim Davis dated March 14, 1996
DATE: March 18, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Eleven steel H -piles have corroded beneath the Oslo Road Bridge over Lateral "B"
Canal. The piles are approximately 30 years old and need reinforcing with 3/8"
steel plate. Since this bridge serves most large trucks going to the landfill, the
repair is needed immediately.
In 1989, approximately 40 similar piles were reinforced with steel "U" plates
manufactured by Knight and Mathis, Inc., a local machine shop. County crews
installed the plates at that time.
Since the County bridge crews are busy with repairing two other bridges and also
need to schedule work on three in the Fellsmere area, staff has requested a price
from Knight and Mathis to install the plates.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The cost to repair the bridge is $11,065. Staff has met with another local firm to
obtain an estimate, but it has not yet been received. Since time is of the essence,
staff is of the opinion that the work should proceed immediately.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends a purchase order be issued to Knight and Mathis, Inc. in the
amount of $11,065 to repair the Oslo Road bridge over Lateral "B" Canal and that,
bidding be waived. Funding to be from Road and Bridge Division Fund 111 -214 -
Bridge repair.
113
ROOK 7
March 19, 1996
N lcf, 7 ;11%F.654
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that he had received
one other bid for the work, but it was substantially higher than
that received from Knight and Mathis.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved a purchase
order to be issued to Knight and Mathis, Inc., in
the amount of $11,065 to repair the Oslo Road bridge
over Lateral "B" Canal, that bidding be waived, and
funding come from Road and Bridge Division Fund 111-
214 -Bridge Repair, as recommended in the Memorandum.
SOUTH REGIONAL EFFLUENT REUSE TRANSMISSION MAIN,
CHANGE ORDER #1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST - McGRAND AND
ASSOCIATES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1996:
DATE: MARCH 7,. 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI ERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAI P.E.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR ENGINEER
BY: DEPAR UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUMGIONAI EFFLUENT REUSE TRANSMISSION MAIN
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -94 -02.1 -ED
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On May 12, 1995, a Notice to Proceed was issued to McGrand and
Associates for the aforementioned project. All punchlist items
have been addressed, and the project has been accepted by the
County. The original contract amount was $1,800,178.27. Change
Order No. 1 reduces the contract amount by $52,281.50, which
equates to a final amount of $1,747,896.77. For a detailed listing
of final quantity changes, please see the attached Change Order No.
1 and final pay request.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached change order and
pay request as submitted.
114
March 19, 1996
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved Change
Order No. 1 and final pay request of McGrand and
Associates, Inc., as recommended in the Memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY -
FINAL PAYMENT SOUTHLAND PAINTING CORPORATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 6, 1996:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
MARCH 6, 1996
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
ROBERT 0. WISEMEN, P.E
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
jX6
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
PAINTING OF VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID NO. 5097
On September 19, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the award of bid No. 5097 to Southland Painting Corporation in the
amount of $32,880.00.
ANALYSIS
4
The job has been completed and accepted as satisfactory by the
County. The previous payment made to the contractor to date was
$28,197.00. The contractor has submitted a final payment request
in the amount of $4,683.00 (including 10% retainage) for services
rendered.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
Board of County Commissioners approve the final payment request in
the amount of $4,683.00 to Southland Painting Corporation for
services rendered.
March 19, 1996
L
115 655
F,
tJe� 97 FArF 656
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved final
payment request in the amount of $4,683 to Southland
Painting Corporation, -as recommended in the
Memorandum.
FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
SLJNDOWNER'S SUBDIVISION WATER ASSESSMENT PROTECT -
CHANGE ORDER #1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST -1 ASURE COAST
CONTRACTING, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 6, 1996:
DATE: MARCH 6, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY/)S ICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
W
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SECT: SUNDOWNER'S SUBDIVISION WATER ASSESSMENT PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -05 -DS
BACKGROUND
On November 21, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved an
award of bid of the subject project to Treasure Coast Contracting
of Vero Beach, Florida, in the amount of $33,875.00. (See
attachment.)
ANALYSIS
The project has been completed and accepted by the department. It
also has been cleared for service by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. The quantity adjustment during
construction was reflected in Change Order No. 1 as a decrease in
the amount of $234.84, which adjusts the final contract amount to
$33,640.16. Previous payments made to the contractor to date total
$30,276.14, leaving a balance of $3,364.02, including 10%
retainage. The contractor has submitted his final payment -request
in the amount of $3,364.02.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1 in the
amount of $234.84 (decrease), adjusting the contract amount to
$33,640.16, and final payment request of $3,364.02 to Treasure
Coast Contracting, Inc., for services rendered.
116
March 19, 1996
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved Change
Order #1 and final payment request in the amount of
$3_,364.02, to Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc., as
recommended in the Memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER AND FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WORK AIJTHOMATION - VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT - CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 6, 1996 and letter of
proposal dated March 5, 1996:
DATE: MARCH 6, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA�` RR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN //
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T SERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.Q "
U "
�
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER f�U
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WORK AUTHORIZATION FOR ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR WASTEWATER FACILITY ISSUES
(STUDY TO RESPOND TO FDEP LETTER REGARDING
VISTA ROYALE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT)
BACKGROUND
On January 8, 1996, the County received a letter from the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection dated January 5, 1996. The
letter requested a response regarding elevated total dissolved
solids level (TDS) in the monitoring wells for the aforementioned
wastewater plant. (See attached copy of FDEP letter.)
ANALYSIS
To respond to said inquiry, the Department of Utility Services has
requested Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., to submit a proposal to
study the elevated TDS level (for details,_ see attached proposal).
This study is within the scope of services agreement with them
approved by the Board of County Commissioners on November 14, 1995.
The proposed cost for their services is $1,076.00. Funding for
this work will be from Account No. 471-218-536-033.13.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Work
Authorization with Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., as presented.
117
March 19, 1996 p.
300K � 1 PAGE 657
CDMCamp Dresser & McKee Inc.
wwftvrunwW
awwaft
1701 S. R. A -1-A, Suite 204
Vero Beach, Florida 32963
Tel: 407 231-4301 Fax: 407 231-4332
March 5, 1996
Mr. Terrance G. Pinto
Indian River County
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
PY
Subject. Authorization for Emergency Engineering Services
Wastewater Facilities Issues
Vista Royale/Gardens Response to FDEP Letter
Dear Mr. Pinto:
MAR 0 6 1996
India f;l4er i.] Oate
Admin.46
Legal
S3udact
Utilities
Flask Mgr
In accordance with the agreement dated November 14,1995 between Indian River
County and Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., emergency engineering services for
wastewater facilities issues may be provided on a salary cost basis, According to our
agreement, these services must be authorized in writing from the County.
This letter serves as authorization to provide engineering assistance to review and
respond to FDEP's letter dated January 5, 1996 regarding monitor well results at the
Vista Royale/Gardens Wastewater Treatment Plant. A letter report response will be
prepared for submittal to FDEP. Additional work required after submittal, if any, is not
included in this authorization.
Categoly
Project Engineer (Level 24)
Direct Salary Cost
Indirect Salary Cost (Fringe Benefit
0.393 x Direct Salary)
Salary Cost
Salary Times Multiplier 2.3
Total Fee
Hours Total
16
$ 336
132
$ 468
$1,076
$1.076
If you have -any questions, please contact our office.
Very truly yours,
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC.
Eric J. Gr e, P.E.
EJG/pa
File: 6706 -051 -CG
pa0907
March 19, 1996
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Terrance G. Pinto - Date
Indian River County Utilities
Director of Utility Services
118
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird being absent) approved the
proposed Work Authorization with Camp Dresser and
McKee, Inc., for services in connection with Vista
Royale WWTP in the amount of $1,076, as recommended
in the Memorandum.
WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
STORM GROVE ROAD - SCHEDULE DATE TO DETERMINE IF
TIEERE IS A PRESENT NEED FOR CONSTRUCTION
Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien reviewed a Memorandum
of March 6, 1996:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County AttorneyT4,
DATE: March 6, 1996
SUBJECT: DETERMINE IF THERE IS A PRESENT NEED FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STORM GROVE ROAD
Background:
A developer's agreement was entered into on October 2, 1985, between
Indian River County and Vero Sand Pines, a Florida general
partnership, hereinafter "Sand Pines" ( copy attached as Exhibit "All).
The agreement had for its purpose the facilitation of the construction of
Hawk's Nest Golf Course and at the same time it established, in the
view of the office of the County Attorney, legal obligations for the
construction of a portion of Storm Grove Road to serve Sand Pines
property. A memorandum prepared by the office of the County
Attorney on this subject is attached as Exhibit "B".
By letter dated August 30, 1994 (copy attached as Exhibit "C") Robert
A.' Cairns, Managing Partner of Sand Pines, asked the County to "put
into action the construction of Storm Grove Road to Lateral G" to allow
him to develop his property. This request was renewed by Mr. Cairns
in his letter of April 19, 1995 ( copy attached as Exhibit "D") .
If Storm Grove Road is constructed on County right-of-way it will
divide Hawk's Nest Golf Course. The attorney for Hawk's Nest is of
the opinion that the County is under no legal obligation to construct
Storm Grove Road to serve Sand Pines.
The Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 16,
1995 considered the matter and heard presentations from Mr. Cairns and
119 PUOF 9 5
March 19, 1996
J
r
BOOK 97 PAV 660'
the attorney for Hawk's Nest Golf Course. In view of the conflicting
interpretations of the Developer's Agreement ( Exhibit "All), the
Commission felt that judicial resolution of this question would be the
best course of action.
A Complaint for Declaratory Judgment was filed by the County_ with
-Hawk's Nest Golf Golf Club, Inc. and Vero Sand Pines named as
defendants- Both of the defendants filed counterclaims against the
County. The matter was called up before Judge Makemsom on a motion
for summary judgment and an order was issued (copy attached as
Exhibit E) . The complaint as to Vero Sand Pines and the Vero Sand
Pines counterclaim were dismissed by stipulation of the parties so that
the subject matter could be determined in accordance with the Courts
order (Exhibit E) . The counterclaim of Hawk's Nest is still outstanding
but it is not material to the determination of need required by the
Court's order.
Discussion:
The Court's order states in pertinent part as follows:
The court holds that the Developer's Agreement dated October
2, 1985, between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY and VERO SAND
PINES obligates INDIAN RIVER COUNTY to determine if a
need for Storm Grove Road exists; and to notice HAWK'S
NEST GOLF CLUB, INC. to begin construction of Storm Grove
Road, if such need is determined to exist. The Developer's
Agreement does not give Defendant, VERO SAND PINES, the
right to determine that a need exists for the construction of
Storm Grove Road and that notice is to be given to HAWK'S
NEST GOLF CLUB, INC. to begin construction of Storm Grove
Road.
It appears that the next appropriate step for the Board of County
Commissioners is to marshal all the facts and then "determine if a need
for Storm Grove Road exists" at this time. This determination by the
Board of County Commissioners will be legislative in nature so that the
ex parte prohibitions of Snyder will not apply. Further, the word
"need" is not defined nor are there any criteria established to be used
to determine "need". It is this aspect of the matter which makes the
Board of County Commissioners' procedures and decision legislative in
nature as opposed to quasi-judicial proceedings which must be decided
after public hearing on the basis of the weight of the evidence and
testimony presented. Thus, there is no requirement that the Board's
determination be made after a public hearing. It is important,
however, that the Board have all the facts before it so that an informed
decision may be made. To this end, the procedure set forth below is
suggested in the interest of orderly administration.
It should be noted that if a need for the construction of Storm Grove
Road is found by the Board of County Commissioners then the
obligation to construct the road would be Hawk's Nest under the
Developer's Agreement. If no need is found, at this times then, if
there is a change of circumstances, the Board could again address the
question of need or in accordance with the Developer's Agreement the
"County shall annually, from the date of this agreement, review the
County's needs to determine whether or not construction shall be
noticed. "
March 19, 1996
120
I
I . Establish a date for the Board of County Commissioners to consider
this matter. The first or second meeting in April is suggested. _
2. Have staff bring the matter forward under Department matters by
either the Community Development or Public Works Department.
Staff should be directed to prepare appropriate back-up for
inclusion in the agenda packet. Hawk's Nest and Vero Sand Pines
should be permitted to submit any information they consider
pertinent for inclusion in the agenda packet. Said submission
must be made by noon on the Wednesday preceeding the meeting
where this matter will be considered.
3. Invite representatives of Hawk's Nest Golf Club and Vero Sand
Pines to appear before the Board of County Commissioners and
present whatever information that they feel is pertinent to making
the required determination.
4. Suggested order of proceeding:
a. Staff
b. Hawk's Nest
C. Vero Sand Pines
d. Staff for any clarification
5. Determination by Board of County Commissioners if a need, for
Storm Grove Road exists.
Assistant County Attorney O'Brien recommended the procedure as
outlined in the memorandum and suggested a meeting date of April 9,.
1996. He advised that a public hearing was not required; however,
he thought that in the interest of having a full record before the
Board, it would be a good idea to have Hawk's Nest Golf Club and
Vero Sand Pines make their presentations. He has coordinated this
with the attorneys for both groups and believed there is
concurrence.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, to schedule a determination of
present need for the construction of Storm Grove
Road for April 9, 1996.
Under discussion, Commissioner_ Eggert requested that -the
conclusions of the Metropolitan Planning Organization be included
in the discussion. Attorney O'Brien indicated he would meet with
the appropriate parties.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Bird being
absent)
121 POCK 97 PACE 661
March 19, 1996
Vit, K 97 PAGE 662
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:30 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. k,. 13irton, Clerk
Minutes approved on Al—
122
March 19, 1996
Fran B. Adams, Chairman