HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/14/1996MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, MAY 14,1996
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2)
Richard N. Bird (District 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3)
John W. Tippin (District 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
MOVED 7.B. TO ITEM 5
ADDED 13.A. - CITIZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
HURRICANE AWARENESS WEEK
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board: Report of Convictions, April 1996
B. Proclamation Recognizing May 18-25 as Hurri-
cane Awareness Week in Indian River County 1
C. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated May 3, 1996) 2-10
D. Resolution in Support of Revising Consultants
Competitive Negotiation Act
(memorandum dated May 8,1996) 11-14
�CqnPACE 01 4
027
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd )• BACKUP
PAGES
E. Contract for Sales & Purchase; John C. and
Rosemary Martin
(memorandum dated May 7, 1996) 15-23
F. Misc. Budget Amendment #019
(memorandum dated May 8, 1996) 24-25
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request by George Sigler to Discuss
Allowance of Emergency Service Tow
Trucks in Residential Areas
(staff memorandum dated May 7, 1996) 26-30
2. Request by Mr. and Mrs. R.D. Auton
Concerning Paving & Drainage Assess-
ment Liens
(memorandum dated May 8, 1996) 31-33
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
1. Consideration of Tax Abatement Program
(memorandum dated May 7, 1996) 34-75
2. Consideration of Establishing a Local Jobs
Grant Program
(memorandum dated May 7, 1996) 76-140
3. Request for Board Authorization to Submit
Surplus Land Proposal to the State for Indus-
trial Park and Recreational Park Property;
Sebastian Creek (Coraci) CARL Purchase
(memorandum dated May 8, 1996) 141-147
4. Consideration of Regional Planning Council
Report -
(memorandum dated May 7, 1996) 148-162
BACKUP
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd 1• PAGES
B. Emergency Services
None
C.
General Services
None
D.
Leisure Services
None
E.
Office of Management and Budget
I.R.C. Firefighters Request for Funding of Fire-
works - Budget Amendment 018
(memorandum dated May 8, 1996)
163-165
F.
Personnel
Change in "Plan Year" for Premium Conversion
Plan
(memorandum dated May 3, 1996)
166-168
G.
Public Works
1. Request from Summerplace Property Owners
to Use the North Portion of Wabasso Beach
Park for a Construction Staging Area
(memorandum dated May 7, 1996)
169-173
2. CR512 Right -of -Way Acquisition - East of
CR 510
(memorandum dated May 6, 1996)
174-181
3. Resolutions to Provide for the Paving improve-
ments to and set Public Hearing Date for 53rd
Ave., South of 16th St. in Sundowners S/D
(memorandum dated May 6, 1996)
182-192
H. Utilities
1. Sundowners Water Service (53rd Ave.
South of 16th Street) - Res. IV -
Final Assessment Roll
(memorandum dated April 22, 1996) 193-208
2. Vero Lake Estates Water Main - Change
Order No. 1
(memorandum dated May 2, 1996) 209-218
3. Suburban Acres S/D Water Service (34th
Terrace, South of 8th Street) - Res. I & II
(memorandum dated May 3, 1996) 219-234
BOOK PACE 03_
F,
98 0
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY j BACKUP
PAGES
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Fran B. Adams
B. Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
C. Commissioner Richard N. Bird
D. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
E. Commissioner John W Tiepin
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
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 verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at lean 4R hnnrc
of meeting.
Meeting broadcast live -on TCI Cable Channel -13 - rebroadcast 5:00 -p.m. Thursday through
5: 00 p. m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening.
_I
INDEX TO MINUTES
May 14, 1996
Regular Meeting of Board of County Commissioners
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING HURRICANE AWARENESS WEEK . . . . . . 1
CONSENT AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
A. Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
B. Pre an H Mfareness—Weei .
C. Approval of Warrants ... . . .3
D. Resolution Supporting Revising Consultants
Competitive Negotiation Act . . . . . . . . . .
9
E. Purchase of Right -of -Way - CR512 Widening
Improvements - Martin . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #019 . . . . . . .
13
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - EMERGENCY SERVICE TOW TRUCKS IN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS - REQUESTED BY GEORGE SIGLER
15
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - PAVING & DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT LIENS -
REQUESTED BY MR. AND MRS. R.D. AUTON . . . . . . . . .
21
TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
LOCAL JOBS GRANT PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE STATE TO SURPLUS A PORTION OF
SEBASTIAN CREEK (CORACI) CARL PROPERTY FOR USE AS
INDUSTRIAL/RECREATIONAL PARK PROPERTY . . . . . . . . 55
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL REPORT . . . . . . . . . . . 63
BUDGET AMENDMENT 018 - FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS . . . . . . 65
PREMIUM CONVERSION PLAN - CHANGE TO FISCAL YEAR . . . . . . 66
SUMMERPLACE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST TO USE NORTH PORTION OF
WABASSO BEACH PARK FOR A STAGING AREA TO CONSTRUCT
SEAWALL TO STOP BEACH EROSION . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
PURCHASE RIGHT-OF-WAY - CR -512 ROAD WIDENING IMPROVEMENTS -
EAST OF CR -510 - PARADISE CENTRAL CORP. . . . . . . . 73
PETITION PAVING - 53RD AVENUE, SOUTH OF 16TH STREET IN
SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTIONS I AND II . . . . 74
AS -BUILT RESOLUTION - SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION WATER SERVICE 84
VERO LAKES ESTATES WATER MAIN - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 DRIVEWAYS,
INC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
PETITION WATER SERVICE - SUBURBAN ACRES SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTIONS I AND II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
CITIZEN REVIEW COMMITTEE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD . . . .108
$38,900,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1996
Bond Purchase Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Tuesday, May 14, 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, May 14, 1996, at
9:00 a.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert,
Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Kenneth R. Macht; and John W.
Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator;
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy
Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Administrator
Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Adams requested that item 7.B. be removed from the
Consent Agenda so that the proclamation might be presented and
asked for the addition of item 13.A., Citizens' Review Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously made
the changes to the Agenda as requested by the
Chairman.
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING HURRICANE AWARENESS WEEK
(originally 7.B.)
Chairman Adams read the following proclamation and presented
it to Nathan McCollum, Radiological Emergency Analyst, of Emergency
Services Department.
1
May 14, 1996
5009 0
Box PAGF. :07
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, tropical disturbances such as tropical depressions,
tropical storms and hurricanes pose a threat to east coast
residents every year between June 1 and November 30, and
WHEREAS, landfall of these disturbances have the potential to
cause loss of property and life because of strong. winds and
flooding and,
WHEREAS, hurricane planning is an essential family function
for all residents who live along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County continues to strive to adequately
educate and prepare residents about planning, response and recovery
from all types of tropical activity through seminars, printed
material, media interviews, television programs and the newly
produced Indian River County Department of Emergency services,
"Guide To Hurricane Preparedness" which will be available, free of
charge, in both libraries and most video stores on May 18, 1996;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that May 18 to 25,
1996, has been designated as
HURRICANE AWARENESS WEER
in Indian River County, and the Board encourages all residents,
businesses, governmental agencies and community based organizations
to spread the hurricane preparedness message throughout our
community and the Board further asks that the public not become
complacent with the lack of damage from Hurricane Erin and make a
family plan should a hurricane threaten Indian River County.
Adopted this 14 day of May, 1996
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Indian River County, Florida
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Nathan McCollum thanked the Board for recognizing Hurricane
Awareness Week. He advised that on May 18 and May 19 on Channel 13
(TCI) and Channel 35 (Falcon) the video mentioned in the
proclamation will be shown. He explained that the video was made
with the cooperation of Indian River County School Board,
especially Craig Jerome. If produced professionally, the video
could have cost from $5-10,000; however, it was produced for.only
$100. He then showed a 4 -minute excerpt from the video and
encouraged the viewing public to take advantage of seeing the
entire video which will be loaned free from local video stores and
the libraries.
2
May 14, 1996
_I
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
L�
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board:
Report of Convictions, April 1996
B. Proclamation - Hurricane Awareness Week
(Removed from Consent Agenda and presented earlier in
meeting.)
C. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 3, 1996:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MAY 3, 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 April 25, thru May 2, 1996.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Warrants as requested.
3
May 14, 1996
'AGE 08
II
r
BOOK 98 PAGE 09
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0017644
INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER
3/19/96
.00
0017690
SANDY PINES
4/23/96
.00
0017697
•0017698
SCHUCKERS, GERALD
4/25/96
729.76
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
4/26/96
241.50
0017699
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
4/29/96
76.05
0017700
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
4/29/96
87.00
0017701
INDIAN RIVER ROOFING
4/29/96
3,200.00
0017702
RODDENBERRY, ALFRED
4/29/96
387.69
0017703
MIXELL, LLONALD AND/OR
4/29/96
182.00
0017704
MONTANEZ, GLORIA
4/29/96
410.00
0017705
BR07MAN MEDICAL CENTER
4/29/96
18.75
0199274
HOWARD JR, ROBERT L.
3/14/96
.00
0199481
RIVERFRONT GROVES, INC
3/21/96
.00
0200693
THOMPSON PUMP & MFG CO INC
4/11/96
.00
0200779
VOIDED WARRAN'T'S OR RECEIP
4/25/96
1
.00 Oy
0200887
GLOBAL PAVING SYSTEMS INC
4/18/96
,00
0201154
VOIDED WARRANTS OR RECEIP
4/25/96
.00
0201286
GOVERNOR'S HURRICANE
4/25/96
.00
0201475
RODDENBERRY, ALFRED
4/25/96
.00
0201511
VOIDED WARRANTS OR RECEIP
4/25/96
.00
5,332.75.-
,332.75-0017706
0017706
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
5/01/96
64.16
0201674
ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
5/02/96
21.40
0201675
APPLE MACHINERY & SUPPLY
5/02/96
172.48
0201676
A T C 0 TOOL SUPPLY
5/02/96
51.77
0201677
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
5/02/96
864.39
0201678
A T & T
5/02/96
21.17
0201679
•0201680
ALL FLORIDA BEVERAGE & OFFICE
5/02/96
52.50
A A ELECTRIC, INC
5/02/96
121.56
0201681
AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATON
5/02/96
540.00
0201682
ANTHEM LIFE HEALTH TRUST
5/02/96
89,913.03
0201683
ANTHEM LIFE INSURANCE CO
5/02/96
16,062.63
0201684
ALRO METALS SERVICE CENTER
5/02/96
250.26
0201685
ADVANCED PROCUREMENT SYSTEMS,
5/02/96
3,060.00
0201686
AMERICAN AIR FILTER
5/02/96
1,929.72
0201687
A T & T
5/02/96
1.72
0201688
A-1 METAL SUPPLY CORP
5/02/96
39.36
0201689
ATLAN'T'IC COASTAL TITLE CORP
5/02/96
57.00
0201690
ALBERTSON'S
5/02/96
11.56
0201691
ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
5/02/96
110.77
0201692
A T S I
5/02/96
74.40
0201693
ADAMS MEDIA CORP
5/02/96
234.50
0201694
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC
5/02/96
270.37
0201695
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
5/02/96
7,701.63
0201696
BOLING, STAN
5/02/96
57.00
0201697
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
5/02/96
27.80
0201698
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
5/02/96
695.00
0201699
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
5/02/96
42.00
0201700
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
5/02/96
667.91
0201701
BRODA, JANICE C
5/02/96
361.58
0201702
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
5/02/96
135.00
0201703
BILLING SERVICE, INC
5/02/96
155.69
0201704
BURNSED, B KEITH
5/02/96
150.87
0201705
BOOKS ON TAPE
5/02/96
208.50
0201706
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
5/02/96
28.40
0201707
BELLSOUTH
5/02/96
4,117.32
8
020170BOTTOM
LINE PERSONAL
5/02/96
29.95
0201709
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC _
5/02/96
273.22
0201710
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
5/02/96
19.00
0201711
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
5/02/96
129.80
0201712
COLKITT SHEET METAL & AIR, INC
5/02/96
876.07
0201713
COMMUNICATIONS INT, INC
5/02/96
160.33
4
May 14, 1996
5
May 14, 1996 1
CHECK
CHECK
CHECK NAME
DATE
AMOUNT
NUMBER
0201714
CONFERENCE OF COUNTY COURT
5/02/96
5/02/96
175.00
111.11
0201715
CONSTRUCTION HYDRAULICS-
5/02/96
500.00
0201716
CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO
PUBLICATIONS, INC
5/02/96
28.00
0201717
0201718
CUMBERLAND
COX GIFFORD FUNERAL HOME
5/02/96
5/02/96
800.00
217.10
0201719
CLINIC PHARMACY
5/02/96
626.50
0201720
0201721
COPELAND, LINDA
CREEK APPAREL
5/02/96
461.59
0201722
.CROSS
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
5/02/96
5/02/96
663.62
540.20
0201723
COOGAN, MAUREEN AND
5/02/96
247.50
0201724
0201725
CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY
CASANO, F V ELECTRICAL
5/02/96
4,468.00
0201726
CRAFTS & STUFF
5/02/96
5/02/96
177.11
721.00
0201727
COBRA GOLF, INC
5/02/96
170.00
0201728
CARTER, BECKY
0201729
C & C COMPUTER SERVICES
5/02/96
5/02/96
5,292.00
27.63
0201730
C4 IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC
5/02/96
17.00
0201731
0201732
CALHOUN, TARA
CHARLES L FLITCH POST 189, DEPT
5/02/96
1,191.50
0201733
CENTRAL A/C & REFRG SUPPLY
5/02/96
5/02/96
698.59
6.95
0201734
DAYSPRING MOWER CENTER
5/02/96
256.00
0201735
0201736
DELTA SUPPLY CO
DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC
5/02/96
27,347.54
0201737
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
5/02/96
5/02/96
168.10
2,017.28
0201738
DOCTOR'S CLINIC
5/02/96
1,316.25
0201739
DUN & BRADSTREET
5/02/96
1,197.00
0201740
0201741
DIXON, PEGGY C
DATALINE ASSOCIATES
5/02/96
118.47
0201742
DRUM, TERRY
5/02/96
5/02/96
168.00
706.45
0201743
0201744
DADE PAPER COMPANY
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
5/02/96
107.25
0201745
ECKERD DRUG COMPANY
5/02/96
5/02/96
749.72
220.00
0201746
0201747
E G P; INC
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
5/02/96
5/02/96
77.43
1,693.67
0201748
0201749
ELPEX, INC
EXPEDITER, THE
5/02/96
215.23
0201750
ELLIOTT BUSINESS MACHINES, INC
5/02/96
5/02/96
10.50
740.00
0201751
EASTCOAST MUSIC
5/02/96
32.74
0201752
0201753
EDUCORP
EAST COAST ELECTRIC
5/02/96
230.00
0201754
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
FLORIDA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
5/02/96
5/02/96
37.50
2,543.25
0201755
0201756
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
CO
5/02/96
5/02/96
12,398.18
563.50
0201757
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING
5/02/96
5,245.95
0201758
0201759
F P & L
FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
5/02/96
313,865.41
0201760
FLORIDA RIBBON & CARBON
5/02/96
5/02/96
2,169.75
750.00
0201761
FOURTH DISTRICT COURT OF
5/02/96
76.72
0201762
0201763
FUCCI, JOHN P
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
5/02/96
140.04
0201764
FLINN, SHEILA I
5/02/96
5/02/96
227.50
61.62
0201765
0201766
FALZONE, MATTHEW
FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC
5/02/96
1,448.40
0201767
FLORIDA FIRE INSPECTORS ASSOC
5/02/96
5/02/96
150.00
172.08
0201768
FUTURE HORIZONS, INC
5/02/96
40.00
0201769
0201770
FLITCH, LISA
FLORIDA GOLF DIRECTORY
5/02/96
55.00
0201771
GARBERS CONTRACTOR SUPPLY
5/02/96
5/02/96
14.95
408.30
0201772
0201773
GENE'S AUTO GLASS
GEORGE W FOWLER CO
5/02/96
278.40
0201774
GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE
5/02/96
5/02/96
24.21
74.93
0201775
0201776
GALLS, INC
GENERAL MEDICAL CORP
5/02/96
105.33
97.00
0201777
GOODYEAR TIRE COMPANY
5/02/96
5/02/96
617.47
0201778
GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES
5/02/96
360.00
0201779
GOVERNOR'S HURRICANE
5
May 14, 1996 1
BOOK 98 PAGE 11
CHECK -NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0201780
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
5/02/96
1,283.12
0201781
GNB TECHNOLOGIES
5/02/96
153.53
0201782
GREEN, MERCHON
5/02/96
111.56
0201783
H W WILSON CO
5/02/96
72.00
0201784
HARRIS SANITATION
5/02/96
332.50
0201785
HARRISON UNIFORMS
5/02/96
210.95
0201786
HECTOR TURF, INC
5/02/96
90.96
0201787
HORODNER, RICHARD
5/02/96
59.90
0201788
HOLIDAY BUILDERS, INC
5/02/96
500.00
0201789
HERITAGE BOOKS, INC
5/02/96
212.00
0201790
HRS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC
5/02/96
5,810.00
0201791
HOWELL'S OFFICE SYSTEMS, INC
5/02/96
259.00
0201792
HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
5/02/96
36.00
0201793
HUGH A HANCOCK
5/02/96
845.00
0201794
HENDRICKSEN, CLAYTON
5/02/96
140.00
0201795
HATFIELD, ERIC
5/02/96
109.43
0201796
HINDMAN SETTLEMENT SCHOOL
5/02/96
60.00
0201797
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
5/02/96
25.00
0201798
INDIAN RIVER ACE PAINT
5/02/96
14.19
0201799
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY
5/02/96
1,059.05
0201800
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES
5/02/96
628.15
0201801
INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER
5/02/96
100.00
0201802
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
5/02/96
114.00
0201803
INGRAM
5/02/96
88.66
0201804
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
5/02/96
79.13
0201805
IRVINE MECHANICAL, INC
5/02/96
499.83
0201806
INMAC
5/02/96
92.90
0201807
INDIAN RIVER CLUB
5/02/96
500.00
0201808
INDIAN RIVER NATIONAL BANK
5/02/96
4,200.00
0201809
HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
5/02/96
38.20
0201810
JACKSON ELECTRONICS
5/02/96
5.04
0201811
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
5/02/96
19.95
0201812
JUDICIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE
5/02/96
371.00
0201813
JUDGE, JAMES A II
5/02/96
433.34
0201814
JORDAN, ELIZABETH M
5/02/96
77.75
0201815
JERRY'S BIG A AUTO PARTS, INC
5/02/96
219.90
0201816
POWELL, MARY D
5/02/96
5.18
0201817
KELLY TRACTOR
5/02/96
157.66
0201818
KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY
5/02/96
110.63
0201819
KIRLIN, JOHN J INC OF FLORIDA
5/02/96
96,039.54
0201820
KELT TELEPHONE
5/02/96
37.50
0201821
LAWYERS COOPERATIVE PUBLISHING
5/02/96
473.85
0201822
LESCO, INC
5/02/96
2,507.25
0201823
L M P I CO
5/02/96
247.50
0201824
L B SMITH, INC
5/02/96
124.04
0201825
LOCKS CO
5/02/96
115.67
0201826
LIBRARIES UNLIMITED, INC
5/02/96
90.79
0201827
LAPSCO INC
5/02/96
175.00
0201828.
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
5/02/96
332.97
0201829
MEEKS PLUMBING
5/02/96
45.00
0201830
MIKES GARAGE
5/02/96
30.00
0201831
MOODY TIRE, INC
5/02/96
36.00
0201832
MOSES AUTO PARTS
5/02/.96
27.16
0201833
MACMILLAN BUCHANAN INSURANCE'
5/02/96
507.00
0201834
MACHT, KENNETH
5/02/96
940.28
0201835
MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL
5/02/96
1,375.75
0201836
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
5/02/96
88.25
0201837
3M CUSTOMER SERVICE
5/02/96
1,117.00
0201838
M D MOODY & SONS
5/02/96
121.45
0201839
MERIDIAN BUILDERS
5/02/96
500.00
0201840
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
5/02/96
15.95
6
May 14, 1996
CHECK
NAME.
CHECK_
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0201841
MICROMARKETING ASSOCIATES
5/02/96
161.40
0201842
MC•CORKLE, JACKIE
5/02/96
50..85
0201843
MCCANN, GREGORY J
5/02/96
500.00
0201844
MILLENNIA MECHANICAL
5/02/96
30.00
0201845
MAGNETHERAPY, INC
5/02/96
1,316.00
0201846
NOLTE, DAVID C
5/02/96
1,157.00
0201847
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
5/02/96
254.14
0201848
NICOSIA, ROGER J DO
5/02/96,
2,480.00
0201849
NATIONAL PROPANE CORP
5/02/96
265.77
0201850
NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY
5/02/96
876.42
0201851
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
5/02/96
575.01
0201852
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
5/02/96
68.23
0201853
OLYMPIA BOOK CO
5/02/96
572.12
0201854
OESS, STEPHEN
5/02/96
59.50
0201855
OSLO JOINT VENTURE
5/02/96
500.00
0201856
ONSITE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
5/02/96
4,202.50
0201857
PAVEMARK CORPORATION
5/02/96
216.00
0201858
PEPSI -COLA BOTTLING GROUP
5/02/96
133.25
0201859
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
5/02/96
311.50
0201860
PITNEY BOWES, INC
5/02/96
204.00
0201861
POSTMASTER #216
5/02/96
10,000.00
0201862
PUBLIX SUPERMARKET
5/02/96
197.64
0201863
PETTY CASH
5/02/96
62.00
0201864
PINKERTON, DOREEN A
5/02/96
120.76
0201865
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
5/02/96
1,179.65
0201866
PELICAN POINTE
5/02/96
7,566.43
0201867
POSTMASTER
5/02/96
96.00
0201868
P K WARE, INC
5/02/96
35.00
0201869
PARKER, TYLER
5/02/96
17.00
0201870
RELIABLE SEPTIC SERVICES
5/02/96
175.00
0201871
RINGHAVER
5/02/96
9.32
0201872
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
5/02/96
11.00
0201873
RUSSO PRINTING, INC
5/02/96
196.18
0201874
RANKIN, ANN
5/02/96
64.00
0201875
ROHANI, SASAN
5/02/96
84.00
0201876
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS
5/02/96
48.76
0201877
SCOTTY'S, INC
5/02/96
751.82
0201878
SHELL OIL COMPANY
5/02/96
28.00
0201879
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
5/02/96
845.85
0201880
SUDDEN IMAGES
5/02/96
23.47
0201881
SUNCOAST WELDING SUPPLIES, INC
5/02/96
278.30
0201882
SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC
5/02/96
584.47
0201883
SIMON & SCHUSTER CONSUMER
5/02/96
924.05
0201884
SCRANTON GILLETTF: COMMUNITY
5/02/96
25.00
0201885
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF IRC
5/02/96
2,950.00
0201886
J A SEXAUER, INC
5/02/96
681.00
0201887
SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY
5/02/96
2,616.19
0201888
SPALDING SPORTS WORLD WIDE
5/02/96
974.16
0201889
SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
5/02/96
717.78
0201890
SOLINET
5/02/96
472.27
0201891
SHELDON, JAMES
5/02/96
818.00
0201892
SPEEGLE CONSTRUCTION, INC
5/02/96
16,006.61
0201893
SYSCO FOOD SERVICE
5/02/96
1,558.47
0201894
SEIG, DUANE L MD
5/02/96
24.00
0201895
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
5/02/96
21,843.79
0201896
SMITH, VENICE TYRONE
5/02/96
14.00
0201897
SHANDS HOSPITAL
5/02/96
120.90
0201898
SECURITYLINK FROM'
5/02/96
625.00
0201899
SKALA, ERIC
5/02/96
145.87
0201900
TITLEIST DRAWER CS
5/02/96
2,106.47
0201901
TURNER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
5/02/96
11.98
0201902
T-SHIRT FACTORY
5/02/96
273.30
0201903
TEXACO REFINING AND
5/02/96
1,429.35
0201904
TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC
5/02/96
159,438.60
0201905
TURFLINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC
5/02/96
453.32
0201906
THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP, INC
5/02/96
276.50
0201907
UNIVERSAL BRAKE & DRIVELINE
5/02/96
2,058.54
0201908
UNITED HORTICULTURAL SUPPLY
5/02/96
807.30
0201909
UNIFORM EXPRESS
5/02/96
149.85
7
May 14, 1996 BOOK 98pA 1
600E 98 PACE 1
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0201910
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
5/02/96
89.00
0201911
VERO BEACH PRESS JOURNAL
5/02/96
37.20
0201912
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
5/02/96
5,075.94
0201913.
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
5/02/96
95.70
0201914
VERO RADIATOR WORKS
5/02/96
80.00
0201915
VETROL DATA SYSTEMS, INC
5/02/96
29.50
0201916
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
5/02/96
46.16
0201917
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
5/02/96
25.00
0201918
VEY, CARRIE
5/02/96
89.25
0201919
VERO BEARING & BOLT
5/02/96
98.88
0201920
VAN LENNEP, HECTOR MR & MRS
5/02/96
500.00
0201921
WALSH, LYNN
5/02/96
118.10
0201922
WEST PUBLISHING CORP
5/02/96
191.55
0201923
WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY
5/02/96
29.75
0201924
WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY
5/02/96
138.10
0201925
W W GRAINGER, INC
5/02/96
1,033.21
0201926
WAL-MART STORES, INC
5/02/96
225.40
0201927
WILLHOFF, PATSY
5/02/96
130.00
0201928
WM THIES & SONS, INC
5/02/96
320.85
0201929
WPC INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS,INC
5/02/96
195,635.78
0201930
WINDSOR PROPERTIES
5/02/96
500.00
0201931
WELLINGTON REGIOM MEDICAL
5/02/96
399.35
0201932
WHITESIDE PARTS & SERVICE INC
5/02/96
120.75
0201933
WOLFE, MEGAN
5/02/96
17.00
0201934
WHITTINGTON, KYLIE
5/02/96
93.50
0201935
WRISLEY FENCE
5/02/96
50.00
0201936
WAGNER, DANIEL
5/02/96
19.50
0201937
YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
5/02/96
465.68
0201938
ZEPHYRHILLS SPRING WATER CO
5/02/96
36.25
0201939
RODDENBERRY, ALFRED
5/02/96
368.82
0201940
SCHUCKERS, GERALD
5/02/96
729.76
0201941
HOWARD JR, ROBERT.L.
5/02/96
84.59
0201942
WOELFLEIN, JOHN H
5/02/96
.37.02
0201943
HEIM, WILLIAM W
5/02/96
33.49
0201944
GRAND HARBOR
5/02/96
77.49
0201945
LEWIS, HAZEL
5/02/96
71.38
0201946
TAYLOR, WILLIAM & JEANNE
5/02/96
21.43
0201947
M G B CONSTRUCTION
5/02/96
50.00
0201948
CHASTEEN, KATHLEEN M
5/02/96
17.82
0201949
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO INC
5/02/96
341.21
0201950
BONNER, VERDELL
5/02/96
82.26
0201951
BOWERS, MAUREEN
5/02/96
15.44
0201952
HOLTON, LARRY
5/02/96
39.45
0201953
ROSE, RONALD J
5/02/96
44.12
0201954
AVESATO, SANDRA
5/02/96
44.10
0201955
POWELL, MICHAEL
5/02/96
21.48
0201956
D C CORP OF VERO INC
5/02/96
694.10
0201957
JOHN LLOYD BUILDERS INC
5/02/96
50.00
0201958
CALABRETTA, JOSEPH
5/02/96
23.28
0201959
GIFFORD GROVES LTD
5/02/96
66.89
0201960
JESBERGER,'WILLIAM F
5/02/96
56.91
0201961
CRAFTY CRITTERS
5/02/96
42.97
0201962
OHMSTEDE, PAULINE
5/02/96
39.97
0201963
CAMPBELL, VICK & RAC ELLE
5/02/96
31.16
0201964
HEAD, KEVIN
5/02/96
61.85
0201965
ANDERSON, ARr,ENE
5/02/96
62.25
0201966
TIPTON,'ARTHUR D
5/02/96
51.96
0201967
FLA ENTERPRISES OF TREAS COAST
9/02/96
33.02
0201968
VILLAGE WALK, INC
5/02/96
72.44
0201969
WANTLAND,PAUL
5/02/96
52.63
0201970
REISMAN, LAURENCE & LINDA
5/02/96
52.59
0201971
LITTELL, WILLIAM S
5/02/96
52.61
0201972
HESLIN, THOMAS M
5/02/96
105.24
0201973
MULLEN JR, WILLIAM
5/02/96
112.78
0201974
DELVECCHIO, RAFFAELLA A
5/02/96
105.20
0201975
DELVECCHIO, JOSEPH
5/02/96_
105.20
0201976
KLETTER, kLARA S
5/02/96
49.11
8
May 14, 1996
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NEMER
DATE
AMOUNT
0201977
ALAN SCHOMMER PROPERTIES
5/02/96
200.00
0201978
TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP
5/02/96
105.12
0201979
SANCHEZ, MARK J
5/02/96
52.59
0201980
CHNUPA, CATHY
5/02/96
48.98
0201981
KELLY, CHAD A
5/02/96
44.35
0201982
PARKER, MAE
5/02/96
32.15
0201983
GRAND HARBOR
5/02/96
60.58'
0201984
LETHIG, DEBORAH
5/02/96
63.30
0201985
MGB HOMES INC
5/02/96
90.14
0201986
MALGERI, PRISCILLA
5/02/96
52.97
0201987
FERGUSON,BETH
5/02/96
27.95
0201988
EDWARDS, CHERYL A
5/02/96
25.93
0201989
MC WHORTER, MELISSA
5/02/96
58.50
0201990
DODGEN, JOE & JULIE
5/02/96
27.67
0201991
NAGLE, ROWENA
5/02/96
31.71
0201992
BUSCK, CATHERINE K
5/02/96
70.54
0201993
MAY, WAYNE E
5/02/96
35.95
0201994
GIFFORD GROVES LTD
5/02/96
62.88
0201995
SOWELL, ELINOR
5/02/96
39.66
0201996
FLOOD, MITCHELL D
-5/02/96
38.15
0201997
HAYWOOD HOMES
5/02/96
32.93
0201998
' CARROLL, JOHN J
5/02/96
39.13
0201999
NOPE, KENNETH & SUZANN
5/02/96
55.40
0202000
PELLEGRI NI, JOHN
5/02/96
87.73
0202001
FELTHOUSEN, AARON
5/02/96
42.25
0202002
MC MANUS, MARION F
5/02/96
18.67
0202003
KELE'•_R, FRAN
5/02/96
14.71
0202004
THOMPSON, JOHN H
5/02/96
50.00
0202005
MOCERI, MARIE
5/02/96
28.10
0202006
BRUGUIERE, PETER
5/02/96
98.18
0202007
WHITE, HENRY G
5/02/96
41.45_
0202008
T PROPERTIES INC
5/02/96
46.94
1,115,521.47
A Resolution Supporting Revising Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 8, 1996:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney5�
DATE: May 8, 1996
RE: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REVISING
CONSULTANTS COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION ACT
The Chairman has expressed an interest in the attached
Resolution being transmitted to legislators representing Indian
River County.
May 14, 1996
Boa pw- 1
BOOK 98 PAGE 15
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 96-54 supporting the revision of the
Consultants" Competitive Negotiation Act to allow
government agencies to request estimates of costs
and expenses prior to the competitive selection
process beginning with a consultant, as proposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 54
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF REVISING THE
CONSULTANTS' COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION
ACT TO ALLOW GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO
REQUEST ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND EXPENSES
PRIOR TO THE COMPETITIVE SELECTION
PROCESS BEGINNING WITH A CONSULTANT.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, has made the following determinations:
1. Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, provides the guidelines
for the selection of professional architectural, engineering, landscape
architectural, or surveying and mapping services known as the
Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act.
2. Under this Act, Indian River County is able to select in
order of preference, the most highly qualified firms to perform the
required services based on various criteria such as the ability of the
personnel, whether the firm is a certified minority business
enterprise, its past performance, willingness to meet time and budget
requirement, location, etc.
3. Once the Consulting firm has been selected, the county
negotiates a contract with that firm for professional services at
compensation which the County determines to be fair, competitive,
and reasonable.
4. This Board believes that the selection of consultants should
be as competitive as possible and the Consultant's Competitive
Negotiation Act limits true competition because estimates of costs and
expenses are not negotiable until the top firm has been selected
thereby prohibiting competition in its true sense.
10
May 14, 1996
RESOLUTION 96- 54
5. This Board believes that the local governments should be
able to receive estimates and costs and expenses as part of the initial
proposal from the consultant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that:
1. The. Board supports revising the Consultants' Competitive
Negotiation Act to allow Government Agencies to request estimates of
costs and expenses. prior to the competitive selection process
beginning with a consultant.
2. This Board does therefore support amending Section
287.055, Florida Statutes, (Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act)
and amending any Federal laws (i.e. Brooks Architect -Engineers Act)
which prohibit the estimates of costs and expenses to be considered
prior to the competitive selection process.
3. The Executive Aide to the Commission is hereby directed to
send a copy of this resolution to Governor Lawton Chiles, members of
the Florida Legislature and the United States Congress representing
Indian River County, and the Florida Association of Counties.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
2
11
May 14, 1996
goo 98
r -
BOOK 98 PnE 17
RESOLUTION 96- 54
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 14 day of May , 1996.
Attest: .�.,,..-
Jeffre . Barton, MeTk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ByCR, AL3
Fran B. Adams
- Chairman
Indian Riwr Cn Approved Date
Admen.
Legal d
Budget
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
E. Purchase of Right -of -Way - CR512 Widening Improvements - Martin
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 7, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator I
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
AND
Roger D. Cain, P.E..
County Engineer
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA
County Right -of -Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: Contract For Sales and Purchase; John C. and Rosemarie
Martin
DATE: May 7, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In order to construct the widening improvements for CR 512, land
owned by the Martins in needed. This land was appraised and an
offer was made to the property owner at the appraised value, this
offer was accepted by the owner's. The area of the purchase is
1,305 sq.ft. and the appraised value is $4.00 per sq.ft. The total
purchase price is $5,220. The purchase is conditional on the
county obtaining a title guarantee commitment.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative 1•
Approve the contract for sale of the property and direct the
Chairman to execute the agreement on behalf of the Board.
Alternative 2•
Reject the contract as presented.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alterative 1, funding to be from District 3 Impact
Fee funds.
12
May 14, 1996
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the contract for purchase and sale of the property
and directed the Chairman to execute the agreement
with John C. and Rose Marie Martin on behalf of the
Board with funding to be from District 3 Impact Fee
funds, as recommended in the memorandum.
COPY OF CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment ##019
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 8, 1996:
TO:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 8, 1996
MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 019
CONSENT AGENDA .
Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director t
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. Board of County Commissioners approved the services of F1oridAffinity to do preliminary
work to purchase North County Industrial Park land. We are appropriating $4,000 to be
transferred from M.S.T.U. Contingencies.
2. On May 6, 1996 the Board of County Commissioners approved $4,000 to purchase a
remote MARTI system utilizing DRI funds. The attached entry appropriates funding.
3. Board of County Commissioners approved D.M.G. to perform an analysis on hydrant rental
fees. The attached entry appropriates the $15,000 from both the Fire and Utility
departments.
4. The attached entry appropriates money for the employee suggestion award program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment 019.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 019, as recommended in the
memorandum.
13
May 14, 1996 goo 98 1
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
Bo 0� 98 psu 19
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 019
DATE: _ May 8, 1996
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
M.S.T.U./Planning/Professional Service
004-205-515=033.19
$4,000
$0
M.S.T.U./Reserve for Contingency
004-199-581-099.91
$0
$4,000
2.
REVENUE
General Fund/Other Misc. Revenue
001-000-369-090.00
$4,000
$0
EXPENSE
General Fund/Emergency Management/Other
Machinery and Equipment
001-208-525-066.49
$4,000
$0
3.
EXPENSE
Utilities/Water/Other Professional Services
471-219-536-033.19
$7,500
$0
Utilities/Cash Forward
471-000-389-040.00
$7,500
$0
ESD/Fire/Professional Services
114-120-522-033.19
$7,500
$0
ESD/Fire/Reserve for Contingency
114-120-522-099.91
$0
$7,500
4.
EXPENSE
General Fund/BCC/Employee Awards
001-101-511-012.19
$4,650
$0
General Fund/Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$4,650
IL-
14
May 14, 1996
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - EMERGENCY SERVICE TOW TRUCKS
IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS - REQUESTED BY GEORGE SIGLER
Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois reviewed a
Memorandum of May 7, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD
awar �. a.v a -a• aa�r as a. yaa, sa
Community Develo.men a irector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,%;%ICP
Chief, Environmental -Planning
DATE: May 7, 1996
SUBJECT: George Sigler's Request to Address the County Commission
Regarding Allowance of Emergency Service Tow Trucks in
Residential Areas
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of May 14, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
George Sigler, who resides at 155 31st Avenue S.W., has contacted
staff and requests to address the Board of County Commissioners
regarding his discontent with a recent County Code amendment that
allows the parking of emergency service tow trucks in residential
areas. Mr. Sigler's specific concern relates to a hydraulic wrecker
parked at a residence on his street in Pinewood Lane Subdivision.
Mr. Sigler indicated that he was not aware of the code amendment,
and he expressed his concern that public notice of toe code
amendment hearings was not adequate. f
In February of this year, in conjunction with advised' public
hearings, the Board adopted an amendment to County Code Sections
911.15(3) and 912.17(1) that allows the following in residential
areas:
"Class "A" tow trucks or hydraulic wreckers, on an emergency towing service
rotation list with the local sheriff's or police department, used by the
resident of the premises, limited to one per premises and parked off-street
in a garage, carport or driveway. Under this paragraph, one tow truck or
wrecker is allowed to be parked or stored at a residence."
The "Class All and "hydraulic wrecker" categories are based on a
classification used by the County Sheriff's Department (see
attached).
ANALYSIS
The Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendment that allows
emergency service tow trucks or wreckers in residential areas was
one of a number of LDR amendments 'adopted after a series of
15
May 14, 1996
�� 98 PACS O
BOOK 98, PAGE 2 ,
advertised public hearings before the Planning and Zoning
Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Because the LDR
amendment is applicable county -wide, advertisement of the hearings
occurred in the local newspaper, and did not consist of mail -outs
to individual homeowners.
At the LDR amendment hearings, staff supported the amendment
allowing emergency service tow trucks in residential areas, limited
to one per premises and parked off-street in a garage, carport or
driveway. The allowance is in the public interest from the
standpoint of reducing response time to emergency situations. The
Sheriff's Department has indicated that county -wide (including
municipalities), there are approximately 15 towing services on the
Sheriff's emergency rotation list.
Concerning Mr. Sigler's particular circumstance, staff has
investigated and found that the vehicle in question is a hydraulic
wrecker parked at a residence down the street on which Mr. Sigler
resides. John and Deborah Seeley, owners of the residence with -the
tow truck, have indicated that the vehicle is stored in' a
designated driveway on their property approximately 90 feet from
the road. The Seeleys also indicated that, as a courtesy, they
contacted the adjacent property owners prior to parking the tow
truck at their residence, and those neighbors expressed no
objection.
It should be noted that, in 1992, the County Code Enforcement Board
heard a case involving the Seeleys' parking of a tow truck at their
previous residence. At that time, the Code Board heard testimony
that the Seeleys were on the Sheriff Department's emergency
rotation list, and ruled that parking one tow truck at the
residence was permissible under the circumstances. In this sense,
the County Commission's recent adoption of the LDR amendment serves
to clarify an interpretation of the Code made by the Code
Enforcement Board a number of years ago.
Staff's finding is that the tow truck in question complies with the
County Code amendment that allows emergency service tow truck
parking in residential areas, and that the general County Code
allowance, as specified, is in the public interest.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find that
the current County Code allowance of emergency service tow trucks
in residential areas (with limitations as specified in the Code) is
sufficient and does not warrant change.
George sigler, 155 31st Avenue S.W., explained his
understanding of the tow truck regulations and described what it
was like having a tow truck in his residential neighborhood. He
didn't question the need for tow trucks, but it appeared to him
that his neighbors, the Seeleys, were operating their Tropic Towing
business out of their residence in spite of having a business
location off Old Dixie Highway. He complained of noise from the
truck's back up horns and the smell of diesel fuel and claimed the
private road to the neighborhood, maintained by the 12 homeowners
in the neighborhood, was being negatively impacted by the weight of
16
May 14, 1996
� ® r
the heavy tow truck. He also advised that wrecked vehicles were
being towed in and out of the neighborhood 3-4 times a day, and
stored in the neighborhood. Mr. Sigler passed photographs to the
Board. (Clerk's Note: The photographs were not furnished to the
Clerk for the record.) He also felt property values were being
negatively impacted by the operation of a towing business from the
neighborhood.
Mr. Sigler estimated that the 15 towing services on the
county's rotation list had the capability of removing 60 cars in an
emergency in the county, when the actual need was only about 2. He
suggested possible solutions: that since the County was permitting
this to occur in a residential neighborhood, that the County take
over the road's maintenance; that adjustments be made to the
property assessments because the values have decreased due to the
presence of these vehicles in the neighborhood; that tow trucks be
allowed in residential neighborhoods only during evening hours or
given additional time to respond to the tow job; or give the tow
truck operator a waiver to put a bed in his office. He believed
most of their business at night is moving disabled cars, not cars
which have been involved in an accident. He suggested that with 15
towing services, 3 at a time on rotation for a week or so should be
enough. He thought that would be a reasonable solution.
When she had considered this ordinance, Commissioner Eggert
advised that she did not expect tow trucks would be doing business
from their residences, nor towing wrecks into the neighborhood.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that he did not see any reason
for a towed vehicle to be in the neighborhood. He asked Director
Keating if there was any exception for that to his knowledge.
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that the
change to the LDR's was specifically to allow tow trucks to be in
a neighborhood in order to be able to respond to emergencies, but
not to tow cars back into the neighborhood. He would consider that
to be a violation of the ordinance.
Commissioner Eggert asked if there is any definition of
emergency versus disabled cars in the ordinance, and Director
Keating responded that there is not. He advised that any of the
proposed solutions would be up to the Sheriff or Police Chiefs to
change the rotation.
Chairman Adams advised that this was the first complaint she
was aware of concerning tow trucks in residential neighborhoods.
17
May 14, 1996
mow L:
800K 98 FA JF 2
To her it sounded like abuse of a privilege. She had a problem
with allowing a bed in the office. She thought the Sheriff should
be able to address this through his policy. She felt there should
be no wrecked vehicles in a residential neighborhood.
Commissioner Macht felt this was a code enforcement problem.
In response to Commissioner Eggert, Mr. Sigler gave Tropic
Towing's business address as 626 3rd Place.
Commissioner Tippin thought this instance was excessive and he
agreed he would not want this happening in his neighborhood.
Deborah Seeley, of Tropic Towing, advised they tried to
contact the other owners when they planned to build in the
neighborhood to see if anyone would object. They have been in the
house since January 1st. She advised that Mr. Sigler was not a
property owner, but was considering buying in the neighborhood.
She agreed that wrecks should not be in the neighborhood; the car
in a photograph belonged to a neighbor and was towed there at the
neighbor's request. She explained their towing company is on 4
rotation lists, and her husband knows a lot of people and they
specifically ask for his towing service.
Chairman Adams observed there was conflict here within the
neighborhood which needed to be resolved in a manner which is
equitable for both the neighborhood and the towing company. She
felt the main problems were towing cars in and out and the back-up
warning bell.
Commissioner Eggert had concern about trucks in the road
during the day when children are playing, and asked why it was
necessary to bring a wrecker in during the day.
Mrs. Seeley responded that her husband basically lives in the
truck. They have 5 children and he often has to see that they get
home from school. He also comes home for lunch. He has to be
ready to respond immediately because if he is late, another towing
service will be called.
Mr. Sigler advised that he has talked to other towing
companies in town and the feeling is that one guy will mess it up
for everybody. Their understanding of the ordinance was that -it
would allow them to keep their trucks at home at night.
Mr. Sigler confirmed he is presently in the process of buying
a house in the neighborhood. He advised that other neighbors
understood the ordinance provides for just having the truck there
at night and they are very concerned because it is a private road.
He is looking at $6,000 out of his pocket to maintain it. He
18
May 14, 1996
r
f
pointed out that there was already damage on the road in front of
Mr. Seeley's house, which Mr. Seeley said he would repair. That
has not been done.
Mrs. Seeley claimed the damage was caused by dump trucks
bringing in 90 loads of fill during the construction of their
house.
Commissioner Macht called for a strict application of the law
via code enforcement.
County Attorney Vitunac indicated he saw one violation in the
photographs and that Messrs. Keating and DeBlois are responsible
for code enforcement. Any evidence should be brought to them.
County Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating if it was his
intention, when the exception was written, that tow trucks would be
there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Director Keating advised that was not specifically addressed
when the exception was written. He felt more research would have
to be done such as talk again with the Sheriff to see what the
needs are. That is a possibility for changing the ordinance. It
could be made allowable to have the tow trucks there in the
evenings, weekends, holidays, etc. Right now, he does consider it
a violation for bringing wrecks into the neighborhood. That is
enforceable. The big question is, does the Board want the tow
trucks in neighborhoods. The Code Enforcement Board and staff had
approached it as a trade off for quick response.
Commissioner Eggert stated it had never occurred to her that
the ordinance allowing tow trucks to park in residential
neighborhoods was to be anything but at night, or Sundays and
holidays.
Chairman Adams remarked that the perception is that a business
is being run from the house or the vehicle, a perception that is
not wanted. She further stated that the intent is to reach a happy
medium.
Mrs. Seeley interjected that the business operates 24 hours a
day, not just at night, through the use of her husband's cellular
phone.
Commissioner Bird agreed with Commissioner Eggert as he had
envisioned it differently when he voted for it. He did not realize
it would impact the neighborhood so frequently and so negatively.
He thought the rotation came up less frequently than every night.
Mrs. Seeley reiterated they are on 4 rotation lists and the
customer has the option to choose which tow company they want.
This creates additional need for immediacy.
19
May 14, 1996��o . 8 ftr
r
Boor 98 PA.0 25
Mr. Sigler contended they ought to operate out of a business
location.
William Koolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, told of an experience
he had in trying to sell his former residence in Vero Beach when a
truck hauling operation moved into the neighborhood. The appraiser
for his house agreed that the value went down $10-$20,000. His
neighbors were greatly concerned. He got the impression that a
residential owner doesn't have a chance. Business should be
located in a business area. Just having the trucks in the
neighborhood is detrimental to the values of the property. Mr.
Koolage urged the Board to give great thought to what has happened
and pleaded that they give justice to Mr. Sigler.
Commissioner Macht recommended that code enforcement ought to
deal with this first. He also wanted to see the Board review the
ordinance.
Kenny Bird, representing Charlie's Towing of Vero Beach,
reported that his company keeps trucks in residential neighborhoods
only at night. They do not operate trucks out of a neighborhood.
They also are on 4 rotation lists and get owner requests. He
agreed the trucks should not be in a neighborhood during the day
time.
Janet Capak, 185 31st Avenue SW, wanted it to be known that
not all neighbors feel the same as Mr. Sigler. Her family has been
there 23 years and they installed the road at that time. She
recalled that no repairs have been done to the road in over 10
years and there has been no damage to the road because of the
Seeley's truck. She acknowledged that 2 vehicles towed by Seeley's
to the neighborhood belonged to her family and explained the
circumstances.
Harry Carlin, a neighbor, recalled that 10 years ago it was a
quiet neighborhood, known as "Pinewood Lane", but now it is called
"Pinewood Lane Estates." He reported that another neighbor to the
north of him has a business with trucks with lawn work
paraphernalia. He felt the neighborhood has deteriorated from a
"lane" to a "business street". He advised that no one asked him if
he minded having the tow truck coming and going. He believed
property values were lower because of business being conducted in
the neighborhood.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously agreed
that no wrecked vehicles should be brought into the
neighborhoods, that staff would consult with law
May 14, 1996
20
enforcement officials and report back to the Board,
and the Board perhaps reconsider the ordinance.
In seconding, Commissioner Eggert assumed that, Code
Enforcement will investigate the neighborhood for any violations
which may be occurring.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - PAVING & DRAINAGE ASSESSMENT
LIENS - REQUESTED BY MR. AND MRS. R.D. AUTON
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 8, 1996 and letter
received May 2, 1996:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: May 8, 1996
SUBJECT: Request by Mr. and Mrs. R.D. Auton Concerning Paving and
Drainage Assessment Liens
Mr. and Mrs. R. D. Auton own Lots 10 and it in Block H of Dixie Heights
Subdivision, Unit 1A. By Resolution No. 87-66 adopted on July 14, 1987 by
the Board of County Commissioners, paving and drainage assessment liens were
created against Mr. and Mrs. Auton's lots, for Project No. 8616 within Dixie
Heights Subdivision.
On March 26, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners, by Resolution No.
91-39, approved the final assessment roll, and thereafter the Tax Collector
sent out the assessment notices to the property owners listed on the final
assessment roll.
On May 2, 1996 our office received the attached letter from Mr. and Mrs.
Auton indicating that they only recently learned that the paving and drainage
assessments were liens recorded against their property. They attended the
public hearing and had knowledge of the work and when the improvements were
completed, but the Autons say they subsequently stopped using the post office
box and never received a statement. When they investigated the matter
further, they learned that the final asses—eat roll showed their address as
a post office box which they have not used for six years.
The Tax Collector's records show the more recent bills for paving and
drainage assessments were sent to the Autons at 1616 2nd Road S.W., Vero
Beach, FL 32962 and not to a post office box. The bills were not returned as
undeliverable.
Mr. and Mrs. Auton are requesting that the accrued interest be waived because
of non -receipt of the assessment notice and because they incurred a $1,200.00
expense for repairing a 151x121 section of their concrete driveway which was
cut out during the paving and drainage work and not repaired. As of April
30, 1996, the accrued interest totals $1,286.52.
The County does not issue permits for concrete driveways to be constructed in
County rights-of-way where unpaved roads exist. Since all assessment related
improvements had to be in County right-of-way, if any pavement was removed it
would have illegally encroached in County right-of-way.
21
May 14, 199643
r
BOOK 98 PAA 27
COMMEWS .
Public Works Director dames Davis has no objection to waiving the interest
accrued against Mr. and Mrs. Auton's property if it is certain that improper
mailing occurred.
REOUESTED ACTION:
It is requested that the Board decide -whether to waive the accrued interest
for Mr. and Mrs. Auton (Lots 10 and 11, Block H, Dixie Heights Subdivision,
unit IA). If it is to be waived, the Board must set a deadline when interest
will begin accruing if the assessments are not paid in full.
Charles P. Vitunac
Indian River County Attorney
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Vitunac,
d?
MAY 1996 d
CUM ,
OMCE.
Recently my wife and I began paperwork to secure a home equity loan only to find out that a
lien has been placed against our permanent home in Indian River County. The lien was
placed by the county, as several years ago the roads in our development in Dixie Heights
were paved and drainage improvements were made.
My wife and I attended the meeting at the County Commissioner's Chambers as many, many
of our neighbors in Dixie Heights. At the meeting, I remember discussion on when the work
was to begin, approximately how long it would take and when the work was completed a
statement would be sent showing charges due to each home owner.
My wife and I have never received any statement regarding the paving and drainage
improvements. When I checked on this lien at the tax office Monday, April 27, 1996, while
talking to one of the clerks, she gave me a copy (enclosed) of the Final Assessment Roll.
The roll has our address as P.O. Box 2333. We have not used that P.O. Box in six (6) years.
Perhaps that is the reason we have never received a statement?
During the paving, the crew had to cut a 15' by 12' section of our concrete driveway, I
remember coming home from work and could not turn into our drive because of the destroyed
area. I have since had that section built up and re -paved so our drive is complete. The cost
was $1,200.00. I did not say anything at the time, but my wife and I were upset about the
county cutting our drive and not re -paving it.
Then to find out a lien had been place on our house with interest due of $1,286.52, is a little
too much. I am prepared to settle this matter as soon as possible with payment of the road
pavement and drainage improvement, but both my wife and I think it is unfair to charge
interest on top of the payment for the work done when we never received a statement,
perhaps due to the county having the wrong mailing address.
Any - consideration in this matter will be -greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
R.D. Auton
/�•
Judy Auton _
d4x a
RDA/jda
22
May 14, 1996
� s
R. D. Auton, of 1616 2nd Road SW, Dixie Heights, Vero Beach,
gave history of his neighborhood and home which was built in 1976.
He claimed to have never received a bill for paving and drainage
assessment as stated in his letter above. He advised that he would
like to pay the assessment, but since he had never received the
bill initially, he felt it was not just that he should be required
to pay the accumulated interest.
Commissioner Eggert attempted to determine why he had not
received the assessment notice, and Mr. Auton gave the history of
his mailing addresses.
Chairman Adams felt the County should have repaired his
driveway and had no problem with forgiving the interest.
Commissioner Bird stated he could agree to forgive the
interest.
Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann advised their records showed
that the first notice was sent to Mr. Auton's post office box.
Subsequent bills had been sent to his street address. He advised
that none of those bills, according to their records, had ever been
returned. While the decision belonged to the Board, Mr. Zimmermann
pointed out that Mr. Auton had attended the hearing on the petition
paving. He knew that the paving was started and had discussions
with people about his driveway. He thought Mr. Auton had an
obligation to call someone to find out about paying for it, because
the work was done, and he certainly was an involved, knowledgeable
participant. Mr. Zimmermann asked the Board to consider the
precedent that might be created if they decided to forgive the
interest.
Chairman Adams thought Mr. Auton should be given the benefit
of the doubt, unless there was evidence to the contrary.
Commissioner Macht queried Mr. Zimmermann further on how many
mailings had been sent to Mr. Auton's street address.
In response to Chairman Adams' inquiry, Mr. Auton advised that
every year he gets his tax bills and pays them on time. He
contended he did not know of anyone who pays a bill before
receiving it.
Commissioner Eggert had a problem with forgiving the interest,
but wondered whether the County should have repaired Mr. Auton's
driveway.
Commissioner Macht thought the driveway probably encroached on
the County's right-of-way.
Commissioner Bird advised that he had known Mr. Auton all his
life and believed Mr. Auton when he said he had not received the
bills.
23
May 14, 1996
BOOK PAGE
BOOK 98 PAGE 29
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Chairman Adams, for discussion, that the Board
forgive the interest, because Mr. Auton is willing
to pay the assessment.
Commissioner Macht believed it was not a question of
willingness to pay, he had an obligation to pay.
Commissioner Tippin indicated it would a lien against the
property.
County Attorney Vitunac agreed it would get paid one way or
another.
Mr. Auton stated he always tried to be a responsible person,
pay his bills and be an upstanding citizen, but reiterated that he
had never received the bill and, therefore, had been unable to pay.
Then, he recounted the reasons he had to build his driveway into
the right-of-way.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried 3-2 (Commissioners Eggert and Macht being
opposed.)
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins requested the Board
establish a date for Mr. Auton to pay his assessment, after which
interest would start.*
Commissioner Bird offered to amend the motion that the
assessment be paid within 30 days or interest would begin accruing
at that time.
From the audience, with check in hand, Mr. Auton advised the
Board he would pay the assessment within the next 30 minutes.
TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed Memoranda
of May 2 and May 7, 1996:
TO: Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: May 2, 1996
RE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUESTION
24
May 14, 1996
At the last Economic Development Commission meeting a question was asked
whether the ad valorem tax exemption available under Section 196.1995,
F . S . , for new or expanding businesses which created at least 10 jobs would
be available to property owned :by the developers who construct the facilities
for the new or expanded business to operate in, even if the developers
themselves would not be generating the new jobs. For the following reasons
I believe that the tax advantages would be available to the developer.
Subparagraph 5 of Section 196.1995 , F . S . ,- holds that the ad valorem tax.
exemption applies for "up to 100 percent of the assessed value of all
improvements to real property made by or for the use of a new business..."
(e . s .) . Thus the determining factor is not who owns the property or who
builds the building, but why the facilities were built; that is, if the
facilities were built for a new or expanded business then the tax advantages
are available to the property. There does not seem to be a requirement,
however, that the benefits of the tax advantages be made available by the
developer to the new business tenant.
Further support for this position is the fact that subparagraph 7 lists the
requirements that an applicant must meet before being granted a tax
exemption and there is no mention of "who" built or owns the building.
These requirements do include: a) the name of the new business; b) a
description of the improvements to real property for which an exemption is
requested and the date of commencement of construction of such
improvements; c) description of tangible personal property; and d) proof
that the applicant is is a new business.
In addition, subparagraph 8 requires that the property appraiser make a
report to the County which includes a determination by him as to whether
the property for which the exemption is requested is to be incorporated into
a new business or an expansion of an existing business. Again, there is no
mention of who built or owns the building.
Thus, if the County Commission can make a finding of fact that the
improvements to real property are "made by or for the use of" a new
business, or expansion of an existing one, the tax exemptions available
under the law may be granted, regardless of who owns or built the building.
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
(PAR HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert Keating, AICP
Community Develop nt D ector
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP � If.
Chief, Long -Range Planning Section
DATE: May 7, 1996
RE: CONSIDERATION OF TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 14, 1996.
INTRODUCTION
Competition among communities vying for economic development
prospects is common phenomena, occurring on a global as well as a
25
May 14, 1996 $Dor 98 pmf_ 30
F_
WK. 98 PAV 131
local scale. At every level of government, economic development
agencies are scrambling to identify strategies to attract and
retain high value-added jobs in targeted industries. One way to
compete is by offering incentives as an inducement for a company to
locate in a certain area.
Economic development incentives come in many forms. If they are
used to accomplish clearly defined goals based on an overall
economic development strategy, incentives can serve as good public
policy. Incentives generally work best when subject to a rigorous
short and long term cost -benefit analysis, and configured as
investments so that they retain their value even if the recipient
business departs. Incentives also function well when made
contractual, so that recipient businesses are held accountable for
their promises and performances.
• Background
At its May 18, 1995 workshop meeting, the Board of County
Commissioners directed staff to address several economic
development issues and report back to the EDC and the Board. One of
the issues identified by the Board was the establishment of tax
abatement incentives.
Subsequent to the May economic development workshop, the County
adopted an Economic Development Strategy Plan. This plan was based
on the County's 1992 Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP). The
OEDP encouraged economic development within the county through the
use of incentives as inducements to growth.
In the County's adopted economic development strategy plan,
strategic action 3.14 specifically addresses tax abatement. This
strategy indicates that, by November, 1996, the county will
consider holding a referendum to obtain voter approval to establish
a tax abatement program for industrial development projects.
On March 26, 1996, the Economic Development Council reviewed
staff's report and unanimously recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the attached resolution calling for a tax
abatement program referendum to be conducted as part of the
November, 1996 election. Also, the Economic Development Council
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached tax abatement resolution prior to the November 5, 1996
referendum with the effective date of the resolution being.
contingent on the passage of the tax abatement referendum on
November 5, 1996.
BACKGROUND
• Program History
In 1980, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment to allow
counties and municipalities the option of granting property tax
exemptions to new and expanding businesses. With the passage of
that amendment, Florida Law 80-347 became effective. The law
modified chapters 195 and 196 of the Florida Statutes, dealing with
property assessment and tax exemption, respectively. The program
can be terminated at anytime, although this is not likely in the
near future.
May 14, 1996
26
u
• Definition
,Authorized by Article VII; Section 3 of the Florida Constitution
and Chapter 196.1995, Florida Statutes, property tax abatement may
be established only through approval of a referendum. Subsequent
to approval of such a referendum, the Board of County
Commissioners, upon a majority vote in favor of such authority, may
exempt from ad valorem taxation:
• "...up to 100 percent of the assessed value of all
improvements to real property made by or for the use of
a new business and of all tangible personal property of
such new business,..."
• "...or up to 100 percent of the assessed value of all
added improvements to real property made to facilitate
the expansion of an existing business, provided that the
improvements to real property are made or the tangible
personal property is added or increased on or after the
day the ordinance is adopted."
The authority to grant exemptions under this section will expire 10
years after the date such authority is approved in an election.
Any such exemptions approved by the Board of County Commissioners
under this program apply only to county taxes and do not apply to
school district taxes, municipal taxes, independent special
district taxes, or voted taxes.
As of March 1, 1996, 23 local governments (counties and cities) in
the state had passed a tax abatement program.
• County History
On December 22, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners voted to
hold a referendum to authorize the use of tax abatements as an
economic development incentive. On April 13, 1993, a countywide
special election was held by mail ballot to decide if the county
should offer tax abatements to new and expanding businesses in the
county. The referendum was defeated by a 52 to 48 percent margin.
According to local newspaper articles, several issues contributed
to the defeat of the referendum. The primary issue was that the
voters did not fully understand the proposed tax abatement
referendum. Besides the lack of understanding was a concern that
the proposed tax abatement ordinance offered property tax exemption
to certain types of retail commercial businesses.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Upon securing approval by a voter referendum, a local government
may grant eligible new and expanding businesses tax exemptions of
up to 100 percent of the value of qualifying real and personal
property for up to 10 years. The authority to grant tax exemptions
will expire 10 years after the date such authority is approved in
an election.
In structuring a referendum and establishing a program, the Board
of County Commissioners has the authority to establish the criteria
for providing tax abatements to new or expanding industrial
businesses. Such criteria, however, must not conflict with the
standards in Sec. 196.1995 F.S.
27
May 14, 1996
d� 9
F_
600K 8 FIAE
Among the criteria which the county may establish in its tax
abatement program are the following:
• Period for which taxes will be abated (1 to 10 years)
• Percentage of ad valorem taxes to be abated (up to look)
• Types of businesses that can receive an abatement
• Other qualifying criteria, such as the minimum number of
jobs that a new or expanding business must create
Any person, firm, or corporation which desires an economic
development ad valorem tax exemption shall, in the year the
exemption is desired to take effect, file a written application
with the Board of County Commissioners on a form prescribed by the
Department of Commerce.
• Survey of other surrounding counties
There are 14 counties in the state that have some form of tax
abatement. These counties are primarily in north Florida, where
they must compete with the states of Georgia, Alabama, and
Mississippi. There are, however, several surrounding counties that
also provide tax abatements.
The following table lists the counties surrounding Indian River
that offer tax abatement programs. The table lists the
applicability of the tax abatement program in each county.
May 14, 1996
28
St. Lucie
Palm Beach
Brevard County
County
County
Eligible
Non -retail
Non -retail
Non -retail related
Industries
related
related
Length of
8 years;
up to 10
up to 10 years
Abatement
annual
years
renewal
Number of
Not Available
Not
Not Available
Businesses
Available
Utilizing
Program
Total Amount
Not Available
Not
Not Available
Awarded
Available
Total Jobs
Not Available
Not
Not Available
Created
Available
Taxes Abated
l0ok for 1st
look of
l0ok of assessed
year, reduced
assessed
value on all
by a
value on all
improvements made
determined
improvements
to real property,
percent each
made to real
and all tangible
subsequent
property,
personal property
year; only on
and all
that is added
improvements
tangible
and equipment
personal
property
that is
added
Special
1 year of
N/A
# of Emp./yrs
Conditions
additional
abatement
exemption if
10-20/5 yrs.
at least 60%
21-50/8 yrs.
of employees
51+ /10 yrs.;
are county
Rating for
res.; 2 yrs.
percentage of
if 80% are
exemption
county res.
wage:
below average -1,
avg. =2,
above avg. =3;
capital invest::
<$50,000 =0,
$50k -$100k =1,
$100k -$250k =2,
$250k+ =3,
Points scoring:
1-3 =75% exemp.,
4-5 =85% exemp.,
6 =100% exemption
Year Program
1992
1994
1995
Began
May 14, 1996
28
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES -
As provided for in the state constitution and statutes, a property
tax abatement program affects only those taxes levied by the local
government instituting the tax abatement program. For Indian River
County, then, the taxes to be abated for eligible businesses would
be the county's general ,fund, MSTU, and the -emergency services
district ad valorem taxes. School board, drainage district, water
management district, and other taxes would still be payable. •In
addition, the law provides that the abatement will apply only to
the tax chargeable to improvements to real property made after the
effective date of the program; ad valorem tax on land may not be
abated.
• Example
The following example provides an indication of the effect of
applying tax abatement to a hypothetical project.
If a computer manufacturer is considering the construction of a new
$1 million dollar plant employing 100 highly paid workers on land
that is worth $1 million dollars, and if the County can offer a 10
year tax abatement program, with a tax exemption of 100% for the
first five year period, and then a 20 percentage point per year
reduction over the next five year period, the effect on taxes is
shown in the tables below.
Assumptions:
• Property size: 40 acres
• Assessed value with agriculture exemption: $100,000
• Constant 1996 dollars
• County Millage Rates
- General Fund: 4.2999
- MSTU: 1.6236
- EMS District: 2.3128
- Misc. Taxing Authority: 11.2793
Existing Conditions
Although industrially designated property within the county may be
worth $25,000 per acre and could sell for that amount, most the
county's industrially designated land is presently in citrus
production or used for pasture. Consequently, those lands have an
agricultural exemption and pay minimum taxes. With an agricultural
exemption, citrus land is assessed at an average of $2,500 per
acre, while pasture land is assessed at less than $500 per acre on
average. To adequately assess the effects of implementing a
property tax abatement economic development incentive, the current
tax yield of land having an agricultural exemption must be
considered and compared to the tax yield of comparable property
developed with industrial uses and receiving a property tax
abatement.
29
May 14, 1996 BOOS( 98 FACE '
r
D00K
TABES COLLECTED WITH THE PROPOSED TAX ABATEMENT
98 PAGE .)5
OTAL TAXES COLLECTED WITHOUT ABATEMENT
LENGTH OF TIME
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 otal
$ 19,510
TOTAL TAXES COLLECTED ON DEVELOPED LAND
nd Value
$1,000,000 (caval d)
illage Rate:
TAXES PAID ON DEVELOPED LAND (taxes on land cannot be abated)
- General Fund
4.2999
$4,300
$4,300
$4,300
4,300
4,300
$4,300
$4,300
$4,300
$4,300
4,300
$43,000
- 14M
1.6236
$1,624
$1,264
$1,624
1,624
1,624
$1,624
$1,624
1,624
$1,624
1,624
$16,290
' ESD
2.3129
$2,313
$2,313
2,313
2,313
2,313
$2,313
$2,313
$2,313
$2,313
2,313
$23,130
- Miac Taxing
Authority
$11,279
$11,279
$11,279
11,279
11,279
$11,279
$11,279
$11,279
$11,279
11,279
$112,790
11.2793
Total Taxes
Paid on
$19,516
19,516
$19,516
19,516
19,516
$19,516
$19,516
$19,516
$19,516
191516
$195,160
eveloped Land
Improvements Value
1,000,000
Abatement
1001 1001 100= 1001: 001: % 160% Lot 20% 0}
illage Rate
TAXES PAID ON IMPROVEMENTS WITH TAX ABATEMENT
- General Fund
42
.999
0
0
0
0
$860
$1,720
$2,580
$3,440
4,300
$12,900
- MSTU
6
0
0
0
0
$325
S650
975
$1,300
1,624
$4,874
0
0
0
0
0
$462
$925
$1,387
$1,850
2,313
$6,937
Taxing
rity93Taxes
$11,279
$11,279
11,279
11,279
11,279
11,279
$11,279
$11,279
$11,279
11,279
$112,790
nementsAbated
L
$11,279
$11,279
011,279
11,279
11,279
$12,926
$14,574
$16,221
$17,869
$19,516
$137,501
$8,237
$8,237
$8,237
8,237
8,237
6,590
$4,942
S3, 295
$1,647
$0
$57,659
xes $30,795
$30,795
$30,795
30,795
30,795
32,442
$34,090
$35,737
$37,385
39,032
$332,661
OTAL TAXES COLLECTED WITHOUT ABATEMENT
AND WITH AGRICULTURE EXEMPTION: (10 Years)
$ 19,510
TOTAL TAXES COLLECTED ON DEVELOPED LAND
,
AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT ABATEMENT: (10 years)
TOTAL TAXES COLLECTED ON DEVELOPED LAND
$390,320
AND IMPROVEMENTS WITH ABATEMENT: (10 Years)
$332,661
PERCENT OF TAXES THAT ARE ABATED:
14.77
In this example, the amount of taxes abated with a 1000 exemption
over the first 5 years, and a 20 percentage point per year
reduction over the next 5 years would be $57,659, or 14.77 percent
of the total taxes due without an exemption. This 14.77 percent
will be lost revenue that the county would have collected if the
industry had chosen to locate in the county -without receiving any
tax exemption. Conversely, the entire amount of taxes, both
collected and abated, may be dollars that would not have come to
the county without the tax abatement incentive.
At this point, information is not available to estimate the number
of new businesses that would.be attracted to the county because of
the provision of tax abatements. Other counties surveyed also did
not have this information available.
May 14, 1996
30
F-�
s � �
LENGTH OF TIME
1 2 3 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 otal
Taxes Collected on Agricultural Land
Assuming that Property Remains in Agricultural Use
- General
Fund
$4301$1,128
430 430 430
$430 430
430 $430 430
$430 4,300
- MSTU
162162
162 162
16Z 162
162 162 162
162 1,620
- ESD
23131
$231 231
$231 231
231 231 231
231 2,310
- Mise
1,128
S1,128 1,128
$1,128 1,128
1,128 1,128 1,128
$1,128 11,280
otal taxes
aid on
$1,951
51,951 $1,951 1,951
1,951 1,951
1,951 1,951 1,951
1,951 19,510
griculture
land
EFFECT OF TAR ABATEMENT
Assumptions:
- The county provides 1004r exemption for the first 5 years and then reduces the exemption
percentage by 20 percentage points each year for the next 5 years.
- Millage rates and taxable value remain flat over the ten years of analysis. Fiscal Year 1995/96
millage rates are used.
County Millage Tax
General Fund 4.2999 -Can be abated
MSTU 1.6236 -Can be Abated
Emer. Serv. Dist. 2.3129 -Can be Abated
Misc. Taxing Auth. 11.2793 -Can Not Be Abated
Ten year totals are in current dollars
Assume company builds within the unincorporated area - tax code 3a.
Assessed value of developed land: $1,000,000
Improvements Value: $1,000,000
• Terms and Conditions of Tax Abatement Program
As previously mentioned, the Board of County Commissioners has the
authority to determine the tax abatement program's criteria for
each industrial business applying for tax abatements. The tax
abatement program's criteria will affect the type and number of
businesses utilizing the program and the amount of tax revenue that
the county will lose.
In establishing a tax abatement program, the Board of County
Commissioners will determine the maximum length of time that a
business will be eligible to receive a tax abatement. According to
state law, this may be up to ten years. Overall, the length of the
abatement will determine the amount of tax not received by the
county; the shorter the term, the less tax revenue will be lost.
Conversely, the longer the term, the more valuable tax abatement is
as an economic development incentive.
Besides the length of the tax abatement term, the Board also must
determine the percent of the total eligible taxes that may be
abated, up to 100%. The percent of taxes abated will also affect
the amount of revenue that the County will forgo with the tax
abatement program. Generally, the lower the percent, the less tax
revenue will be lost.
31
moo'
May 14, 1996 moo '36
I
boor 98 PAGE 37
In addition, the Board of County Commissioners must determine what
businesses will be eligible for the tax abatement program. The
Board's discretion in establishing eligibility, however, is limited
by the state. According to 196, F.S., eligible businesses are
generally limited to industrial establishments, new corporate
offices, and retail enterprises having at least 50k of the sales
out of state. The Board, however, may establish more stringent
eligibility criteria than the state mandates. Generally, more tax
revenue. will be derived if tax abatement is limited to only
industrial businesses and corporate offices. Also, some types of
businesses, particularly retail, will locate in the County
regardless of available incentives. Retail businesses locate based
on market conditions, not incentives.
Finally, the Board must establish any other terms and conditions
that it wants to apply to the tax abatement program. With this,
the Board could further limit the number of businesses that could
receive the tax exemption.
The overall tax abatement program criteria set by the Board of
County Commissioners will 'constitute minimum standards. Each
application, however, will be reviewed separately, and the Board
will have the opportunity to impose additional criteria.
Consequently, the Board can provide better terms to businesses that
will have a greater economic development effect on the county's
economy.
Benefits
The County's economic base presently has little diversification,
being primarily dominated by the citrus industry. With the ability
of the county to offer tax abatements to new and expanding
industrial businesses, the county can enhance its economic
development prospects and may receive the following benefits:
• Reduced unemployment
• Stimulated economy
• Diversified economic base
• Increased number of jobs
• Increased employment opportunities in year round
businesses
• Broadened property tax base
• Enhanced economic stability
• Additional sales taxes
These benefits are based on the assumption -that new economic
development will create and produce a positive effect on peripheral
businesses located in the county. In addition, the consumption of
goods and services will increase as the County's economic base
increases.
Besides the general benefits referenced above, the tax abatement
program would provide specific benefits to the county. Overall,
the tax abatement Droaram will!
• Provide the county with a new economic development tool;
• Bring Indian River County up to the level of its
competing counties;
• Impose no "out of pocket" costs on the county, (only
forgoing revenue that may not have existed);
• Create a better economic development perception;
• Ensure that the county will eventually receive full
tax revenue from those improvements receiving a
short term tax exemption. -
May 14, 1996
M
32
M
M
• Costs
Although new -industrial businesses attracted to the county will
have a positive effect on -the county's economy, these businesses
will also require county provided services. These services have
costs associated with them. Those costs are partially paid from ad
valorem taxes. When a business's ad valorem taxes are abated, the
cost of services required. by that business must be paid from other
sources.
Among the services that the county must provide to all new
businesses are law enforcement, fire protection, roads, drainage
maintenance, access to courts, and others. The costs of these
services are variable, changing from business to business and
industry to industry.
Typically, these services are paid for by businesses through the
collection of ad valorem taxes. When the ad valorem taxes on
improvements of a new or expanding business are abated, the cost of
services for that business must be funded from the county's overall
ad valorem property tax revenues. As indicated in the above
example, an industry, after tax abatements, could pay up to 14.77
percent less in taxes. Essentially, the county's taxpayers would
have to make up the difference. Of course some taxes, such as
school taxes, cannot be abated.
• Procedures
In order to establish a tax abatement program, the Board of County
Commissioners must pass a resolution authorizing a tax abatement
referendum. The referendum must be advertised in the Press -Journal
twice prior to the referendum election.
According to the County's Economic Development Strategy Plan,
Strategic Action 3.14, the county will, by November 1996, consider
holding a referendum to obtain voter approval to establish a tax
abatement program for industrial development projects. A
referendum may be considered for -the November 5, 1996 election, or
it could be done by mail.
Upon a majority voting in favor, the Board has the authority to
approve the tax abatement program. To do so, the Board of County
Commissioners must adopt a resolution that specifies the tax
abatement program criteria as they apply to businesses locating to
or expanding in Indian River County.
• Timincr
Once the referendum is approved, the Board of County Commissioners
has the discretion to implement the tax abatement program. The
program will expire ten years following the date of its approval.
At that time, the program may be renewed for another 10 -year
period, if approved in a referendum conducted in the same manner as
the first.
PROPOSED PROGRAM
As indicated in this report's analysis, the state imposes minimum
criteria for establishing a tax abatement program. Because the
county has the opportunity to establish more restrictive criteria
than the state's, the county can establish a tax abatement program
more appropriate for Indian River County.
Two of the most important characteristics of a tax abatement
program are length of abatement and eligibility. In order to
maximize tax revenue while still producing a viable incentive, it
33
May 14, 1996 " -�
BOOK 98 PAGE 39
would be appropriate to provide tax abatement for 10 years, with
100e of the applicable taxes abated for the first 5 years and then
a 20 percentage point per year reduction for the next 5 years.
With respect to eligibility, it would be appropriate to limit tax
abatement to industrial businesses and corporate offices. This
would also address one factor affecting the 1993 tax abatement
referendum defeat.
Consequently, the following tax abatement program criteria are
proposed.
• The tax abatement is limited to a period of 10 contiguous
years from the- date the application is accepted by the
Board of County Commissioners
• 100 percent of the eligible taxes, as described in this
report, for the first five years will be abated and then
a 20 percentage point per year reduction for the next 5
years
• Tax abatements are applicable only to new or expanding
existing industrial businesses and new corporate offices.
Each eligible industrial business must create 10 or more
new industrial jobs in the county. Each corporate office
must house 50 or more full-time employees of a
corporation newly domiciled in the state.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Although the county need not adopt a tax abatement resolution until
after a tax abatement referendum is approved, there are advantages
to approving a resolution before the referendum. The 'principal
advantage is that a resolution will provide the public with details
regarding administration of the tax abatement program. By
providing this detail upfront, the county may enhance chances for
passage of the tax abatement referendum. For that reason, a
proposed tax abatement resolution has been drafted.
Attached to this report is a copy of the proposed tax abatement
resolution. As structured, the resolution establishes an economic
development ad valorem tax exemption program to encourage economic
development within the county. The resolution provides for
definition of eligible businesses, procedures for applications for
exemption, conditions applicable for tax exemption and other
appropriate'requirements.
• ALTERNATIVES
The Board of County Commissioners has two principal alternatives
with respect to tax abatement. The first alternative is not to
pursue a referendum for tax abatement and not provide tax
exemption. The second alternative is to initiate a tax abatement
referendum to acquire the authority to offer tax abatement to
eligible businesses.
As indicated in this analysis, there are various reasons supporting
the option of establishing a tax abatement program. Not only will
such a program provide the county with an effective economic
development tool; but it will level the playing field with
competing counties. For these reasons and other reasons detailed
in the analysis, staff supports the option of pursuing a tax
abatement referendum.
May 14, 1996
34
M
Staff and the Economic Development Council recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution calling for
a tax abatement program referendum to be conducted as part of the
November, 1996 election. Also, staff and the Economic Development
Council recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached tax abatement resolution prior to the November 5, 1996
referendum with the effective date of the resolution being
contingent on passage of the tax abatement referendum on November
5, 1996.
Commissioner Eggert commented that many local business people
and executives feel tax abatement is among a group of programs that
are necessary in order to attract businesses to Indian River
County. She stated that the county needs more industry in order to
balance the tax load being carried by residents. She felt it is
very important to take it to the voters for a decision.
Commissioner Macht agreed with Commissioner Eggert that this
low cost incentive will repay itself many times over. He added
that the types of industry the County is attempting to attract will
be year-round, and workers will receive fringe benefits. He
believed that the target businesses have an inherent characteristic
of upgrading the skills of workers, which will have a beneficial
effect of upgrading family income. He suggested that concept might
be included in the type of employment to target, where workers have
the opportunity to go from unskilled or semi -skilled to skilled and
diversified.
Commissioner Eggert commented that these employees will be
buying houses and goods, and providing additional sales tax
revenue.
Commissioner Bird referred to the memo from County Attorney
Vitunac concerning the landlord situation and wondered if the Board
needed to incorporate anything in this program to assure the
benefit of abatement gets passed to the tenant of a leased
commercial facility.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that was not required by law,
but it could be added to the requirements. He agreed when Director
Keating suggested that, because the Board would be looking at each
application, instead of putting it in the program, it could be made
a condition for approval.of the application.
Commissioner Eggert thought the language they were concerned
about was already included, and County Attorney Vitunac indicated
it was in one of the resolutions.
Commissioner Bird stated that the responsibility for taxes
depended on the type of lease. He wanted assurance that the
savings would be for the benefit of the tenant.
35
May 14, 1996
�� R 0 -
Commissioner Eggert stressed that the developer cannot build
and let the building sit empty and expect to get tax abatement.
The developer must get that tenant into the building before
receiving any tax abatement.
County Attorney Vitunac interjected that the developer has to
build after an ordinance is adopted by the Board; therefore, if a
developer builds a spec building, it would not qualify.
Commissioner Bird complimented Commissioner Eggert for her
efforts and the many members of the Economic Development Council
and Chamber of Commerce for attending today to show their support.
Commissioner Bird asked if anyone had interviewed other counties'
business leaders and CEOs in order to determine how they rate these
incentives.
Commissioner Eggert thought Economic Development Council
member James Wellman had spoken eloquently about the need for an
incentive package.
Chairman Adams pointed out that, interestingly enough, the
number one attraction was and still is county cooperation.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, to approve staff's
recommendation as set forth in the memorandum.
Commissioner Tippin voiced his 100% support and declared that
the unanimous support for economic diversification was very
exciting. He added that things have changed in industrial
development, it has become very competitive.
Commissioner Bird stressed the importance of having the voters
approve this in November. He asked the game plan for better
education of the voters.
Commissioner Eggert promised to stay out of the hospital.
Also, she felt there was very good cooperation between the Chamber
of Commerce, a number of members of the business community, and the
County to plan it. She agreed when Commissioner Macht interjected
that we now have a dynamic Chamber of Commerce.
Chairman Adams asked if a developer who builds a spec
warehouse will be prevented (after leasing it to a viable company)
from getting the tax abatement.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the developer would have
had to bring in the applicant prior to building for the Board to
approve the tax exemption for that industry.
Chairman Adams inquired if existing buildings were excluded
from the abatement benefit, and County Attorney Vitunac responded
36
May 14, 1996
that they would be excluded for the building, but improvements
would qualify. `
Commissioner Eggert added that modifications and new equipment
would also qualify.
Chairman Adams asked specifically about the old WalMart
building, and County Attorney Vitunac replied that expansion in
personal property would be eligible, but the building shell would
not be, nor the land. In response to additional questions, he
quoted from the law: 11... provided that all these improvements were
made after the Board passes an ordinance for the business." He
indicated that there would be some leeway there.
Chairman Adams wanted assurance there would not be decreased
incentive for fixing up old buildings.
Commissioner Eggert agreed that there was some leeway, and
also pointed out that there are not a lot of existing empty
buildings that can be turned over, but she thought ways could be
found to be helpful.
Chairman Adams wanted additional assurance that those
buildings would not be excluded, and County Attorney Vitunac felt
there was a certain dis-incentive from using an old shell building
versus building a new one. The new building would get a tax
exemption, and the old one would not, except for expansion or
tangible personal property.
Chairman Adams saw two problems. There was no advantage to
encourage the sale of an old building and there would be more
vacated buildings.
County Attorney Vitunac replied that was covered under State
law and there was no local option on that.
Chairman Adams emphasized she was not against tax abatement,
but wanted County Attorney Vitunac to determine how her concerns
might be remedied.
Commissioner Bird thought her example of the WalMart
conversion was good, and Commissioner Eggert agreed.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Resolution Nos. 96 -55 -and 96-
56 adopted)
37
May 14, 1996
8NX U
BOOK 9 8 F,�;;F 4
RESOLUTION NO. 96-55
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CALLING FOR A REFERENDUM TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SHALL HAVE THE POWER
AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 3, ARTICLE. VII OF THE FLORIDA
CONSTITUTION TO GRANT AD, VALOREM TAX EXEMPTIONS TO
NEW INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES, NEW CORPORATE OFFICES
AND EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority of Section 3, Article VII
of the Florida Constitution the Florida - Legislature has adopted
Section 196.1995, Florida Statutes, which authorizes the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County to call a referendum
within its total jurisdiction to determine whether its respective
jurisdiction may grant economic development ad valorem tax
exemptions; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
has determined that having the power to grant such exemptions would
be in the public interest by fostering economic development which
would otherwise not occur;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. A referendum shall be held on November 5, 1996, as part of
general election, within the entire incorporated and
unincorporated areas of Indian River County to be. held
pursuant to Section 101.6102, Florida Statutes, at which the
following question will be presented to the qualified voters:
SHALL THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED, PURSUANT TO S. 3, ART.
VII OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, TO GRANT PROPERTY
TAX EXEMPTIONS TO NEW INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES, NEW
CORPORATE OFFICES, AND EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING
INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES?
YES -.For Authority to Grant Exemptions
NO - Against Authority to Grant Exemptions
2. The Supervisor of Elections is authorized to conduct this
referendum as.part of 1996, general election.
3. The County Attorney's office shall ensure that appropriate
notices of this referendum will be provided, -pursuant to
38
May 14, 1996
� � r
_ RESOLUTION NO. 96-55
Section 100.342, Florida Statutes, i.e., 30 days notice by
publication in the Vero Beach Press Journal at least twice,
once in the fifth week and once in the third week prior. to the
week in which the referendum is to be held.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Macht ,
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 14 day of
Attest:
1� ltt�
Jeffrey -K. Bartog(jr-qJerk
May , 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
6 Ok,
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
AITAODW 2
Indian River Ca Approved Da 1;0
Admin /7 6
Legal
Budges
Depi.
Risk Mgr.
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 56
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CREATING
"ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AD VALOREM TAX EXEMPTIONS" TO
ENCOURAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTY;
ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR OBTAINING AN EXEMPTION FROM
CERTAIN AD VALOREM TAXATION FOR CERTAIN NEW AND EXPANDING
BUSINESSES; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING CONDITIONS;
PROVIDING PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION;
PROVIDING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; SEVERABILITY AND APPLICABILITY;
EFFECTIVE DATE; AND ADOPTION
WHEREAS, Indian River County's average• unemployment rate has
been consistently higher than the state's unemployment rate; and
39
May 14, 1996 nox o
r
BG®K 98 mu 45
RESOLUTION NO. 96-56
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has made a
determination that one of the ways to reduce the unemployment rate
is to attract new businesses and industries to the county; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
providing incentives such as property tax exemption will enhance
the county's prospects for attracting new businesses and
industries; and
WHEREAS, Section 196.1995, Florida Statutes, provides that the
Board of County Commissioners may by referendum be authorized to
grant economic development ad valorem tax exemptions pursuant to
Section 3, Article VII of the State Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Section 196.012 (15) or (16), Florida Statutes,
defines "new business" and "expansion of an existing business",
which are the type of businesses which may be offered tax.
exemptions under section 196. 1995(2); and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that granting certain ad valorem tax
exemptions is in the best interest of the citizens of Indian River
County, Florida,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
SECTION 1 ADOPTION OF TAX EXEMPTION RESOLUTION
Hereby, the county created an "Economic Development Ad Valorem
Tax Exemptions Program," to read as follows:
Section 1.01 Short Title
This resolution shall be known as the "Economic Development Ad
Valorem Tax Exemption resolution."
Section 1.02 Enactment and Authority
This resolution is adopted pursuant to Section 3, Article VII
of the State Constitution and in accordance with Chapters 125 and
196, Florida Statutes.
Section 1.03 Jurisdiction
The area subject to this resolution shall be the total
geographical area of Indian River County.
Section 1.04 Purpose and Intent
It is the purpose of this resolution to enhance the general
welfare of the county citizens by providing incentives for the
May 14, 1996
40
RESOLUTION NO. 96-56
harmonious, orderly, and progressive development of new businesses
and the expansion of existing businesses within the county. The
intent of this resolution. is to grant tax exemptions to certain
types of industrial businesses and corporate offices on a rational,
nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory basis with latitude given to the
Board of County Commissioners to grant exemptions in their
legislative discretion.
Section 1.05 Definitions
The following words, phrases, and terms are defined as
follows:
(1) Economic Development Council - An advisory body of the
Board of County Commissioners on issues related to the
county's economic development.
(2) Expansion of an Existing Business, as defined by section
196.012(16), F.S.
(a) A business establishing 10 or more jobs to employ
10 or more full-time employees in this state, which
manufactures, processes, compounds, fabricates, or
produces for sale items of tangible personal
property at a fixed location and which comprises an
industrial or manufacturing plant;
(3) New Business, as defined by Section 196.012(15), F.S.
(a) A business establishing 10 or more jobs to employ*
10 or more full-time employees in this state, which
manufactures, processes, compounds, fabricates, or -
produces for sale items of tangible personal
property at a fixed location and which comprises an
industrial or manufacturing plant; or
(b) An office space in this state owned and used by a
corporation newly domiciled in this state; provided
such office space houses 50 or more full-time
employees of such corporation.
Provided that such business or office first begins
operation on a site clearly separate from any other
commercial or industrial operation owned by the same
business.
Section 1.06 Conditions
(1) The economic development ad valorem tax exemption is a
local option tax incentive for new or expanding
businesses which may be granted or refused at the sole
discretion of the Board after consideration of the
factors set out in Section 1.07 of this resolution. An
applicant for such an exemption must file an application
with the county and shall provide any further information
requested by the county.
(2) Satisfactory proof that the business meets the criteria
as established by this resolution for exemption as a new
business or expansion of an existing business must
accompany the application.
(3) An exemption shall be for a 10 year period, unless the
Board determines that a shorter exemption is in the best
interest of the citizens of Indian River County.
41
May 14, 1996pw'..46
Be r 98 paid 7
RESOLUTION NO. 96-56
(4) Any exemption granted may apply to up to 100 percent of
the assessed value of all improvements to real property
made by or for the use of a new business and all tangible
personal property of such new business for the first five
years of the ten year term, abatement to be reduced 20
percentage points per year for the next five year period,
so that in year 10, look of the taxes are due and
payable; or up to 100 percent of the assessed value of
all added improvements to real property made to
facilitate the expansion of an existing business and of
the net increase in all tangible personal property
acquired to facilitate such expansion of an existing
business for the first five years of the ten year term,
abatement to be reduced 20 percentage points per year for
the next five -tear period, so that in year 10, look of
the taxes due and payable, provided that the improvements
to real property are made or the tangible personal
property is added or increased on or after the day the
ordinance granting the tax exemption is adopted.
(5) The application shall be filed on or before March 1st of
the year in which an exemption is requested.
(6) No exemption shall be granted for the land on which new
or expanded businesses are to be located.
(7.) No exemption shall be granted for municipal, school or
water management district taxes, or on taxes levied for
payment of bonds or taxes authorized by a vote of the
electors of the County pursuant to Sections 9(b) or 12,
Article VII, of the State Constitution.
Section 1.07 Procedure
(1) To grant a tax exemption to any business, the Board must
adopt an ordinance consistent with the requirements of
section 1.08 of this resolution. Before the Board acts
on a tax exemption request, however, the application may
be presented to the Economic Development Council, which
is an advisory body of the Board of County Commissioners,
and a recommendation made to the Board. The Community.
Development Department in coordination with the Property
Appraiser shall report to the Economic Development
Council and to the Board concerning the fiscal impact of
granting exemptions.
The Report shall include the following:
(a) The total revenue available to the county for
the current fiscal year from ad valorem tax
sources, or an estimate of such revenue if the
actual total revenue available cannot be
determined.
(b) Any revenue lost to the county for the current
fiscal year by virtue of exemptions previously
granted under this resolution, or an estimate
of such revenue if' the actual revenue lost
cannot be determined.
(c) An estimate of the revenue which would be lost
to the county during the current fiscal year
if the exemption applied for were -granted had
the property for which the exemption is
requested otherwise been subject to taxation.
42
May 14, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-56
(d) A determination that the property to be
incorporated into a business which meets the
definition of a new business or expansion of
an existing business as defined in this
resolution.
(2) When considering the issue of whether or not an applicant
is eligible, the Board shall consider the anticipated
number of employees, average wage, type of business,
environmental impacts, volume of business or production,
or any other information relating to the issue of whether
the proposed development would significantly improve
economic development in Indian River County. Special
emphasis shall be given to whether or not the business
would be likely to relocate or expand in Indian River
County without the tax exemption.
Section 1.08 AMlication Requirements
The application shall request the adoption of an ordinance
granting the applicant an exemption pursuant to Ch. 196, F.S.
The application shall include the following information:
(1) The name, property location (address), and tax parcel
number(s) of the new business or expansion of an existing
business to which the exemption is granted.
(2) A description of the improvements to real property for
which an exemption is requested and the date of
commencement of construction of such improvements.
(3 ) A description of the tangible personal property for which
an exemption is requested and the dates when such
property was or is to be purchased.
(4) Proof, to the satisfaction of the Board of County
Commissioners that the applicant is a new business or an
expansion of existing business, as defined in section
1.05 of this resolution.
Section 1.09 Ordinance Requirements
An ordinance granting an exemption under this section shall be
adopted in the same manner as any other ordinance in the county and
shall include the following:
(1) The name and address of new business or expansion of an
existing business to which exemption is granted.
(2) The total amount of revenue available to the county from
ad valorem tax sources for the current fiscal year, the
total amount of revenue lost to the county for the
current fiscal year by virtue of economic development ad
valorem tax exemptions currently in effect, and the
estimated revenue loss to the county for the current
fiscal year attributable to the exemption of the business
named in the ordinance.
(3) The period of time for which the exemption will remain in
effect and the expiration date of the exemption.
43
May 14, 1996 na 48
RESOLUTION NO. 96-56
(4) A finding that the business named in the ordinance meets
the definition of a new business or an expansion of an
existing business.
Section 1.10 Fees
Fees charged to offset the cost of processing applications
shall be adopted by the Board by resolution.
Section 1.11 Revoking of Tax Exemption
The Board reserves the right to revoke any tax exemption
granted under this ordinance, after a public hearing, based on
changes to the business from that expected by the application
(business no longer meeting the requirement of this resolution) , or
for misrepresentation or fraud.
Section 1.12 Termination Date
The Board's authority to grant exemptions will expire on November
5, 2006 but the authority to grant exemptions may be renewed for
another 10 year period in a referendum called and held pursuant to
Section 196.1995, F.S.
SECTION 2 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 resolution are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 3 ADOPTION AND EFFECTIVE DATE
This resolution was adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 14 day of
May, 1996. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Macht
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: � C -^4- .. K) l
Fran dams, Chairm n
ATTESTBY:
J , ey K. �4;ton.),Clerk ��
Effective Date: This resolution became effective only upon pass ei
of tax abatement referendum on 5th day of November, 1996.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY _ men e.ea •otro.ro Palf
�mron e
Char7ee P. Vitunac, County Attorney �aqn
8uo9e1
D13%
Ro rt M. Rest g, AICA ^ a � Mme.
Community Development Director 4 4
u\d\titnea.ord April 12, 1996
May 14, 1996
LOCAL MOBS GRANT PROGRAM
Community Development Director Bob Keating stated that this
program would give incentives for business to locate in the county
regardless of whether they are occupying an existing building or
whether they are building a new building. He then- reviewed a
Memorandum of May 7, 1996:
TO: -James E. Chandler
-County Administrator
D IS N HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. eat ng, CP
Community Developme Dir for
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP '5')t
Chief,
5')-
Chief, Long -Range Planning Section
DATE: May 7, 1996
RE: CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING A LOCAL JOBS GRANT PROGRAM
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 14, 1996.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
For many years, the county's unemployment rate has been -
considerably higher than that of the state's. In an attempt to
diversify its economic base and reduce the unemployment rate, the
county is developing a package of economic development incentives
in order to attract businesses and industries to the county. Among
the economic development incentives being considered is the'
establishment of a local jobs grant program.
On April 23, 1996, the Economic Development Council recommended
that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed local
jobs grant program.
QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM
At its September 12, 1995 meeting, the Board of County
Commissioners agreed to participate in the state's Qualified Target
Industry Tax Refund Program. This program is available to new
industries that locate in the county or existing industries in the
county that are expanding. To be eligible to receive a tax refund
under this program, an industry must be on the state's targeted
industries list. By agreeing to participate in the program, the
Board committed to pay 20% of the tax refund amount for a
qualifying industry. 'For the county, this cost could be up to
$1,000 per job.
Key elements of the program include:
• A business can receive a tax refund of up to $5,000 per new
job created.
45
May 14, 1996 Boa P,, tt
BOOK 98 P},tirl 51
• A business must pay an average wage of at least 115 percent
of area wages.
• A business must create at least 100 new jobs in any of the
state's target industries. If an expansion, the expansion
must result in at least &-10 percent increase in the
business's employment.
• The local government must provide a 20o match of the total
taxes to be refunded.
Through the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program, the
county intends to encourage the growth of high -value-added
employment in the county.
Attachment 1 provides a summary of the Qualified Target Industry
Tax Refund Program. This summary includes a list of industries
that qualify for the program, certification and application
requirements of the Division of Economic Development of the
Department of Commerce, written agreement criteria needed to
finalize the program, and a list of funds eligible for tax refund.
LOCAL JOBS GRANT PROGRAM
Since the Board of County Commissioners approved the county's
participation in the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program,
there have been no applications from eligible businesses. Most
likely, one of the reasons that no applications have been submitted
is the requirement that a new business applying for a refund must
create at least 100 new jobs. In a small county, few new
businesses create that many new jobs.
Because the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program focuses on
large employers, several counties have established a local jobs
grant program with a lower job creation threshold.
St. Lucie and Palm Beach are two counties that have established
their own jobs grant program independent of the state's Qualified
Target Industry Tax Refund Program. If Indian River County created
a similar program, that program could provide grants to all'
qualified industrial businesses based on criteria established by
the Board of County Commissioners. Businesses that meet the
state's Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program could also use
the county match to get state tax refunds.
• Survey of other surrounding counties
The following table identifies surrounding counties that offer jobs
grant programs.
46
May 14, 1996
I
The St. Lucie and Palm Beach counties' jobs grant programs are
independent of state's Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund
Program. Through the St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties' jobs grant
programs, some of the smaller buVinesses (less than 100 jobs) that
cannot receive the state grants can receive job grants. St. Lucie
47
May 14, 1996 BOOK 98 pw 52
St. Lucie County
Palm Beach County
Max. Award per
up to $2,000
up to $2,000
Job (Not
Including
Bonuses)
Number of Jobs
20 or more;-
25 or more;
Needed to be
20-49 =$1,000/job
25-49 =$ 500/job
Created
50-99 =$1,250/job
50-99 =$1,000/job
100-149=$1,500/job
100-249 =$1,500/job
150+ =$2,000/job
500+ =$2,000/job
Max. =$500,000
Max. =$500,000
Min. =$ 12,500
% of County's
at least 100%
at least 100%
Avg. Salary
Type of
manufacturing,
manufacturing,
Business to
distribution, R & D,
distribution, R & D,
Qualify
back-office, corp.
back-office, corp.
headquarters, other
headquarters, other
non -retail or
non -retail or
wholesale functions
wholesale functions
Payment Period
phased over 3 years
phased over 4 years
Number of
1
24
Businesses
Utilizing
Program
Total Amount
$55,000
$4,092,276
Awarded
(11/21/95)
Total New Jobs
<50
2,044
Attributed
Directly to
the Program
Bonus Payment
Bonuses:
Bonuses:
if company is:
bus./fin. services,
if company is:
bus./fin. services,
aerospace/engnrng.,
aerospace/engnrng.,
agrclrl/food proc.,
agrclrl/food proc.,
cmptrs/commnctns,
cmptrs/commnctns,
pharm/med dews.,
pharm/med devs.,
marine indstrs =10%;
marine indstrs =10k;
50+ jobs crted in
50+ jobs crted in
above indstrs. =10%;
above indstrs. =10t;
75o S.L.C. res. =10t;
25 or more Palm Beach
avg. sal. =1251 =10%;
Co. res. =10t;
avg. sal. =150k =20%;
avg. sal. =125% or
avg. sal. =1751 =25%.
greater =10t•
company locates in
Development Region or
agrees to employ
residents of region
in 25k of jobs =10k
The St. Lucie and Palm Beach counties' jobs grant programs are
independent of state's Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund
Program. Through the St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties' jobs grant
programs, some of the smaller buVinesses (less than 100 jobs) that
cannot receive the state grants can receive job grants. St. Lucie
47
May 14, 1996 BOOK 98 pw 52
I
BOOK 98 F -dill -
and Palm Beach county jobs grant programs supplement the state's
Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program by allowing smaller
businesses to take advantage of funding provided by government
sources.
These programs are funded through local funds, and do not receive
funding from the state if the industry applying for the program
does not meet the Qualified Target Industry Tax Refund Program
guidelines.
ANALYSIS
Like St. Lucie and Palm Beach, Indian River County could offer a
local jobs grant program. This program could allow industrial
businesses that do not meet the required criteria of the Qualified
Target Industry Tax Refund Program to receive job grants paid for
by the county.
As with any proposed economic development incentive, a local jobs
grant program should be approved only after an analysis
demonstrates that it would be productive and cost effective. This
section constitutes that analysis.
• Costs
To create a local jobs grant program, the county would need to
establish a Job Growth Investment Fund that would provide the funds
to be given to qualified industrial businesses. This fund would be
maintained by the Budget Office.
Presently, the county has no source of funds to finance a local
jobs grant program. With rising infrastructure, law enforcement,
and general government costs, there are many priorities for
available county revenue. Complicating the issue even more is the
fact' that some sources of county revenue are declining. Among
these are state and federal grant funds and agricultural ad valorem
taxes. Given the emphasis not only on preventing tax increases but
achieving roll -back, the prospect of allocating funds for a jobs
grant program is difficult.
Also difficult is projecting the costs of a jobs grant program.
Assuming that Indian River County adopted a jobs grant program
similar to those of St. Lucie and Palm Beach Counties, with a
$2,000/job maximum grant, minimum employment of 20 to 25 to
qualify, and a three year payoff period, it would not be
unreasonable to assume that such a program would cost the county
$100,000 the first year, with costs escalating each year afterward.
A $10'0,000 first year cost could represent as few as 100 new jobs
created by qualifying industrial businesses, if the program paid
$2,000 per job. This also assumes a three year period for
providing the grant, with 50% of the amount provided in the first
year. For both the second and third years of a jobs grant program,
costs- would increase, assuming an equal or greater number of
qualifying new jobs are created each: year. These costs would
increase because the three year pay -out period provided by most
jobs grant programs allocates 50% of the grant amount in the first
year and 25% in both the second and third years. Consequently, the
third year costs of a jobs grant program will include not only 50%
of the job grant amounts approved in the third year, -but also 25%
of the job grant amounts approved in the first and second years.
48
May 14, 1996
M M M
• Benefits
In the long run, the benefits of a local jobs grant program may
outweigh the initial costs of providing job grants. For example,
Palm Beach county's job grant program has created 2,044 new target
industry jobs at a total cost of $4,092,276 or about $2,000 per
job.
According to the Florida Department of Labor's most recent annual
ES -202 annual average wage table, Indian River County's annual
average wage was $21,972 in 1994. Therefore, an industrial firm
that decides to locate its new facility in Indian River County and
creates 100 new jobs that pay at least $21,972 per employee would
have an annual payroll of $2,197,200 (100*21,972). A 2.5
multiplier effect of the payroll alone would represent a $5,493,000
increase to the county's economy. Per each new manufacturing job
at least 2 service related jobs will be created.
Presently, the County's economic base has little diversification,
being primarily dominated by the citrus industry. With the ability
of the county to offer a. local jobs grant program to new and
expanding industrial businesses, the county can enhance its
economic development prospects and may receive the following
benefits:
0 Reduced unemployment
0 Stimulated economy
o Diversified economic base
0 Increased number of jobs
0
Increased employment opportunities in year round
b
usinesses
0 Broadened the property tax base
o Enhanced economic stability
0 Additional sales taxes
These benefits are based on the assumption that new economic
development will produce a positive effect on peripheral businesses
located in the county. Consequently, the consumption of goods and
services should increase as the County's economic base increases.
Seminole County's jobs 'growth incentive program status report
containing a cost -benefit analysis is attached to this agenda item.
• Fiscal Impact of Combined Incentives
Since the county is considering instituting several economic
development incentives, it is important to assess the potential
fiscal impact of these incentives. Fiscal impact focuses on local
government revenues and expenditures. Besides fiscal impacts,
incentives can be expected to produce economic impacts. Those are
reflected by the multiplier effects referenced above.
With respect to incentives, fiscal impacts cannot be directly
measured. It is possible, however, to assess the fiscal impacts of
representative projects expected to be built as 'a result of the
county offering economic development incentives. These impacts can
then be projected based upon differing amounts of development that
could occur from the offering of incentives.
Using a hypothetical project as an example and factoring in the
cost of a jobs grant program and lost revenue from a tax abatement
program, a general fiscal impact analysis indicates that cumulative
revenues will exceed cumulative costs 6 years after project
construction. Consequently, the fiscal impact analysis shows that
providing the referenced incentives will have a net positive fiscal
impact. The tables below illustrate that result.
49
May 14, 1996 8DOX5,4"
r
BOOK 98 r, 5
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT
Assumptions:
• Acomputer manufacturer buys a 40. acre parcel zoned industrial and located in
the SR'60/I-95 node. Currently, the site is used for citrus production and
has an -agricultural exemption. The company plans tb-construct a 40,000 sq.
Et. building and employ ].00 people. The company will receive a local jobs
grant and a property tax exemption.
• Property size: 40 acres
• Assessed Value: $1,000,000
• Assessed value with agriculture exemption: $100,000
• Building Size: 40,000 sq. ft.
• Improvements Value: $1,000,000
• Number of Employees: 100
• Average Salary: $22,000
• Constant 1996 dollars
• Impact Fees: Cost a Benefit (impact fees collected should cover cost)
• County Millage Rates
- General Fund 4.2999 - can be abated
- MSTU 1.6236 - can be abated
- EMS District 2.3128 - can be abated
- Misc. Taxing Authority 11.2793 - CANNOT BE ABATED
L::r
ac072 of rag
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 L 9 10 tal
1E
Fiscal Impact of Property Without Project
Assuming that Property Remains in Agricultural Use
- General
430
430 30
430
30
430
30
430
30
430
4,300
- MSTG
162
162 162
162
162
162
162
162
162
162
1,620
ESD
231
231 $231
231
31
231
31
231
231
231
2,310
- Rise
1,128
1,128 1.128
1.128
1.125
1.128
1.128
1,125
1,120
1.120
11,250
otal taxes
id on
1,9511,951
$1,951
1,951
1,951
1,951
1,951
1,951
1,951
1,951
griculture
19,510
and
at
0
ryices
0
p
0
t Cost/
avenue
62,9S1
1,951 1,951
1,951
1,951
1,951
11951
11951
11951
01.9si
P191510
lative 1,951
et Cost/
3,902 $5,553
7,804
9,755
11,706
13, 657
15,608
17,559
19,510
19,510
evenue
May 14, 1996
M81
e
FISCAL IMPACT OF HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT
TAXES PAID ON DEVELOPED LAND (taxes on land can not be abated)
- Cenral
Fund
4,300
4,300
$4,300
4,300
$4,300 4,300
,300
4,300
,300
4,300
43,000
- MSTD
1,624
1,624
$1,624
1,624
$1,624 1,624
1,624
$1.624
1,624
$1,624
16,240
- ESD
2,313
2.313
2,313
2,313
2,313 2,313
2,313
2,313
2,313
2,313
23,130
- Misc
11,279
11,279
$11,279
11,279
$11,279 11,279
11,279
$I1,Z79
11,279
11.279
112,790
Total taxes
19,516
19,516
$19,516
19,516
19,516 19,516
19,516
19,516
19,516
19,516
195,160
id on
developed
land
TAXES PAID ON IMPROVEMENTS
- General
0
0
0 0
0 860 1,720
52,580
3,440
$4,300
i
12,900
Fund
- mm
0
0
0 0
0 325 650
111,279
975
1,300
111,279
$1,624
i
4,874
- ESD
0
0
0 0
0 462 925
$1,367
1,850
$2,313
6,937
- Misc.
$11,279
11,279
11,279 $11,279
$11.2179 11,279
11,279
$11,179
112,790
Total taxes
$11,279
$11,279
$11,279 $11,279
11,279 12,926 14,574
16,221
17,869
19,516
137,501
id on
improve-
ments
TOTAL REVENUES & COSTS
30,795
30,795
$30,795
30,795
30,795
32,442
34,090
35,737
37,385
$39,032
332,661
nopedandvementsof
Jobs
(-$75,000)
(-$37,500)
(-$37,500)
0
0
0
$150,000,
of
(-S5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$53,200)
ceace,ALS-)Cost
LTaxes
(-$80,320)
(-$42,820)
(-$42,820)
(-$S,320)
(-$5,320)
(-55,320)
(-$5,320)
(-S5,320)
(-$5,320)
(-$5,320)
$203,200oat/
(-$49,525)
(-$12,025)
(-$12,025)
25,475
25,475
27,122
28,770
30,417
32,065
33,712
129,461
itative
(-$49,525)
(-$61,550)
(-$73,575)
(-$48,100)
(-$22,625)
,497
33,267
63,684
95,749
129,461
129,461
it
* Cost of services represents average annual operating cost for
general industrial based on local research: police, fire, and
advanced life support - $133/1000sq.ft.
As indicated above, the hypothetical project would have a
significant positive fiscal impact on the community, even with the
incentive costs factored in. That, however, is not surprising.
One principal reason for that is that, like all non-residential
development, the hypothetical project would pay 10.348 mills in
property tax for schools, yet not create any school demand or
school costs.
Essentially, that is one major benefit of attracting more non-
residential development to the county. Because industrial
enterprises provide local governments with more revenue than costs,
non-residential uses to some extent subsidize residential
development.
51
May 14, 1996 max PA -E 56
Boor, 98 �¢�; r 57
The table above also illustrates another way that the proposed
incentives will provide a positive fiscal impact. Because most of
the county's industrially designated land is currently used for
citrus production or pasture, this land currently has an
agricultural exemption and pays a low amount of property tax. As
shown in the above table, the agricultural exemption results in a
tax liability of only 10 percent of the amount of tax that wouldbe.
due without the agricultural exemption.
To the extent that the proposed incentives result in agriculturally
exempted, industrially designated land being developed, revenues
will increase not only because of improvements to the property, but
also because of the loss of the agricultural exemption.
PROPOSED PROGRAM
The ability of the county to offer a local jobs grant program to
clean, industrial businesses wanting to relocate to, or expand in,
Indian River County would provide Indian River County the
opportunity to compete for economic development projects on the
level that neighboring counties do. In structuring such a program,
several issues must be addressed. These include: the amount of the
grant, the types of businesses that qualify, the minimum number of
jobs that must be created, and the minimum wages that must be paid.
Both the St. Lucie and Palm Beach jobs grant programs provide good
models for structuring an Indian River County program. Each of
these counties provides a maximum grant of $2, 000 per job, with the
amount per job dependant on the total number of jobs created. Both
limit eligible, businesses, and both require wages to be at or above
their respective county's minimum. The programs differ in the
minimum number of jobs to be created, with St. Lucie at 20 and Palm -
Beach at 25.
Since Indian River County's objectives are similar to both St.
Lucie's and Palm Beach's, an Indian River County program should
probably incorporate criteria comparable to the St. Lucie and Palm
Beach programs. With that in mind, it would be appropriate to
structure an Indian River County jobs grant program to apply only
to businesses having a two -digit Standard Industrial Code
classification between 20-39 and those businesses on the county's
target industry list. With an Indian River County jobs grant
program, the amount of the total grant would be based on the number
of jobs created, the types of jobs that are created, and proposed
wages for those jobs.
The proposed program would have the following criteria:
• The applicants must submit their application to the
Community Development Department. The Community
Development Department shall submit all eligible
applications to the Board of County Commissioners. The
Board of County Commissioners shall review all
applications submitted and at their sole discretion may
approve any application that seems beneficial to the
county's overall economy.
When considering -the issue of whether or not an applicant
is eligible to receive a jobs grant, the Board shall
consider the anticipated number of employees, average
wage, type of businesses, environmental impacts, volume
of business or production, and any other information
relating to the issue of whether the proposed development
would significantly improve economic development in
Indian River County. Special emphasis shall be given to
52
May 14, 1996
M
M
M
whether or not' -the business would be likely to relocate
or expand in Indian River County without the jobs grant.
• The budget cap for the first year (FY 1996-97) for this
program is set at $100,000. For each subsequent year,
the board will establish the cap at budget time.
• The county's Jobs Grant Program can apply to a company -
that creates at least 20 or more manufacturing jobs (SIC
code's 20-39) as well as the county's target industries.
• The salary or wage of each employee used to qualify the
business for the jobs grant program must equal at least
100% of the county's average salary/wage level.
• Amount of the grant is determined based on the following
criteria:
o 20-49 employees = $1,000 per job created
o 50-99 employees = $1,250 per job created
0 100-149 employees = $1,500 per job created
o 150 + employees = $2,000 per job created
• Additional bonuses will be awarded to firms which meet
this additional criteria:
0 50 or more jobs created in the county's target
industries as applicable at the time of
application;
(10% bonus)
0 75% or more of those hired are Indian River
County residents;
(10% bonus)
0 The salary of each employee used to qualify the
business for the jobs grant program is at least
125% of the county's average salary;
(10% bonus)
0 The salary of each employee used to qualify the
business for the jobs grant program is at least
150% of the county's average salary;
(20% bonus)
o The salary of each employee used to qualify the
business for the jobs grant program is at least
175% of the county's average salary;
(25% bonus)
• A grant to an individual company may not exceed
$500,000.
• The jobs grant funds provided to an industry can be used
for costs associated with expansion or relocation such as
moving expenses, permitting costs, impact fees,
infrastructure costs, rent, day care facilities,
equipment, or other expenses to be approved by the Board
of County Commissioners.
• The jobs grant can be paid over a three year period. In
the first year, the business would receive 50% of the
total grant, and then 25V for each of the last two years.
53
BOOK � . mx 5,81
May 14, 1996
• Any business that receives county jobs grant assistance
must sign a legally binding agreement with the county and
post a letter of credit or other surety that indicates
that the business will perform according to criteria used
to approve the jobs grant application (such as number of
employees, average salaries, * of county residents hired,
---etc.) and also indicates that the business will not close
or relocate out of the county for at least 10 years from
the time of receiving the jobs grant unless the business
pays back the jobs grant which it has received.
The business's performance, as it relates to the jobs
grant program, must be reviewed on an annual basis.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Economic Development Council recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners establish a local jobs grant program as
detailed above, if a new source of revenue to fund the program is
established.
Chairman Adams asked where the revenue would come from, and
Administrator Chandler responded that it would be included in the
County's General Fund budget which will be presented in July.
Commissioner Eggert referred to the additional bonuses (on 2nd
to last page of the memo) and advised that the key in the first
item is "target industries". If there are 5 or 6 industries which
are thought to be especially important to the County, there will be
a bonus for bringing those in first. She agreed with the cap of
$100,000 as recommended by Director Keating in his oral
presentation. She believed this incentive to be an important part
of the whole package and something that has proved to be very
attractive to industry. She believed if the Board wants the county
to stay properly competitive, it should be approved.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, to approve staff's
recommendation, with a cap of $100,000, as set forth
in the memorandum.
Penny Chandler, executive vice president of the Chamber -of
Commerce, agreed with staff and the Economic Development Council in
bringing this incentive forward and hoped the Board would approve
it today. She thought it was important to note that the intent is
to evenly distribute the burden and relieve the residential
taxpayer. In mentioning that, she knew that industry offsets costs
of public service and that public services generally impact
54
May 14, 1996
residential more than the industrial businesses. She also pointed
out the concern for unemployed and underemployed residents and
graduates who need jobs. `
In response to Commissioner Bird's earlier inquiry, Ms.
Chandler advised that while they had not talked to other counties'
business leaders and CEOs as far as being able to rate what is most
important and what is next important, they do know that what is
attractive is the total package. She recommended the Board approve
this proposal, so that sometime in the future they would not be
having to decide what public services to cut. She felt it was best
to do this planning now. She will do her best to educate the
public so they know what it means to them in tax relief and
continuation of the same public services now available in Indian
River County.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Tippin wanted to be very certain that we don't
forget our existing industry, where there are some problems which
need attention.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that both items (tax abatement
and local jobs grant programs) include existing industries.
RESOLUTION REOUESTING THE STATE TO SURPLUS A PORTION
OF SEBASTIAN CREEK (CORACD CARL PROPERTY FOR USE AS
MUSTRIAL/RECREATIONAL PARK PROPERTY
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 8, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
/Y.21,d,,r�
ert M. Ke in AIC
Community Develo. ent irector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois ICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: May 8, 1996
SUBJECT: Request for Board Authorization to Submit Surplus Land
Proposal to the State for Industrial Park and
Recreational Park Property: Sebastian Creek (Coraci)
CARL Purchase
55
May 14, 1996
BOOK 98 Pka 0
BOOK, 98 NAS€ 6
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of May 14, 1996.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At its meeting on August 8, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners
authorized staff to contact the State regarding a proposal that a
portion of the Sebastian Creek Conservation and Recreational Lands
(CARL) project be surplussed for expansion of an industrial park at
I-95 and CR 512. Subsequently, when the Governor and Cabinet
approved the State purchase on November 29, 1995, the Governor and
Cabinet acknowledged the surplus proposal and directed State staff
to coordinate with the County to facilitate the surplus.
Since that time, county staff has coordinated closely with state
staff, including a number of field meetings to evaluate site
environmental constraints. As a part of the coordination process,
the scope of the proposal has expanded to potentially include
County leasing of +100 acres of the now state-owned property west
of the Sebastian Rlver Middle School, for a north county regional
active recreational park. Attached is a draft conceptual use plan
of the proposed industrial park (+130 acres) and recreational park
(±100 acres).
As part of the County's application for the land surplus, the
County is required to adopt a formal resolution requesting that the
State sell the specified surplus property to the County. For this
reason, a draft resolution is attached for the Board's approval.
ANALYSIS
The configuration in the attached graphic was determined as part of
a concerted effort by state and county staff to accommodate the
surplus request while minimizing impacts to environmentally
sensitive wetlands and other natural areas. This "up -front"
coordination with state staff, prior to submittal of a formal
county surplus application, will help to facilitate the State's
approval.
Elimination of environmentally constrained areas from the proposed
surplus land benefits the County; it reduces the total number of
surplus acres without reducing "buildable" acreage, thereby
reducing the cost of the surplus acquisition. As discussed with
state staff, the County and the State would mutually benefit from
a lease arrangement regarding the recreational park area; it would
serve to fulfill public recreational access on the property
consistent with CARL objectives, and allows the County to establish
a north county regional park without the cost of buying the land.
The State purchased the overall Coraci property at a cost of $3,000
per acre. If the County is able to purchase the proposed surplus at
that same cost,' the surplus project. is estimated to 'cost +$390,000
(130 acres x $3,000).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached resolution, and authorize staff to submit a formal surplus
application to the State for the attached configuration.
56
May 14, 1996
I
Ln
6
s�
50
I _ _ _ _ BREYARD COUNTY
CARL PROJECT
07/95 ADDITION
CARSON PLAT
CITY OF
FELLSMERE
CARL PROJECT
CORACI
PROPOSAL
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL n
NODE BOUNDARY m
c"
0
f
N
L
1
Fi
1
9
VI
00
1
CORACI SURPLUS PROPOSAL
1 XL VISION
1
INDUSTWAL SITE
BUILDING ENVELOPE
0,
w�
0-
Chairman Adams acknowledged that the area has an unusual
configuration, which is the result of extensive work with the
Department of Environmental -Protection. She believed the result is
good for both the County and the State.
Community Development Director Bob Keating pointed out that
this is an economic development initiative, directed by the Board,
to try to help one of the County's existing businesses, XL Vision,
which wants to expand. This purchase will give them the
opportunity to do that.
Director Keating advised that the advantage to this
configuration is the purchase is for just the areas that can be
developed from a resource conservation standpoint.
Director Keating explained that to formally get this moving,
the County needs to submit a specific application asking the
Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to surplus the
industrial park property and sell it to the County. That
application requires a resolution formally requesting the State to
do that and agreeing to pay the appraised value for the property.
Staff assumes, and is hopeful, that the State will allow the County
to use the appraisals that were done when the State purchased the
Coraci property. If so, the industrial property will be about
$3,000 per acre, or total about $390,000. He expected the property
would then be leased to industrial businesses, the first of which
may be XL Vision.
He advised there will be two minor changes in the proposed
resolution, namely, in number 4 and also to reflect that
Commissioner Eggert is the Vice Chairman.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 96-57 and authorized staff to submit
a formal surplus application to the State for
configuration as presented, as recommended by staff.
Chairman Adams expressed thanks to Rich Mermer and Larry Nall
of DEP for their cooperation and positive attitude.
59
May 14, 1996 80OX 98 Put 64
BOOK 98 PK 6
RESOLUTION NO. 96-_5Z_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST
FUND DESIGNATE CERTAIN LANDS IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY AS SURPLUS AND AGREE TO SELL SUCH
LAND TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
WHEREAS, the State of Florida, on November 29, 1995, approved the acquisition
of the 7,000 plus acre Coraci tract, part of which is located in Indian River County, for
conservation purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund, in conjunction with their purchase of the Coraci property, directed their•
staff to work with Indian River County to surplus appropriate portions of the Coraci tract; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the Coraci tract land borders 102nd Terrace, a paved
county roadway with water and sewer lines and adjacent industrial/manufacturing uses; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County staff and Department of Environmental
Protection staff have assessed the portion of the Coraci property adjacent to 102nd Terrace and
identified those lands not necessary for resource conservation purposes and depicted those lands
in attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County desires to purchase those parcels adjacent to
102nd Terrace and depicted in attachment "A" and develop those tracts for
industrial/manufacturing use while protecting the environmental values of the adjacent
conservation land; and
WHEREAS, a portion of the Coraci property adjacent to the Sebastian River
Middle School would be appropriate for county recreational uses; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County staff and Department of Environmental
Protection staff have assessed the portion of the property adjacent to the Sebastian River Middle
School and identified those lands not necessary for resource conservation purposes and depicted
those lands in attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes Chapter 253 provides the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund the authority -to surplus state lands and convey those lands to local -
governments in whose jurisdiction those lands lie,
NOW, THEREFORE, Be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida that:
May 14, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-57
The Board of County Commissioners requests that the Trustees of the Internal
Improvement Trust Fund:
• declare those lands adjacent to 102nd Terrace and those lands adjacent to
the Sebastian River Middle School,. depicted in Attachment "A", as surplus;
and
• sell those lands adjacent to 102nd Terrace and depicted on
Attachment "A" to the County for development as an industrial
park; and
• lease those lands adjacent to the Sebastian River Middle School to
the County for use as a county recreational park.
2. The Board of County Commissioners agrees to restrict development on the
Proposed surplus lands in such a manner that no adverse impacts will occur to
adjacent conservation land.
3. The Board of County Commissioners agrees to pay appraised value for the
Proposed surplus land adjacent to the 102nd Terrace based upon an appraisal of
the market value of the property.
4. The Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposed site is consistent with
the policies of the County's adopted comprehensive plan and acknowledges that
a land use plan amendment will be processed for the proposed surplus property.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti 1,ni n and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran Adams Ave
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John Tippin Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht --A=-
This Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
— 4 day Of Ma;_—� 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
by-taan, i CL►t, �.r�
ChairmFran Adams��
ATTEST K
Jeffrey K-Bymz'�cc
utdwrm J
61
May 14, 1996
BOOK 98 PSE 6
Boor 98 F'k 6
Resolution No. 96-_7
Attachment '•A'•
62
May 14, 1996
W
CO
Q
W
J
j
J
tL
r._.1
1'
j
Ir
1
CIO
.
.,
62
May 14, 1996
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL REPORT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 7, 1996:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP Qr`k,
Community Development Director
DATE: May 7, 1996
RE: CONSIDERATION OF REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
REPORT
It is requested that the data provided herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting
of May 14, 1996.
DESCRIPTION a CONDITIONS:
On January 9, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners considered a
proposal by Brevard County Commissioners that Indian River,
Brevard, and Volusia Counties join together to form a new regional
planning council. After discussion, the Board directed staff to
research the issue and report back to the Board.
Since then, staff has researched the issue and prepared the
attached report. In so doing, staff coordinated with Brevard
County staff, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (RPC) staff,
Governor's office staff, and others.
ANALYSIS:
The attached Regional Planning Council Report identifies statutory
criteria for establishing regional planning council boundaries and
analyzes several RPC boundary alternatives. As indicated, the
report concludes that existing RPC boundaries are preferable to the
alternatives.
Subsequent to completion of the report, Brevard County planning
staff indicated that Volusia County appeared uninterested in
forming a new Indian River/Brevard/Volusia regional planning
council. Therefore, it appears that that option is not possible.
Although staff recommends that current RPC boundaries remain
unchanged, there is a need to address the Board's dissatisfaction
with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. One way to do
that is for the Board to identify specific problems, issues, or
complaints that it has with the Treasure Coast RPC. Then, the
Board can invite the RPC executive director to a meeting to discuss
these issues.
RECOMNDATION•
Staff recommends that the Board review and accept the attached
Regional Planning Council Report; concur that existing regional
planning council boundaries are acceptable•; identify problems,
issues and complaints with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council; and direct staff to invite the Treasure Coast RPC
executive director to a future Board meeting to discuss those
issues.
63
May 14, 1996 MCK 98 ma 68
3m 98 Fc. 69
MAP 1
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL BOUNDARIES
3 North Central
Regional
Union
Florida
Pianntng
Planning
Columbia
Districts
Coattails
Counties
Madison
t
West Florida
Escambia
Santa Rasa
Dixie
Okaloosa
Wagon
Nassau
Florida
Bay
Holmes
Duval
Washington
2
Apahwhas
Calhoun
Leon
Marion
Franklin
Liberty
Levy
Gadsden
Wakulla
Jackson
Gulf
Jefferson
3 North Central
Alachua
Union
Florida
Bradford
Gilchrist
Columbia
Lafayette
Okeechobee
Hamilton •
Madison
Highlands
Suwannee
Taylor
Dixie
4 Northaast
Baker
Nassau
Florida
Clay
Putnam
Duval
St. Johns
Flagler
5 Withlecoochee
Citrus
Marion
Hernando
Sumter
Levy
6 East Central Brevard
Volusia
Florida Lake
Osceola
Orange
Seminole
7 Central Florida DeSoto
Okeechobee
Hardee
Polk
Highlands
8 Tempa Bay Hillsborough Pasco
Manatee Pinefias
9 Southwest Charlotte Hendry
Florida Collier Lee
Glades Sarasota
Treasure Coast Indian River _ Palm Beach
Martin SlAucie
t South Florida Broward
Dade
Monroe
May 14, 1996
64
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, to approve staff's
recommendation as set out in the Memorandum.
When Community Development Director Bob Keating asked, the
Board indicated they did not wish to invite the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council Executive Director to a future Board
meeting to discuss issues.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion,
except for inviting the TCRPC Executive Director,
carried unanimously.
BUDGET AMENDMENT 018 - FOURTH OF TULY FIREWORKS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 8, 1996:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 8, 1996
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIREFIGHTER'S REQUEST FOR
FUNDING OF FIREWORKS -BUDGET AMENDMENT 018 -
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Indian River County Firefighters are requesting $2,500 for the firework display for the "Fourth
of July Family Picnic" to be held at Riverside Park. In the past, the Board of County
Commissioners approved funding for fireworks at Riverside only if they also funded Fourth of July
fireworks in Sebastian for the same amount. If the Board of County Commissioners approves
funding the fireworks, it will require $5,000 to fund both events ($2,500 each) which we are
recommending to be transferred from General Fund Contingencies.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment 018.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 018, ($2,500 for fireworks display
at Riverside Park and $2,500 for fireworks in
Sebastian) as recommended in the memorandum.
65
May 149 1996 BOOK 98 pw 70'
r
WC
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
BOOK 98 PAGE 71
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 018
DATE: May 8. 1996
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1
REVENUE
General Fund/Recreation/Special Event
001-108-572-041.11
$5,000
$0
General Fund/Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$5,000
PREMIUM CONVERSION PLAN - CHANGE TO FISCAL YEAR
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 3, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Rori aker
Director of Personnel
SUBJECT: CHANGE OF "PLAN YEAR" ON PREMIUM CONVERSION PLAN
DATE: May 3, 1996
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The county's group health insurance plan is set up on a fiscal
year, therefore any changes in the plan would be effective October
1. However, the "Plan Year" on the Premium Conversion Plan was set
up on calendar year basis and any changes in benefit elections an
employee makes would be effective January 1. This has caused an
administrative burden on staff.
The staff requested Siver Insurance Consultants to review and
determine if the Board could change the "Plan Year" on our Premium
Conversion Plan. This question was referred to a benefits attorney
and his opinion was the Board could amend the County's current
Premium Conversion Plan from calendar to fiscal year.
This can be accomplished by an Amendment to Indian River Board of
County Commissioners Premium Conversion Plan and Resolution.
Attached are the necessary documents.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends to change "Plan Year" to coincide with the
County's fiscal year and to have these documents executed by
Board's Chairman.
66
May 14, 1996
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanmimously adopted
Resolution No. 96-58- authorizing the first amendment
to the Board of County Commissioners Premium
Conversion Plan to change Section 2.02 (m) "Plan
Year" to fiscal year, as recommended in the
memorandum.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-58
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PREMIUM CONVERSION PLAN.
WHEREAS, the Indian River' County Board of County Commissioners (the
"Board") has previously adopted the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners Premium Conversion Plan (the "Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Board is authorized to further amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the present time the Board deems it advisable to amend the
Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby approves and adopts the
attached First Amendment to the Plan in all respects to be effective as of
the date set forth therein.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert, and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Macht, and, upon being put to a vote, the
vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 14th day of May, 1996.
Jeffre`/y Barton,
C
�V I • t
Attachment: First Amendment
67
May 14, 1996
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
ByQDcL..,_ R ()A'2,.
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
Boor 98 pposE 72
r
BOOK 98 PnF 7
Resolution No. 96-58
FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PREMIUM CONVERSION PLAN
This First Amendment to the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners Premium Conversion Plan is made and entered
into by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
("the Employer") this /'/ day of G: 1996, and
is effective for all purposes as of January 1,/1996.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Employer has previously adopted the Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners Premium Conversion Plan
(the "Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Employer is authorized and empowered to amend the
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Employer deems it advisable to amend the Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, paragraph (m) of Section 2.02 of the Plan is
hereby amended to read as follows:
(m) "Plan Year" - The period commencing January 1, 1996 and
ending on September 30, 1996; thereafter, the term
"Plan Year" shall mean the twelve month period ending on
September 30.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed and
is effective as of dates set forth above.
Ind_, Rva Co. Approved Daie
AC,n!n.
Le;.!_ / S_�
5��ag-t
ub+a t.
Risk Mgr.
May 14, 1996
68
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
_I
SIMUERPLACE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST TO USE NORTH
PORTION OF WABASSO BEACH PARK FOR A STAGING AREA TO
CONSTRUCT SEAWALL TO STOP BEACH EROSION
Public Works Director Jim Davis reviewed a Memorandum of May
7, 19,96:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT%: Request from Summerplace Property Owners to Use the North Portion of
Wabasso Beach Park for a Construction Staging Area
REF. LETTER: Bill Glynn to Chairman Adams dated May 2, 1996
DATE: May 7, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On April 10, 1996, the Public Works Department issued an emergency Coastal
Construction Permit to Summerplace Property Owners so that they could
construct a seawall to stop erosion beneath the foundations of their homes, as
permitted by Florida Statutes Chapter 161. The Public Works Department also
gave permission for the property owners to access the beach from the north end
of Wabasso Beach Park, as has been the past practice. The staff did not permit
the seawall contractor to use the park as a staging area to store machinery and
materials. On several occasions, the Public Works Director spoke with the seawall
contractor, Canglanelli Construction, and asked him to remove heavy equipment
and construction materials from the County park. No positive action has been
taken. On May 2, 1996, a letter was received from Mr. Glynn requesting that the
Board allow the use of the north 50' of the park for staging.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In the past, the County has not allowed any Park to be used for the "staging of
private construction. The County is exposed to liability issues and the general
public is restricted from use of that portion of the park. The property owners, on
the other hand, do not want vegetation on their yards destroyed by the contractor
staging materials and equipment. There is not much open space in the area The
alternatives are as follows:
Alternative # 1
Allow the property owners to use the County Park for staging.
Alternative # 2
Deny the request.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative #2 is recommended. If Alternative # 1 is approved, the contractor
should provide liability insurance acceptable to the Risk Manager to protect the
County.
69
May 14, 1996 booK 7
Boor
98 rw 7
Commissioner Eggert advised that although this wall will help
Summerplace, she had received quite a few phone calls from her
constituents who do not like the fact this construction is being
staged on public property.
In response to Commissioner Macht, Director Davis advised that
an alternative for a staging area is to clear an area of dense
vegetation on private property, between houses. It would be a
tight fit, but could be done. Director Davis indicated that the
problem was the contractor is using the north part of the park for
staging, not just as an access. The project began April 7 and the
contractor has advised him that it is halfway finished, so it could
be completed in about a month.
William G. Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, referred to his letter
of April 10, 1996:
Summerplace William G. Glynn
1802 Barefoot Place East
Vero Beach, Florida 328633648
Telephone 407388-0034
Fax 40738844
April 10, 1996
Mr. Jim Davis
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Florida
Dear Sir,
Pursuant to the "Emergency Erosion Ordinance" passed by the Indian River County
Commision as permitted by Florida State Ordinance #161., please accept this request from
the Summerplace Improvement Association, Inc. to issue the necessary permission needed
to construct an emergency wall at the following location:
The Summerplace Improvement Association, Inc. sub -division easternmost boundary
starting at the north end of the Wabasso Beach public beach , covering lot's #10 and #11
in Unit A and lot's #5, #6, #7 in unit B and lot's #5, #6, and #7 in unit C.
Said wall will be constructed as shown on the attached drawings and will be
completed within 60 days of issuance of the requested permit. We further request
permission to use the ramp at the northern end of the Wabasso Beach for mobilization and
access to the area under construction
The homes in the area are at the mercy of any northeastern storm, or early hurricane,
and at least four houses could be lost to the ocean initially. Needless to say, time is of the
essence, and we appreciate your help and that of our Indian River County Commission, at
this critical time.
We will apply to the Florida D. E. P. for a permanent permit within 60 days of
Completion as required by the State ordinance.
Thank You again for your help and cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
lace eme Association, Inc.
G G --
President
May 14, 1996
M
70
M
M
Mr. Glynn advised that when permission was given to use the
park for access, he did not realize the area could not be used to
mobilize. He described the area, how the 8'-10' piles of sand were
removed, that they had already contracted with Henry Fischer & Sons
to replace the sand. It was necessary in order to bring in the 30!
lengths of steel, which are almost impossible to lift over houses
without danger. They are using the north 50' of the park which has
not been used for some time. In addition, the contractor has
agreed to landscape the entire area under Director Davis'
direction. He stressed that Director Davis and staff has been
extremely helpful on this difficult project. The State had
declared Summerplace an emergency erosion district 1h years ago.
He believed he has solved the problems with the State by working
with them and doing what they have asked. The Division of Fish and
Wildlife is continuously monitoring the site for turtles. He felt
that the wall cannot be finished without using the space in the
park. He predicted that with a half completed wall erosion will be
10 times as bad if a northeast storm comes.
In response to Commissioner Bird's concerns about setting a
precedent, Mr. Glynn advised the only other. possible alternative
would be to try to go between houses, which is highly questionable
because of electrical wires, septics, and all the other things
involved. He felt that if the Board did not approve today, they
probably would have to stop construction on the wall.
Commissioner Tippin thought there may have been some poor
communication in this matter, but he was not concerned about
precedent because, hopefully, this situation would not be happening
on a regular basis. He favored letting the seawall construction go
forward and require mitigation when the project is finished.
Mr. Glynn indicated they would be glad to comply with the
mitigation.
Chairman Adams thought there had been some misunderstanding of
what was said and that there had been an effort to try to work it
out early on, but perhaps the zest of the contractor to get the job
done and ignoring the County's concern has created a problem. The
worse thing has been the criticism for use of public property for
a private purpose. The difficulty is the aggravation to want to do
it for the next person. who has an equal or worse problem. She
thought Director Davis had worked with them, but he is in an
ominous position because this is not the only park that's being
requested by contractors for access to the beach; there are others.
She concurred that they should be allowed to finish the job, but
she wanted it tightened up on what is being promised, because some
71
May 14, 1996 Boa 98 pw 76
I
BOOK 8 �''E I
prior promises have not been fulfilled. She wanted to see
landscaping planted in accordance with the County's plan and
replacement of the sand within 30 days of the completion of the
wall.
Mr. Glynn advised the contractor had been encountering a hard
crust about 10'-12' down, which is creating a tremendous problem.
Chairman Adams asked if they expected the job to take longer,
and Mr. Glynn hoped they would be finished by the middle of June at
the latest.
Commissioner Bird was concerned about overflow parking for the
upcoming busiest time at Wabasso Beach Park.
Director Davis advised that he was told that the contractor
had somewhat consolidated the materials and they were trying to use
the north portion of the park only. He explained that initially
they had not paid heed to his requests, but they are now
responding.
Commissioner Bird was sympathetic to their erosion problems
and hoped the wall would not increase the erosion problems at
Wabasso Beach.
Chairman Adams advised that State statute gives the County
authority if that should occur. She wanted Mr. Glynn to be
personally responsible for Wabasso Beach Park because the
contractor, once he is finished and goes back home, has no vested
interest in the county. She thought it was necessary for the Board
and Director Davis to narrow down what is required. She would be
comfortable in having a landscape plan given to him, so he knows
what is expected, and a guarantee from him that 1,000 yards of sand
will be replaced, and that it all be done within the 30 days of
completion of the construction.
Commissioner Macht suggested a performance bond could be
required.
Chairman Adams was willing to rely on Mr. Glynn's word.
Mr. Glynn advised that he had been here since 1984 and some of
the other homeowners had been there since the 19601s, they were not
going anywhere, and they have always been good neighbors to the
beach.
Commissioner Macht felt the homeowners had the constitutional
right to protect their property, and the least the Board could do
was offer them some latitude to relieve the situation.
Commissioner Bird hoped that Mr. Glynn would impress upon the
contractor to consolidate as much as possible and, at least, free
up the space as much as possible on the weekends.
May 14, 1996
72
Mr. Glynn advised that the only vehicle there is a unit to
block off access to the road at night as requested by the Parks
Department. `
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
-Commissioner Tippin, to allow the contractor to use
a 50' staging area in Wabasso Beach Park, that a
landscape plan be given to the Summerplace
Improvement Association, Inc., which they agree to
carry out, and that the sand be replaced 30 days
after completion of seawall.
Director Davis thought that any vegetation should be done
recognizing that 3 times this year the County has had to mobilize
sand on Wabasso Beach Park which has been critically eroded
particularly over the last 5 years. The park's beach has a
critical erosion problem, therefore, it might not be in the
County's best interest to heavily vegetate the area right away. It
might be better to keep that alternative open in order to allow
access over the dune so the beach can be repaired when necessary.
He thought something could be done to mitigate the use of the park
and provide the County with some benefit there. He thought a plan
should be developed for plants.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
PURCHASE RIGHT-OF-WAY - CR -512 ROAD WIDENING
ORROVEMENTS - EAST OF CR -510 - PARADISE CENTRAL CORP,
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 6, 1996:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director j
SUBJECT: CR512 Right-of-way Acquisition - East of CR510
REF. LEITER: John J. McHugh, Jr. to James Davis dated May 1, 1996
DATE: May 6, 1996
73
May 14, 1996
0
wK 98 pAu 78
BOOK 98 o0c 1
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Paradise Central Corp. is developing a gas station/food store at the southeast
corner of the CR512/CR510 intersection. The County needs to acquire the north
10' of the site for future CR512 road widening improvement. The developer is
willing to sell the additional right-of-way and use the compensation to purchase
an additional 10' of land from the property owner to the south, thereby resulting
in the same size parcel for development. The -Paradise Central Corp. paid
approximately $3.35/s.f. for the property in 1994, but a recent appraisal by
Armtield and Wagner Appraisals valued the property at $6.25/s.f. The property
owner is willing to split the difference and sell the 10' x 200.4' right-of-way parcel
for $4.80/s.f. or $ 9,620.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The right-of-way is needed to provide for six through -lanes and two left -turn lanes
at the intersection. The compensation at $4.80/s.f has been negotiated at arm's
length and is below the appraised value. The alternatives presented are as
follows:
Alternative No. 1
Approve the Contract for Purchase to acquire 2,004 s.f. parcel for
$4.80/s.f., or $ 9,620.
Alternative No. 2
Deny approval and re -negotiate.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the right-of-way parcel is purchased
for $4.80/s.f. Funding to be from Dist. 3 Traffic Impact Fee Account.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the Contract for Purchase to acquire 2,004 square
foot parcel for $4.80/square foot, or a total of
$9,620, from Paradise Central Corporation, for CR -
512 right-of-way east of CR -510, as recommended in
the memorandum.
COPY OF CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION PAVING - 53RD AVENUE, SOUTH OF 16TH STREET IN
SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION - RESOLUTIONS I AND II
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 6, 1996:
74
May 14, 1996
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo '
FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, C T X04
Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Resolutions to Provide for the Paving Improvements to and set Public
Hearing date for 53rd Avenue, South of 16th Street in Sundowners
Subdivision - IRC Project No. 9218
DATE: May 6, 1996
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County Public Works Department has received a petition for a public improvement
assessment for road paving improvements for 53rd Avenue, south of 16th Street in
Sundowners Subdivision. This is a private subdivision, and after the improvements are
completed, Indian River County will take over the maintenance of these roads. It is also
recognized not to modify the existing drainage system to enhance its performance. If
ponding does occur in the subdivision, additional assessments may be necessary in the -
future.
The petition was signed by owners of thirteen (13) of the fourteen (14) properties in the
proposed benefited area. This represents 93% of the property owners in the proposed
benefited area who are in favor of having this road improved.
A separate resolution will need to be adopted to hold a Public Hearing to discuss the
advisability, cost and amount of the assessment against each property owner.
This Public Hearing has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 11, 1996, at 9:05 A.M. in the
County Commission Chambers.
An assessment roll and plat has been prepared and filed with the Clerk to the Board of
County Commissioners.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Board:
1) Adopt the resolution providing for the paving improvements for the _project subject
to the terms outlined in the resolution. The applicable interest rate shall be
established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time the final assessment
roll is approved.
2) Adopt a resolution setting the time and place of the Public Hearing.
VV
May 14, 1996
BOOK 98 ma 80
r,
500K 98 PA.f, 81
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Bird, to approve staff's recommendation
as set forth in the memorandum.
Commissioner Eggert asked if she was reading the memo
correctly and no drainage was involved, and Public Works Director
Jim Davis responded that she was correct. The County felt some
drainage should be done, but the property owners did not want to
pay for it, so, there is a caveat that, if the residents feel there
is a drainage problem after the road work is completed, they should
not come back to the County to correct it or the County could levy
an assessment to do the work.
Commissioner Eggert thought it was better to do the drainage
with the road paving.
Chairman Adams pointed out it would be a lot cheaper to do
both from the start.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Resolutions No. 96-59 and 96-
60 adopted; public hearing scheduled for June 11,
1996.)
Providing (First Reso.) 2/19/96(ENG)RESI.MAG\gfk
RESOLUTION NO. 96-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING IMPROVEMENTS TO 53RD AVENUE, SOUTH
OF 16TH STREET IN SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION, PROVIDING
THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF
ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS, AND
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY
BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has been
petitioned for Road Paving Improvement for 53rd Avenue, South of
16th Street in Sundowners Subdivision.
WHEREAS, the construction of paving improvements by
special assessment funding 'is authorized by Chapter 206, Section
206.01 through 206.09, Indian River County Code; and cost estimates
and preliminary assessment rolls have been completed by the Public
Works Department; and the total estimated cost of the proposed
paving improvements is TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHT
DOLLARS and EIGHT CENTS ($23,408.08); and
May 14, 1996
76
RESOLUTION NO. 96-59
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall,
for any given record owner of property within the area specially
benefited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of one hundred
percent (1000) of the total cost of the project ($23,408.08) which
the number of parcels owned by -the -given -owner bears to the total
number of parcels within the areas specially benefited; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment shall become due and
payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of Indian River County
ninety (90) days after the final determination of the special
assessment pursuant to Section 206.08, Indian River County Code;
and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at
a rate established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time
of preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable
in two (2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12)
months from the due date and subsequent payments to be due yearly;
and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County
Commissioners has determined that the following described
properties shall receive a direct and special benefit from these
improvement, to wit:
Lots 1 through 14 and Tract "A" in the Sundowners
Subdivision as Recorded in Plat Book 8, Page 87 of the
Public Records of Indian River County
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving improvements to 53rd
Avenue, South of 16th Street in Sundowners Subdivision; heretofore
designated as Public Works Project No. 9218 is hereby approved
77
May 14, 1996 Bou 98 pnE 8
L
I
BOOK 98 PAF 83
RESOLUTION NO. 96-59
subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements
of Chapter 206, et seq. Indian River County Code.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert who moved its adoption. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Rini
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice -Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution passed and
adopted this 14 day of
� rQ�Attest:
JEF4K. BART 77 -)Clerk
Time and Place (Second Reso.)
May , 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF I�NDDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA
By �7 c��--� a a
FRAN B. ADAMS, Chairman
Iadian River comty
Appmrod
Date
Administration
J?9
0
Budget
S -$-
Legal'7-
Risk Management
Public Works
S 7
Engineering
2/7/96 (ENG) RES2. MAG\gf k
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 6o
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY ON 53RD AVENUE,
SOUTH OF 16TH STREET IN SUNDOWNDERS
SUBDIVISION AND • OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS
MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE
PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF MAKING PAVING
IMPROVEMENTS TO SAID PROPERTY AS TO THE
COST THEREOF, AS TO THE MANNER OF PAYMENT
THEREFOR, AND AS TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO
BE SPECIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY
BENEFITED THEREBY.
May 14, 1996
7s
2
r ® �
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 60
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has,
by Resolution No. 96-59 , determined that it is necessary for the public welfare
of the citizens of the county, and particularly as to those living, working, and owning
property within the area described herein, that paving and drainage improvements
be made to said property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an assessment roll
to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 206.06, Indian River County Code, requires that the Board
of County Commissioners shall fix a time and place at which the owners of the
properties to be assessed or any other persons interested therein may appear before
the Board of County Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability
of making paving and drainage improvements to said property, as to the cost thereof
as to the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be assessed
against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
I. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission chambers in the
County Administration Building at the hour of 9:05 A.M. on Tuesday June
11, 1996, at which time the owners of the properties to be assessed and any
other interested persons may appear before said Commission and be heard in
regard to said property. The area to be improved and
the properties to be specially benefited are more particularly described upon
the assessment plat and the assessment roll with . regard to the special
assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and the special
assessments against the properties to be specially benefited may review the
assessment plat showing the area to be assessed, the assessment roll, the plans
and specifications for said improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof
79
May 14., 1996 84(
BOOK 98 Face 85
RESOLUTION NO. 96-60
at the office of the Clerk to the Board any week day from 8:30 A.M. until 5:00
P.M.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given by the
Department of Public Works by two publications in the Vero Beach Press
Journal Newspaper a week apart. The last publication shall be at least one
week prior to the date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department
of Public Works shall give the owner of each property to be specially assessed
at least ten days notice in writing of such time and place, which shall be served
by mailing a copy of such notice to each of such property owners at his last
known address.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Bird , and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this
14 day of May , 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRAN B. ADAMS,
Chairman
Attest:
11
ASSESSMENT RO�I,�
80
May 14, 1996
in&= Rival C"Ay
Approved Date
Administrationf
Budget
C� if Yl
�j g
tepi
Risk Management
D5'D7
PubHe Works
Engineering
L
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
e TO: 53RD AVENUE (SOUTH OF 16TH STREET) SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION
I -A
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS .............. 14.5
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $23,408.08
p� PROJECT NO. 9218 COST PER PARCEL .......................... $1,614.35
1
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NO. OF PARCELS
COST/PARCEL
TOTAL COST
1.
Roy C. & Jane B. Howard
09 33 39 0010 0000 00001.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
P.O. Box 1513
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32961-1513
8-87, Lot 1
2.
Robert M. Wells
09 33 39 0010 0000 00002.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35 ,
2430 47th Avenue
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 2
00
N
3.
Susan S. Balsiger
09 33 39 0010 0000 00003.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
1562 Sundowners Trail
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 3
4.
Harold W. & Geraldine A. Mayes
09 33 39 0010 0000 00004.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
1550 53rd Avenue
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 4
Cn
0
5.
Jack & Doris Dritenbas
09 33 39 0010 0000 00005.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
®
P.O. Box 1016
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
H
Vero Beach, FL 32961-1016
8-87,. Lot 5
z
CC)o
z
O
ON
on
53AVPRE.WK1
03 -May -96
ON
0
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 53RD AVENUE SOUTH OF 16TH STREET SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS .............. 14.5
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $23,408.08
10
O1 PROJECT NO. 9218 COST PER PARCEL .......................... $1,614.35
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NO. OF PARCELS COST/PARCEL TOTAL COST
6.
Charles D.M.& Marie L. Gibbons
09 33 39 0010 0000 00006.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
P.O. Box 2403
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32961-2403
8-87, Lot 6
7.
John W. & Margarite Bonamo
09 33 39 0010 0000 00007.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
1571 53rd Avenue
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 7
00
N
8.
Max C. Sconyers
09 33 39 0010 0000 00008.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
5215 16th Street
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 8
9.
Robert C. & Katherine L. Nall
09 33 39 0010 0000 00009.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
7102 Cherry Lane
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 9
10.
Gerald S. & Marilyn G. Amico
09 33 39 0010 0000 00010.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
1511 Sundowners Trail
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87,. Lot 10
1
53"PRE.WK1
03 -May -96
l�
Cn
O
H �
O
z
z Cm
O p®
ko �-
0,
ON
0 �
O
co
0
0
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
TO: 53RD AVENUE (SOUTH OF 16TH STREET) SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS .............. 14.5
COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $23,408.08
PROJECT NO. 9218 COST PER PARCEL .......................... $1,614.35
53AVPRE.WK1
14.5 $1,614.35 $23,408.08
TOTAL PARCELS COST PER PARCEL TOTAL COST
03 -May -96
W
M
m
O
H
O
z
z
O
a�
a%
0
1
1
NAME & ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
NO. OF PARCELS
COST/PARCEL
TOTAL COST
11.
Leon R. & Doris E. Walton
09 33 39 0010 0000 00011.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
1532 Sundowners Trail
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 11
12.
Claude Nesbitt & Mary A.McCain
09 33 39 0010 0000 00012.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35.,
1522 53rd Avenue
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 12
w
13.
Joseph C. lewis
09 33 39 0010 0000 00013.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
P.O. Box 2557
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32961-2557
8-87, Lot 13
14.
W.Garry & Margaret Mary Gibson
09 33 39 0010 0000 00014.0
1
$1,614.35
$1,614.35
1502 53rd Avenue
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87, Lot 14
15.
Max C. & Lottie H. Sconyers
09 33 39 0010 0000 00000.1
0.5
$1,614.35
$807.18
5215 16th Street
Sundowners Subdivision PBI
Vero Beach, FL 32966
8-87; Tract "A"
53AVPRE.WK1
14.5 $1,614.35 $23,408.08
TOTAL PARCELS COST PER PARCEL TOTAL COST
03 -May -96
W
M
m
O
H
O
z
z
O
a�
a%
0
1
1
F'
BOOK 98 FarF 89
AS -BUILT RESOLUTION - SUNDOWNEM SUBDIVISION WATER
SERVICE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 22, 1996:
DATE: APRIL 22, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO'
DIRECTOR OF UTILW SERVICES
v v
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS
TAIN
I�dl
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SUNDOWNERS WATER SERVICE
(53RD AVENUE, SOUTH OF 16TH STREET}
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -05 -DS
RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
BACKGROUND
On July 11, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution III, No. 95-79, for the
preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced project.
Construction of the project has been completed. We are now ready
to begin customer connections and request the Board of County
Commissioners' approval of the final assessment roll. (See
attached minutes and Resolution III.)
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for an estimated cost of $47,899.64,
which equated to $0.0712649 per square foot of property assessed.
The final assessment (see attached Resolution IV and the
accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $39,964.84, which
equates to a cost of $0.0594595 per square foot.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve adoption of Resolution IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 96-61 certifying "as -built" costs for
installation of water service to Sundowners
Subdivision, as recommended in the memorandum.
May 14, 1996
84 -
e
As Built (Final Reso.) 4/1'7/96(rmao \.+wbuitt)Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 51
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF
WATER SERVICE TO SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION;_ AND SUCH
OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT;
PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR
PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
determined that water improvements for properties located within the area of
Sundowners Subdivision are necessary to promote the public welfare of the
County; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, July 11, 1995, the Board held a public hearing at
which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before
the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such
improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission
adopted Resolution No. 95-79, which confirmed the special assessment cost of
the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts
listed in the attachment to that resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 95-79,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 95-79 is modified as follows: The completion date for
the referenced project and the last day that payment may be made
avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after passage of
this resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum may be made in
ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due
date. The due date is ninety days after the passage of this resolution.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 95-79
shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand
confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the
property against which such assessments are made until paid.
S. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No.
95-79, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian
River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its
validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Egger. R
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Tiepin , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B.• Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
85
May 14, 1996Boor,�� P��1E ��
r �
BOOK 98 FA..GE 91
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 14 day of May , 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORID►
Attest:
Jeffrey -*:--,Barton, Clex]
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
By (Z�70 /7 ,,6 L120��
Fran B. Adams
Chairman
FINAL ASSESSMENT
Inaid.l Film Col A,'),^rcve. Date
Ad:n'n,
Segel
=u-Iget t ��
Utilities
Risk Mgr.
SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION ( 53 RD AVE ) WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. U W - 95 - 05 - D S
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TOTAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COST
( INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION )
TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPERTIES
TO BE ASSESSED
ASSESSMENT COST PER SQUARE FOOT
( Rounded )
May 14, 1996
e
86
$39,964.84
672,135
$0.0594595
SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION WATER
IRC PROJECT # UW -95 -05 -DS
WIP # 473-000-169-271.00,
FINAL CONSTRUCTION COST
PERMITTING
ENGINEERING
ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL ESTIMATED ASSESMENT COST
TOTAL ASSESABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE
COST PER SQ.FT
$33,640.16
$500.00
$3,000.00
$2,824.68
$39,964.84
672,135.00
$0.05945954
I �I �S dab
SUNDOWNERS SUBDIVISION ( 53RD AVE) WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -05 -DS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FINAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
PARCEL NO. OWNER SQ, FT. ASSESSMENT
09 33 39 00010 0000 00000.1
SCONYERS
18,256
1,085.49
09 33 39 00010 0000 00001.0
HOWARD
45,777
2,721.88
09 33 39 00010 0000 00002.0
WELLS
45,753
2,720.45
09 33 39 00010 0000 00003.0
BALSIGER
45,753
2,720.45
09 33 39 00010 0000 00004.0
MAYES
50,094
2,978.57
09 33 39 00010 0000 00005.0
DRITENBAS
42,689
2,538.27
09 33 39 00010 0000 00006.0
GIBBONS
51,993
3,091.48
09 33 39 00010 0000 00007.0
BONAMO
51,930
3,087.73
09 33 39 00010 0000 00008.0
SCONYERS
51,668
3,072.16
09 33 39 00010 0000 00009.0
NALL
44,867
2,667.77
09 33 39 00010 0000 00010.0
AM I CO
38,768
2,305.13
09 33 39 00010 0000 00011.0
WALTON
45,630
2,713.14
09 33 39 00010 0000 00012.0
MCCAIN
51,401
3,056.28
09 33 39 00010 0000 00013.0
LEWIS
42,689
2,538.27
09 33 39 00010 0000 00014.0
GIBSON
44,867
2,667.77
NET TOTAL
672,135 39, 964.84
87
May 14, 1996 Boob 98 FAQ 92
r
6®®K 98 FAv 9
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00000.1
SQ. FT. 18256 ASSESSMENT
1,085.49
OWNER SCONYERS , MAX C (ET AL)
5215 16 TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 TRACT A
..
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00001.0
SQ. FT. 45777 ASSESSMENT
2,721.88
OWNER HOWARD, ROY C & JANE B
P O BOX 1513
VERO BEACH, FL 32961 -1513
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 1
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00002.0
SQ. FT. 45753 ASSESSMENT
2,720.45
OWNER WELLS, ROBERT M (LE)
2430 47 TH AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 2
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00003.0
SQ. FT. 45753 ASSESSMENT
2,720.45
OWNER BALSIGER , SUSAN S
1562 SUNDOWNERS TR
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 3
(OR BK 496 PP 944 )
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00004.0
SQ. FT. 50094 ASSESSMENT
2,978.57
OWNER MAYES , HAROLD W & GERALDINE A
1550 53 RD AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 4
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00005.0
SQ. FT. 42689 ASSESSMENT
2,538.27
OWNER DRITENBAS , JACK & DORIS
P O BOX 1016
VERO BEACH, FL 32961-1016
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8-87 LOT 5
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00006.0
SQ. FT. 51993 ASSESSMENT
3,091.48
OWNER GIBBONS, CHARLES D M & MARIE L
P O BOX 2403
VERO BEACH, FL 32961-2403
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8-87 LOT 6
(OR BK 474 PP 917 )
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00007.0 SQ. FT. 51930 ASSESSMENT 3,087.73
OWNER BONAMO , JOHN W & MARGARITA
1571 53 RD AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32966
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 7
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00008.0 SQ. FT. 51668 ASSESSMENT 3,072.16
OWNER SCONYERS , MAX C
5215 16 TH ST
VERO BEACH, FL 32960 -
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 8 (OR BK 498 PP 404 )
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00009.0 SQ. FT. 44867 ASSESSMENT 2,667.77
OWNER NALL , ROBERT C & KATHERINE L -
7102 CHERRY LN
VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1410
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8-87 LOT 9
May 14, 1996
88
171
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00010.0 - SQ. FT.
38768 ASSESSMENT 2,305.13
OWNER AMICO , GERALD S & MARILYN G
1511 SUNDOWNERS TR
VERO BEACH, FL 32966
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 10 (OR BK 475 PP 951 )
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00011.0 SQ. FT.
45630 ASSESSMENT 2,713.14
OWNER WALTON , LEON R & DORIS E
1532 SUNDOWNERS TR
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 11 (OR BK 475 PP 951 )
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00012.0 SQ. FT.
51401 ASSESSMENT 3,056.28
OWNER MCCAIN , CLAUDE NESBITT & MARY ANN
1522 53 RD AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32966
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 12
PARCEL # 09 33 39 00010 0000 00013.0 SQ. FT.
42689 ASSESSMENT 2,538.27
OWNER LEWIS, JOSEPH C
P O BOX 2557
VERO BEACH, FL 32961-2557
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 -.87 LOT 13
PARCEL # 09 33 39.00010 0000 00014.0 SQ. FT.
44867 ASSESSMENT 2,667.77
OWNER GIBSON , W GARRY & MARGARET MARY
1502 53 RD AV
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL SUNDOWNERS PBI 8 - 87 LOT 14
TOTAL SQ FOOTAGE
TOTAL ASSESSMENT
672135
39,964.64
VERO LAKES ESTATES WATER MAIN - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
DRIVEWAYS, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 2, 1996:
DATE: MAY 2, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI CES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WIS , P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMEWAMINEER r
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: VERO LAKE ESTATES WATER MAIN
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROTECT NO. UW -93 -34 -DS
89
May 14, 1996
Boor 98 CIF94.
L
F,
R�®K 98 PAGE 95
On February 20, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners approved
and awarded the construction of the above -referenced project to
Driveways, Inc., in the amount of $647,605.88. Based on a
recommendation .by the County engineering consultant, Brown and
Caldwell, a 12" pipe should be provided on 101st Avenue from 89th
Street to County Road 512 and eliminate the proposed 18" pipe at
89th Street from 101st Avenue to 106th Avenue. (See attached
reference map and letter from Brown and Caldwell).
ANALYSIS
The increase in pipe size at 101st Avenue from 8" to 12" and the
elimination of an 18" pipe at 89th Street resulted in a decrease of
$59,845.51, to the contract price. The contract has been adjusted
to $587,760.37. No adjustment in contract time was involved in
this Change Order No. 1.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
Board of County Commissioners approve and execute Change Order No.
1, for a decrease in the amount of $59,845.51, which will adjust
the amount of the contract with Driveways, Inc. to $587,760.37.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
change order 1 for a decrease in the amount of
$59,845.51, which will adjust the amount of the
contract with Driveways, Inc., to $587,760.37, as
recommended in the memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION WATER SERVICE - SUBURBAN ACRES SUBDIVISION
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 3, 1996:
May 14, 1996
W
DATE: MAY 3, 1996
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL Y S CES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAI
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS NT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SUBURBAN ACRES SUBDIVISION WATER SERVICE
(34TH TERRACE, SOUTH OF 8TH STREET)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -02 -DS
RESOLUTIONS I AND II
On February 6, 1996, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved the petition for water service for Suburban
Acres Subdivision (34th Terrace, south of 8th Street) to supply
potable water to its residents. Design has been completed by the
Department of Utility Services' engineering staff. We are now
ready to begin the assessment process associated with this project.
(See attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.)
f
ANALYSIS
On 34th Terrace, 14 of the 16 platted lots are without access to
County water.- The 9 property owners signing the petition represent
66% of the properties to be served. The platted lots in this
project are one acre plus. The attached map displays.the area to
benefit from the assessment project. Attached are Resolutions I
and II for the project. The total estimated cost to be assessed is
$43,637.03. The estimated cost per square foot is $0.0619363.
This project is to be funded through the assessment of property
owners along the proposed water line route. In the interim,
financing will be through the use of impact fee funds.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolutions,
which approve the preliminary assessment roll and establish the
public hearing date.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolutions No. 96-62 and 96-63 and scheduled the
public hearing for June 4, 1996, as recommended in
the memorandum.
91
May 14, 1996
BOOK 0-p PAE 96
I
Providing ( First Reso . )
BOOK 98 wE 97
5 /6/96 (reso/suburban) Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 62
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN " RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR WATER SERVICE TO
SUBURBAN ACRES SUDIVISION; PROVIDING THE
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT
OF ASSESSMENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL INSTALL-
MENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIFICALLY SERVED.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has determined that " the improvements herein described are
necessary to promote the public welfare of the county and has deter-
mined to defray the cost thereof by special assessments against certain
properties to be serviced by a water main extension to Suburban Acres
Subdivision ( 34th Terrace, South of 8th St.), hereinafter referred to as
Project No. UW -96 -02 -DS;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County does hereby determine that a water line shall be
installed to benefit 14 lots in Suburban Acres Subdivision, and
that the cost thereof shall be specially assessed in accordance with
the provisions of Sections 206.01 through 206.09 of the Code of
Indian River County.
2. The total estimated project assessment cost of the above-described
improvements is shown to be $43,637.03 or $0.0619363 per square
foot to be paid by the property specially benefited as shown on
the assessment plat on file with the Department of Utility Services.
3. A special assessment in the amount of $0.0619363 per square foot
shall be assessed against each of the properties designated on the
assessment plat. This assessment. may be raised -or lowered by
action of the Board of County Commissioners after the public
hearing, at the same meeting, as required by the referenced
County Code.
May 14, 1996
92
M
RESOLUTION NO. 96-62
4. The special assessments shall be due and payable and may be paid
in full within 90 days after the date of the resolution of the Board
with respect to credits against the special assessments after
completion of the improvements ( the "Credit Date") without
interest. If not paid in full, the special assessments may be paid
in ten equal yearly installments of principal plus interest. If not
paid when due, there shall be added a penalty of 1-1/2% of the
principal not paid when due. The unpaid balance of the special
assessments shall bear interest until paid at a rate to be
determined by the Board of County Commissioners when the project
is completed.
5. There is presently on file with the Department of Utility Services a
plat showing the area to be assessed, plans and specifications, and
an estimate of the cost of the proposed improvements. All of these
are open to inspection by the public at the Department of Utility
Services.
6. An assessment roll with respect to the special assessments shall
promptly be prepared in connection with the special assessments.
7. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the Indian River County
Utility Services Department shall cause this resolution (along with
a map showing the areas to be served) to be published at least
one time in the Vero Beach Press Journal before the public hearing
required by Section 206.04.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti pni n
and, upon being put'to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. - Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
93
May 14, 1996
BOOK 98 PAGE 99
RESOLUTION NO. 96-62
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 14 day of May, 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By �CLvt_48
Fran B. Adams
JeffreBarton, Cl Chairman
��[E L'z
/7,'
Time and Place ( Second Reso . )
5/6/96(reso/suburban) Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 96- 63
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES LOCATED IN
SUBURBAN ACRES SUBDIVISION, AND OTHER
INTERESTED PERSONS, MAY APPEAR BEFORE THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND BE
HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABIL-
ITY OF CONSTRUCTING THE WATER MAIN
EXTENSION, AS TO THE COST THEREOF, AS TO
THE MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS
TO THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPECIALLY
ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED
THEREBY.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 96-62 , determined that it is
necessary for the public welfare of the citizens of the county, and
particularly as to those living, working, and owning property within
the area described hereafter, that a waterline be installed to serve 14
lots in Suburban Acres Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that the cost to be specially
assessed with respect thereto shall be $0.0619363 per square 'foot; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has caused an
assessment roll to be completed and filed with the Clerk to the Board;
and
WHEREAS,
Section 206.06, Indian
River
County Code,
requires
that the Board
of County Commissioners
shall
fix a time and
place at
94
May 14, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-63
which the owners of the properties to be assessed or any other persons
interested therein may appear before the Board of County
Commissioners and be heard as to the propriety and advisability of
constructing such water main extension, as to the cost thereof, as to
the manner of payment therefor, and as to the amount thereof to be
assessed against each property benefited thereby,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The County Commission shall meet at the County Commission
Chambers in the County Administration Building at the hour of
9:05 a.m. on Tuesday, June 4, 1996, at which time the owners
of the properties to be assessed and any other interested persons
may appear before said Commission and be heard in regard
thereto. The area to be improved and the properties to be
specially benefited are more particularly described upon the
assessment plat and the assessment roll with regard to the special
assessments.
2. All persons interested in the construction of said improvements and
the special assessments against the properties to be specially
benefited may review the assessment plat showing the area to be
assessed, the assessment roll, the plans and specifications for said
improvements, and an estimate of the cost thereof at the office of
the Department of Utility Services any week day from 8:30 a.m.
until 5:00 p.m.
3. Notice of the time and place of this public hearing shall be given
by two publications in the Press Journal Newspaper one week
apart. The last publication shall be at least one week prior to the
date of the hearing. The Indian River County Department of
Utility Services shall give the owner of each property to be
specially assessed at least ten days notice in writing of such time
and place, which shall be served by mailing a copy of such notice
to each of such property owners at his last known address.
95
May 14, 1996 KOK P,�GF 100
BOOK 98 DDE 101
RESOLUTION NO. 96-63
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 14 day of May, 1996.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
B y �� � 6
Fran B. Adams
Jeffrey --K,. Barton, QlerX Chairman
J
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL
SUBURBAN ACRES SUBDIVISION (34 TH TERRACE) WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. U W - 96 - 02 D S
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION $43,637.03
COST INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION
TOTAL NET SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PROPERTIES
TO BE ASSESSED' 704,547
ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT COST PER SQUARE FOOT $0.0619363
MAY 1, 1996
J. D. C.
96
May 14, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-63
SUBURBAN ACRES ( 34 TH TERRACE ) WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96-02 D S
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
PARCEL NO. OWNER SQ. FT ASSESSMENT
15 33 39 00014 0000 00018.0 BROWER
48,000
$2,972.94
15 33 39 00014 0000 00019.0CONDE
48,000
$2,972.94
15 33 39 00014 0000 00020.0 SELLERS
48,000
$2,972.94
15 33 39 00014 0000 00021.0 CORY
48,000
$2,972.94
15 33 39 00014 0000 00022.OVON HAGEN
48,000
$2,972.94
15 33 39 00014 0000 00023.0 ETHINGTON
47,480
$2,940.74
15 33 39 00014 0000 00024.0 D' ALBORA
55,757
$3,453.38
15 33 39 00014 0000 00025.OAIKEN
60,984
$3,777.12
15 33 39 00014 0000 00026.0 MONKE
47,916
$2,967.74
15 33 39 00014 0000 00027.0 DAVIS
50,482
$3,126.67
15 33 39 00014 0000 00028.0FURSINN
50,482
$3,126.67
15 33 39 00014 0000 00029.0 EVANS
50,482
$3,126.67
15 33 39 00014 0000 00030.0 ROSA
50,482
$3,126.67
15 33 39 00014 0000 00031.0 WOODWARD
50,482
$3,126.67
TOTAL 704,547 $43,637.03
MAY 1, 1996
J. D. C.
SBACRES2
SUBURBAN ACRES ( 34 TH TERRACE, SOUTH OF 8 TH STR MAY 1, 1996
WATER SERVICE PROJECT I. R. C. NO UW 96 - 02 DS J. D. C.
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00018.0 SQ FT. 48,000 ASSESSMENT $2,972.94
OWNER BROWER, DAVID KURY &
SHARON TURNBULL
736 34 TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 18
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00019.0 SQ FT. 48,000 ASSESSMENT $2,972.94
OWNER CONDE, RICHARD L &
MARY MARGARET
726 34 TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 19
97
May 14, 1996 Bou 98 ou 102
R0L! 98 pPiF 103
RESOLUTION NO. 96-63
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00020.0 SO FT. 48,000 ASSESSMENT $2,972.94
OWNER SELLERS, WILLIAM H & BILLIE L
716 34 TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00021.0 SO FT. 48,000 ASSESSMENT $2,972.94
OWNER CORY, DEBORAH A (WILLIAMS)
646 34 TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 21
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00022.0 SO FT. 48,000 ASSESSMENT $2,972.94
OWNER V0I4 HAGEN, JOAN J
636 34 TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 22
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00023.0 SO FT. 47,480 ASSESSMENT $2,940.74
OWNER ETHINGTON INC
930 U S HIGHWAY 1
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 23
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00024.0 SO FT. 55,757 ASSESSMENT $3,453.38
OWNER D' ALBORA, PAUL C & TERESA S.
616 34 TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 24
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00025.0 SQ FT. 60,984 ASSESSMENT $3,777.12
OWNER AIKEN , ALAN D & MARSHA M.
615 34TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 25
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00026.0 SO FT. 47,916 ASSESSMENT $2,967.74
OWNER MONKE , BRUCE J & REBECCA A
625 34 TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 27
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00027.0 SGS FT. 50,482 ASSESSMENT $3,126.67
OWNER DAVIS, WILLIAM A & SHIRLEY S.
635 34TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI .9-32 LOT 27
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00028.0 SO FT. 50,482 ASSESSMENT $3,126.67
OWNER FURSINN , ERNST & ALMUT
645 34 TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI PBI 9-32 LOT 28
98
May 14, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-63
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00029.0 - SO FT. 50,482 ASSESSMENT $3,126.67
OWNER EVANS , DON H & SHIRLEY
715 34TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 29
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00030.0 SO FT. 50,482 ASSESSMENT $3,126.67
OWNER ROSA , PHILIP & FLORENCE
725 34TH TERRACE
VERO BEACH, FL 32968
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 30
PARCEL # 15 33 39 00014 0000 00031 SO FT. 50,482 ASSESSMENT $3,126.67
OWNER WOODWARD, THOMAS M & MARY S.
28 KESSLER FARM DR # 614
NASSHUA, N H 03063
LEGAL SUBURBAN ACRES SUB PBI 9-32 LOT 31
704.547 $43,637.03
CITIZEN REVIEW COADRITEE
Chairman Adams introduced Adam Kubik, a retired utilities
consultant, who had worked in sanitation and water supply areas.
She felt he would be the perfect Chair for a citizens review
committee of the Utilities Department and he had volunteered to set
up the committee. She felt that, after listening to Mr. Kubik, the
Board would realize this is not any type of "witch-hunt", but just
a way to have an objective look at the Utilities Department and
provide some better public relations.
Adam Kubik advised the Board of his extensive background as a
consulting engineer in northern governmental entities.
Mr. Kubik perceived an image problem concerning the Indian
River County Utilities Department. He believed that an independent
evaluation was needed to see if there is a problem with the
department and whether it is a perception problem. Remedies would
be suggested for any problems found in the review of rate
structures and/or administration procedures of the department.
Mr. Kubik explained that governmental utility departments are
regulated, not by the Public Service Commission, but by the elected
officials of the local government. The public perception, however,
is that they are not regulated; therefore, if things go wrong,
sooner or later the public's displeasure will be directed toward
the utility and also the regulator.
Mr. Kubik then reviewed his two letters of May 14, 1996, as
follows:
99
May 14, 1996 nor 98 %F-104
BOOK 98 PAGE 195
TO BE ADDED ITEM 13-A
Adam W. Kubik
173 Congress Street
Vero Beach, FL 32966
Tel. (561) 562-2839
May 14, 1996
Mrs. Fran Adams, The Chair
and Members of Indian River
County Commission
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960 '
Subjeet:- The.proposed Citizens' Advisory Committee to your
Commission on Operations of the IRC Department
of Utility Services
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am deeply honored by your giving me the opportunity to
present my qualifications to chair the proposed Committee. I am
keenly aware of the challenges lying ahead in this necessary but
difficult task, and I thank the Presiding Commissioner, Mrs. Adams
for her kind remarks about my professional background in the fields
of engineering, management and regulation of public utilities. I will
only add here that my wife Irene and I have been full time residents
and registered voters in this County since 1983. We now reside in the
Heritage Village Mobile Home Park, where I serve as Chair of the
Legal & Negotiating Committee of that Community's Homeowners Association.
.The criteria which comprise the overview function of the
regulator of the Department, the Indian River County Commission, are
sketched out in the accompanying memorandum. I recommend that it be
reviewedby the Commissioners together with this letter in considering
my proposal.
The core issue prompting you to consider creation of the
Advisory Committee is the poor public image of the Department. As
natural monopolies, public utilities do best when regulatory overview
is both effective and visible, because it alone substitutes for the
discipline of a free market where good customer relations are a key
to success. The issues most complained of by consumers clearly must
have high priority_early on in the Committee's agenda.
If confirmed for this challenging assignment, I shall guide
efforts of the Advisory Committee.with total objectivity, seeing to
ioo
May 14, 1996
� s �
it that concerns of all consumer sectors are reviewed without bias,
and that the interests of all parties connected with the Department.
receive fair play. Fair and non-discriminatory service rates to
consumers, along with safeguarding sound financial position of the
Department, will be among the highest priorities of the Advisory
Committee.
As to membership of the Committee, I will coordinate this
crucial initial stage with the Chair of the Commission, Mrs. Adams.
I propose that -members of the Committee resemble the cross-section
of the Community as far as possible. I suggest that the Committee
consist of seven members including the Chairman, who are drawn from
the consumer sector, business community and local governments as
far as is practicable. In my view it is essential that the Committee
include the eighth non-voting member from the senior staff of the
Department who will coordinate with the Department regarding data
acquisition and the processing of data, staff interviews and similar
matters.
I expect that about one month would be consumed in assem-
bling and organizing the Committee as a working group. If a volunteer
Committee member who is a qualified auditor cannot be located it will
be necessary to hire a qualified individual, preferably a Certified
Public Accountant. In that event this individual would also be a
non-voting member. I assume that voting Committee members would all
be pro-bono volunteers. I also assume that office space for meetings,
secret $tial and clerical assistance would be provided by the County.
Some 6 to 8 months' -should be sufficient to complete the assignment,
including the preparing and presentation of the Committee's final. .-
Report. including its recommendations for follow-up action by the
Commission, if such action is found necessary.
I thank the Chairperson Mrs. Adams and all other Commission
Members for the opportunity to present the Proposal for this most
challenging assignment.
Respectfully submitted,
oda., 0,el
ADAM W. MIK
101
May 14, 1996
nc�K 9$ FrcE 10�
BOOK 98 FA�r 107
ITEM 13-A
Adam W. Kubik,
173 Congress Street,
Vero Beach, FL. 32966,
(561) 562-2839
Memo to: Hon. Fran Adams, the Chair, and
Members of Indian River County Commission.
Date:. May 14, 1996
Subject: General Criteria for Regulation and Governance of Public Utilities, and the
possible scope of this Project.
INTRODUCTION:
This subject is not often on the radar screen of most Americans because the bulk
of the nation's public utilities are large investor-owned companies with keen sense of the
need for good public relations. Such relations are so Important for smooth sailing In the rate
cases before State Public Service Commissions which have regulatory control over those
enterprises.
But most local and regional water/sewer utilities are publicly owned, non-profit
operations exempt from PSC oversight and thus often are assumed to be unregulated. This
assumption is not correct, because the local governing Boards of municipalities are by law
regulators of those utilities, whether those Boards exercise such control or not. At any rate,
when things go wrong, it is those governing boards, as well as the utilities which they are
supposed to control, that become the targets of public displeasure.
Section 1 - Public Utilities.
Public utilities are enterprises organized to provide service which is essential to
public health and safety (hence the adjective upublic," - it does not denote the manner of
ownership). Utilities may be investor-owned, publicly -owned, or consumer -owned (e.g. the co-
ops). Utilities are highly capital -intensive (very high investment -to -revenue ratio). They are
natural monopolies, generally sheltered from competition by a public franchise. As such, they
are not subject to price control by market forces, and therefore their profits (or prices) must be
subject to regulation.
For the purpose of this discussion, and as to the manner in which public utilities
are regulated, those utility enterprises in the United States fall into two broad categories:
A - The for profit, tax paying investor-owned utilities which are regulated
by State Public Service Commissions in a process that is formal,
semi judicial in form and staffed by experienced professionals; and
B - The non-profit, tax exempt publicly owned utilities, generally under the sole
reaulatory control of the elected aovernina board of the oDerati ncimunicicality
(unless a separate, independent Utilities Commission has been established
for the governance of the Utility). Municipal utilities are not under the jurisdiction
of State Public Service Commissions. Regulation of utility rates is the ultimate
responsibility of the elected municipal governing boards and is subject to review
only by the Courts, if or when challenged.
102
May 14, 1996
M M
Section 2 - Purpose of Utility Regulation.
The purpose is two - fold:
First and obviously, to protect utility customers - the public - from unfair or
discriminatory pricing practices by a monopolistic enterprise which is sheltered from
competition by a public franchise. The granting of monopoly rights within franchised limits is in
the public's interest because, given the capital -intensive nature of the enterprise, competition
would lead to duplication of costly infrastructure, and thus to higher rates to consumers.
Second, and most importantly, to ensure continued high quality of service at
reasonable cost to consumers. This requires seeing that the utility follows sound and efficient
planning and management, that it at all times has plant in service that is used and useful, and
that its rates of charge are fair and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.
Section 3 - Financing of Capital Programs.
Utilities normally finance their capital programs by means of long term revenue
bonds. While not in competition against each other for customer business, utilities do
nevertheless compete against other enterprises and each other for low cost financing in the
money markets.
As enterprises with a stable revenue base, well regulated public utilities generally
command lowest bond interest rates and their shares and bonds are among the most secure
investment instruments. In the case of municipal utilities in this category, their revenue bonds
are tax free as well.
Section 4 -,Municipal Water and Sewer Utilities.
These utilities are obviously of special interest to this county's consumers. But
many of these enterprises are also a distinct category, having little in common with the public
utility concept as set forth above. The reasons are as follows:
Sanitary services are the orphan of the public utility industry - generally involved,
often embroiled in local politics. At one time there were many local investor-owned local water
and sewer utilities. Today they are rare, the latest well known casualty in this area being
General Development Utilities. Difficulties in securing low cost financing have been one major
stumbling block for small local water and sewer utilities. But ultimately, the bane of these
small local utilities almost invariably is rooted in local politics.
To be sure, there are a number of municipal water and sewer utilities in good
financial health, under sound management, having fair and reasonable utility rates and
generally satisfied customers. Almost Invariably, those well-run utilities have these things' in
common:
They are often found in larger communities; are governed by an independent
utilities commission, and are shielded from local politics; their financing is not co -
mingled with the general municipal fund; and their rates of charge are set by the
Commission subject to approval by members of the elected municipal Board.
Section 5 - The Checks S Balances for Municipal Utilities.
In the absence of an outside regulatory control of municipal utilities (whether
water/sewer, electric power etc.), the two-tier governing structure described in Section 4
103
May 14, 1996
ROnK98 ea(;r, 198
BOOK 98 PAGE 109 -7
augmented by the need to compete for low-cost financing in the bond market are the only
effective checks and balances for keeping the municipal utilities, both efficient and
accountable.
The elected governing board's responsibilities go far beyond the oversight of the
department of utilities: taxes, roads, schools, security, planning - the list goes on and above all
- there is the politics to ensure reelection. Accountability of the elected Board members is to
the voters, and not to utility customers. Moreover, few elected Board members have the
expertise needed for the utility oversight function.
This is the reason many communities have adopted a two-tier governing structure
for municipal utilities. Utility commissioners usually are selected from the business
community and are appointed for staggered terms. Once appointed, commissioners cannot
be removed except for felonious or unethical conduct, and -thus aro able to maintain their non-
political status. The public also is better able to discern which body to hold accountable for
utility -related concerns.
The two-tier governing structure does not at all rule out a direct benefit to general
public from the operations of a municipal public utility: It is entirely proper for the utility to make
payments to the general fund equal to taxes which would be payable by an equivalent investor-
owned tax -paying utility. These in lieu -of tax" payments simply compensate the general fund
for tax revenue actually given up by establishment of a publicly -owned, tax-exempt utility
system.
Section 6 - Co -mingling of the General Municipal and Utility Funds
The co -mingling of these two funds beyond the in -lieu of tax contributors *is
improper and probably . unlawful in most jurisdictions. To illustrate, in New York State the
municipal electric utilities are regulated not by that state's Public Service Commission, but by
the Power Authority of the State of Nevin York. PASNY, itself a "municipality and a subdivision of
the State of New York," is the wholesale power supplier of low-cost hydroelectric power to
those 'munies,' does allow these in -lieu of tax payments while limiting the transfer to the
amounts so defined. This is because the savings from the tax-exempt municipal utility
operations must accrue only to the utility's customers
But absent regulatory overview or without the restraint of internal checks and
balances, fiscal pressures upon the municipal governing Board may encourage additional
transfers of utility revenue to the general fund in order to offset the shortfalls in the general tax
revenue. There is little that is more resented by voters than hikes in all kinds of taxation
whether on income, real property or on sales. ' Furthermore, the more affluent the classes of
taxpayers, the greater is their political influence to deflect tax increases from themselves.
This creates tendencies among legislators to masquerade new taxes or
increases in the existing ones as user fees, impact fees, or where municipal utilities have
been established, to manipulate utility rates to shift the burden to those least able to fend for
themselves in the political arena.
This kind of skullduggery works because too many members of the voting public
lack cognitive political acumen to see through it and to recognize that those creative inventors
of fees or skewed utility rates are often the same elected officials who are in control of the
lifeblood of an organized society - the system of taxation.
104
May 14, 1996
Section 7 - Possible Scope of this Proiect
Indian River County Commission's purpose in creating the Citizens' Advisory
Committee to the Commission on utility matters is to conduct an objective, professionally
guided and sufficiently thorough study of the Department's operations to determine whether
and in what areas improvements, may be necessary for the betterment of the Department's
efficiency and management, all leading, to an improvement in public image of the Utility, -and
in greater customer satisfaction.
If this Project is confirmed by the Commission, at least the following areas of
Department operations should be reviewed in some detail:
1. The water/sewer rate structure, with emphasis as to whether or not low usage
consumers are unduly discriminated against because of a single rate schedule
which governs all of the Department's customers, with widely varying patterns
of service use.
2. If the foregoing effect is confirmed and is significant, what if any is the effect on
the Department's revenue balance sheet and/or the system utilization ratio.
3. The efficiency of the Department's administration of franchise agreements with
developers and/or subdivisions.
4. The manner in which County Ordinance 91-9 is being administered.
In summary, the Commission's action at this time would only authorize the
diagnostic stage of the Project. At completion of the diagnostic stage, the Committee, would
submit a written Report to the Commission, recommending further action if one -is found
necessary.
This memorandum accompanies my proposal for professional Project
management service in order to provide the Commission with background material on public
utility oversight practices employed elsewhere. it may aid the Commission in resolving the
issues which have prompted your initiative in considering the concept of an Advisory
Committee on Utility matters.
AWK:ru
Respectfully submitted,
Adam W. Kubik
Chairman Adams had been anxious for the Board to hear Mr.
Kubik because she felt an "angel dropped someone out of the sky" at
a perfect time. She felt that hearing his background would give
the committee more credibility and a more defined scope. She
explained there was room for adjustment to conform with the Board's
wishes, but thought it was very important to have an outside look
at the department. If the Board agrees, she suggested they could
105
May 14, 1996
BOOK :.. 98 PA.. n ..0
5OOK 98 PA.rE 111
begin by appointing members to the committee based on submitted
applications.
Commissioner Eggert appreciated the time and thought put in by
- Mr. Kubik, but, as presented, she could not support this committee.
She pointed out that there are many legal restrictions which leave
elected officials feeling frustrated. In this instance, she felt
it was one thing to deal with public relations, but to go further
was a terrible invasion of the operation of the Utilities
Department. In addition, she did not agree with including other
local governments in any kind of group looking into a County
utility. She was not averse to good/healthy suggestions, but
opposed going into every record of the Utilities Department.
Commissioner Bird recommended that the matter be deferred for
at least a week to give an opportunity to the Board, Administrator
Chandler, and Utilities Department Director to review the proposal
and make recommendations.
Commissioner Eggert recalled that the next meeting was to be
short, thus 2 weeks postponement would be better.
Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Kubik was making a proposal to
become a hired employee, and Chairman Adams replied that he would
be a pro bono volunteer.
Mr. Kubik advised he would provide his services pro bono.
Commissioner Macht emphasized that, if created, this would be
an advisory committee to the Board, not to the department.
Chairman Adams pointed out that the proposal was from Mr.
Kubik's perception, but the committee would be molded into
something with which the Board is comfortable.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, to defer action on the proposal -
for 2 weeks.
Chairman Adams reiterated that there is an image problem with
utilities, which is not being addressed on a one -by -one basis. She
wanted a fresh approach from the outside, not from those who are
intimately involved. She stated that Utility Services Director
Terry Pinto would welcome it because he also is intimately
involved.
Commissioner Eggert repeated that it should be limited to the
image problem.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
106
May 14, 1996
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD
$38,900,000 Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 1996
Bond Purchase Contract
Bond Purchase Contract dated May 21, 1996 (date to market)
authorized by Resolution 96-42 _adopted March 19, 1996 has been
placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board under date
March 19, 1996, along with Preliminary Official Statement dated
March 7, 1996.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:19 p.m.
ATTEST:
1�
J. rton, Clerk
Minutes approved on ( -11-96
Fran B. Adams, Chairman
107
May 14, 1996 "OF 98 112