HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/25/1998r •
MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, AUGUST 25,1998
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration -Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
John W. Tippin, Chairman (District 4)
Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams (District 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUPPAGES
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. John W. Tippin
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
5. Presentation of Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment from U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service by Paul Tritaik
13.B.1. Comment on Vero Mall Study for use as County Administration Building
13.D. Public Discussion Items - Usage and Policy
WHUDRAWAL: 7.G. PEP Reef Marine Turtle Monitor Consultant Selection
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of August 11, 1998
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: St. of Fla. Auditor General Operational
Audit of the Fla. St. Courts System, July 1, 1996
Through June 30, 1997, and Selected Actions Taken
Through April 23, 1998 dated June 30, 1998
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated August 17, 1998) 1-8
C. Consideration of Indian River County SHIP Program
Annual Reports
(memorandum dated August 10, 1998) 9-29
D. Renewal of Countywide Abandoned Flow Well
Plugging Cost -Share Agreement with the St. Johns
River Water Management District
(memorandum dated August 18, 1998) 30-39
BOOK 106 FACE j'50"
900K 10FAGE3i
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd) BACKUP
PAGES
E. Bid Award: IRC#9008 for Traffic Signal Equipment
Traffic Engineering Division/Annual Contract
(memorandum dated August 14, 1998) 40-43
F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 025
(memorandum dated August 19, 1998) 44-48
G. PEP Reef Marine Turtle Monitor Consultant
Selection
(memorandum dated August 11, 1998) 49-111
(deferred from meeting of August 18, 1998)
H. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated August 14, 1998) 112
I. 2 Recently Acquired Properties - Tax Cancellations
(memorandum dated August 13, 1998) 113-118
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL, AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1 TO RM -6, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 26TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY
ONE HALF MILE EAST OF 74TH AVENUE, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated August 5, 1998) 119-133
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1 TO RS -6, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
NORTH BARRIER ISLAND, BETWEEN THE EXIST-
ING ISLAND CLUB SUBDIVISION AND THE INDIAN
RIVER LAGOON, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated August 17, 1998) 134-152
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
•
BACKUP
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS PAGES
A. Community Development
Approval of Consultant Contract for I-95/Oslo Road
Interchange Justification Report Project
(memorandum dated August 13, 1998) 153-177
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
None
H. Utilities
1. Dedication of County Abandoned Supply
Wells as St. Johns River Water Management
District Monitoring Wells
(memorandum dated August 3, 1998) 178-187
2. North County / Sea Oaks Wastewater Treat-
ment Facility Status
(memorandum dated August 14, 1998)
3. So. County Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion to 2.0 MGD - Change Order No ,13
(memorandum dated August 18. 1998 )
4. Central Region Wastewater Treatment Facility
Construction of Non -Spec Effluent Line - Labor
Contract No. 4007, Authorization No. 51 - Final
Payment and Change Order No. 1
188-189
190-202
(memorandum dated August 6, 1998) 203-213
5. Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Fellsmere
and Indian River County for the Provision of Waste-
water Transmission and Treatment Services
(memorandum dated August 19, 1998) 214-228
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman John W Tiepin
BOOK 106 PAGE e,�
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd )
B. Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams
D. Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
E. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
BOOK 106 F'A"E Jj
BACKUP
PAGES
1. 1998-99 FDEP Grants
Recycling and Education Grant #RE -99-29
Waste Tire Grant #WT99-31
Litter Control Grant #LC99-29
(memorandum dated August 4, 1998)
2. 1998 Petition Hearing
Solid Waste Disposal District Assessment Fees
(memorandum dated August 11, 1998)
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
229-246
247
Anvone 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 testimonv and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
of meeting_
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
1* 0
•
•
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF AUGUST 25, 1998
1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1
2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ................................... 1
5. PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL REVENUE SHARING CHECK FROM U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BY
PAUL TRITAIK................................................. 2
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................ 3
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................
3
7.A.
Reports ..................................................
4
7.B.
Approval of Warrants .......................................
4
7.C.
SHIP Program Annual Reports ...............................
11
7.D.
St. Johns River Water Management District - Abandoned Flow Well
Plugging Cost -Share Agreement Renewed .......................
14
7.E.
Bid #9008 - Traffic Signal Equipment - TW Comcorp, Traffic Parts, Inc.,
Duro-Test Corp., Transportation Control Systems .................
16
7.F.
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 025 .........................
17
7.G.
PEP Reef - Marine Turtle Monitor Consultant Selection ............
19
7.H.
Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs .....................
19
7.I.
Resolutions 98-084 and 98-085 - Tax Cancellations - Two Recently
Acquired Properties (Thomas S. Hammond and Edward Massey & Malt,
IV) .....................................................
21
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-019 - REZONING APPROXIMATELY
9.55 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -6 (NORTH SIDE OF 26th STREET, I/2 MILE
EAST OF 74TH AVENUE) - FARM CREDIT OF SOUTH FLORIDA ...... 27
9.A.2.PUBLIC HEARING - ORCHID PLACE, LTD. - REQUEST TO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 11.2 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -6 AND
APPROXIMATELY 37.7 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -6 (BEAZER HOMES
FLORIDA, INC.) ............................................... 37
1 LA. I-95/OSLO ROAD INTERCHANGE JUSTIFICATION REPORT PROJECT
CONTRACT - REYNOLDS, SMITH AND HILLS, INC . ................ 47
11.11.1. DEDICATION OF ABANDONED SUPPLY WELLS AS ST JOHNS
RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MONITORING WELLS 48
11.11.2. SEA OAKS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY TEMPORARY
RESTART ............................................... 49
BOOK 106 PAGE X94'
L
BOOK 106 PAGE J
11.H.3. SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 2.0 MGD - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - CAMP,
DRESSER & McKEE, INC . ................................. 51
11.H.4. CENTRAL REGION WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
CONSTRUCTION OF NON -SPEC EFFLUENT LINE - DRIVEWAYS,
INC. AND U.S. FILTER/DAVIS - FINAL PAYMENT AND CHANGE
ORDER................................................. 53
11.H.5. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - CITY OF FELLSMERE-
WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT SERVICES . 55
13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN MACHT - COMMENT REGARDING A LOCAL
ARCHITECT'S OPINION ON COSTS OF CONVERTING VERO MALL FOR A
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ......................... 57
13.D. COMMISSIONER EGGERT - PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS ............ 59
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............................. 60
August 25, 1998
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25'hStreet, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, August 25, 1998. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R Macht,
Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert and Caroline D. Ginn. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II
for Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney (in court); and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
1. INVOCATION
Commissioner Ginn delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Tippin led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of two items: Presentation of Refuge
Revenue Sharing Payment by Paul Tritaik (item 5.); and Comments on Public Discussion
Items (item 13.D.)
Vice Chairman Macht requested the addition of item 13.B., Comment on Vero Mall
Study for County Administration Building.
Commissioner Adams requested the withdrawal of item 7. G. (PEP Reef Marine Turtle
Monitor Consultant Selection) to give time to meet with staff and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
August 25, 1998
1
BOOK 106 PAGE b 9
BOOK iOG PAGE � 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously made the above
changes to the agenda.
5. PRESENTATION OF ANNUAL REVENUE SHARING CHECK
FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE BY PAUL TRITAIK
Mr. Paul Tritaik read the following letter dated May 5, 1998 into the record and
presented Chairman Tippin with a check in the amount of $17,097:
T,.,�
United States Department of the "',�9 0r.a :ii ipV.,-8i;3 Ti
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
�'�q M "�s•, 1875 Century Boulevard On.
Atlanta. Georgia 30345 ar�
IN RMY TO: May 5, 1998
B Deputy C rk
LA -Pay== to Counties
Dear County/Parish Official:
This is in reference to the anatiai Refuge Revenue Sharing Payment you. receive from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service). We regret to inform you that the Service's Finance Center, in
Denver, Colorado, was unable to initiate electronic funds transfer of fiscal year 1997 payments,
as previously planned, due to computer software restrictions.
The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134) mandates all Federal payments be
converted to electronic funds transfer by January 1, 1999. As a result, the Finance Center is
striving to meet the deadline for completion of electronic transfer of fiscal year 1998 payments.
Since you completed and forwarded your initial ACE Vendor/Miscellaneous Payment Enrollment
form to us, should your bank account number or Taxpayer Identification Number change, please
provide a new ACE form (blank enclosed) so the Service can update your file and continue
providing uninterrupted payments.
The Service is pleased to present MmotArt R%vER County/Parish its refuge
revenue sharing bard copy check in the amount of S 17, 09 -7. 00
This payment is for fiscal year 1997 (October 1, 1996 - September 30, 1997) and is authorized by
the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1978, Public Law 95-469. Funds credited to the National
Wildlife Refuge Fund are derived from income generated nationally on Service lands, such as oil
and gas revenues, sale of timber products, gravel. grazing receipts, and other products.
The Act authorizes payment to counties in which Service -owned lands are located, based upon the
following methods of computation, whichever is gggte .
(1) Three-fourths of 1 percent (0.75 percent) of the fair market (appraised) value of fee
lands located within the county/parish.
(2) Seventy-five cents per acre of the fee lands located within the county/parish.
(3) Twenty-five percent of net receipts collected by the Service for certain activities
permitted on fee lands located within the county/parish.
This year's fund did not contain sufficient receipts to make full payment to counties as computed
above. Although Congress, as authorized, did appropriate additional funds, the amount
August 25, 1998
2
•
appropriated was not sufficient to provide for a full entitlement program. The amount of payment
for fiscal year 1997 represents approximately 66 percent of the total entitlement. In addition, the
reason that payments to certain counties have significantly increased or decreased from last year's
may be due to reappraisals or the acquisition of additional lands.
The signed County Compliance with Section VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 form you recently
completed is on file in our Realty office.
If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Charlotte Underwood in our Realty Office at
1-800-419-9582.
Sincerely yours,
Sam D. Hamilton
Regional Director
Enclosure:
Blank ACH Vendor/Enrollment form
•
Commissioner Eggert advised that the Agricultural Use Zone Advisory Committee has
been waiting for an environmental study to be approved by the Atlanta Office concerning the
aquaculture use zone. She commented that the process has finally gotten that far; the
committee has had a hard time with the regional office.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of August 11, 1998. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 11, 1998, as written
and distributed.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Vice Chairman Macht requested that item 7.H. be separated for discussion. Item 7. G.
had been withdrawn earlier under item 4.
August 25, 1998
3
BOOK 106 FACE c��
BOOK 106 PAGE � 5 +
7.A. Re orts
The following report has been received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk
to the Board:
State of Florida Auditor General Operational Audit of the Florida State Courts
System, July 1, 1996 thru June 30, 1997; and Selected Actions Taken thru
April 23, 1998, dated June 30, 1998
7.B. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 17, 1998:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: AUGUST 17, 1998
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 August 13 to August 13, 1998.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the list
of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board on August 13,
1998, as requested.
August 25, 1998
El
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0247127
ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
1998-08-13
133.90
0247128
AMERICAN LEGION POST 0039
1998-08-13
29.00
0247129
AMERON HOMES, INC
1998-08-13
1,248.75
02470 130
APPLE YJACdINE & SUPPLY CO
1998-06-13
0247131
AT YOUR SERVICE
1998-08-13
2,197.92
0247132
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
1998-08-13
546.58
0247133
AQUAGENIX LAND -WATER
1998-08-13
105.00
0247134
ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING
1998-08-13
81.25
0247135
ADDISON OIL CO
1998-08-13
323.95
0247136
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
1998-08-13
78.82
0247137
A T & T
1998-08-13
56.05
0247138
ANDERSSON, NILS & LINDA
1998-08-13
19.68
0247139
ASHWORTH INC
1998-08-13
1,024.82
0247140
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
1998-08-13
1,042.52
0247141
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
1998-08-13
5,262.18
0247142
ARCH PAGING
1998-08-13
13.10
0247143
A T & T
1998-08-13
15.15
0247144
ALL AMERICAN CONCRETE
1998-08-13
44,523.86
0247145
ARK ELECTRIC OF VERO BEACH,INC
1998-08-13
245.00
0247146
ALL CREATURES GREAT & SMALL
1998-08-13
20.00
0247147
BARER DISTRIBUTING CO
1998-08-13
471.06
0247148
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1998-08-13
4,665.66
0247149
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
1998-08-13
144.97
0247150
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
1998-08-13
172.05
0247151
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
1998-08-13
41,268.03
0247152
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
1998-08-13
2,366.75
0247153
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT. CO, INC
1998-08-13
359.80
0247154
B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
1998-08-13
82.70
0247155
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
1998-08-13
226.82
0247156
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
1998-08-13
21.80
0247157
BELLSOUTH
1998-08-13
207.03
0247158
BEAZER HOMES, INC
1998-08-13
1,000.00
0247159
BENDER, MATTHEW
1998-08-13
7.48
0247160
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
1998-08-13
156.69
0247161
BASELINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
1998-08-13
6,000.00
0247162
BLACKBURN, COLE
1998-08-13
370.80
0247163
BELLSOUTH
1998-08-13
274.06
0247164
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
1998-08-13
60,512.47
0247165
CATAPHOTE INC
1998-08-13
1,940.00
0247166
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
1998-08-13
177.00
0247167
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
1998-08-13
3,872.85
0247168
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
1998-08-13
26,010.27
0247169
COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
1998-08-13
5,184.94
0247170
CLARKE, DOROTHEA
1998-08-13
26.10
0247171
CLOVE HITCH FOUND, INC
1998-08-13
140.00
0247172
CHILBERG-MAYFIELD INC
1998-08-13
500.00
0247173
COOGAN, MAUREEN
1998-08-13
387.28
0247174
CINDY'S PET CENTER, INC
1998-08-13
8.39
0247175
CLEANNET USA
1998-08-13
20,537.72
0247176
CUES, INC
1998-08-13
93.67
0247177
CROSSROADS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1998-08-13
21.00
0247178
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
1998-08-13
171.00
0247179
COX, CYNTHIA L
1998-08-13
6.20
0247180
CLOW WATER SYSTEMS COMPANY
1998-08-13
200.65
0247181
CHIARANTONA, NICOLE
1998-od-li
J0.9u
0247182
CASTLE, DAVID & JOYCE
1998-08-13
4.51
0247183
CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING &
1998-08-13
466.99
0247184
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
1998-08-13
297.00
0247185
DELTA SUPPLY CO
1998-08-13
327.86
0247186
DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
1998-08-13
1,200.87
0247187
DICKEY SCALES, INC
1998-08-13
400.00
August 25, 1998
5
•
PAGEiij
BOOK 106 PAGE 0j
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0247188
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
1998-08-13
27.60
0247189
DALE SORENSON REAL ESTATE
1998-08-13
34,258.50
0247190
DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE
1998-08-13
416.67
0247191
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
1998-08-13
16,781.50
0247192
DILLARD, LASSIE
1998-08-13
18.03
0247193
DOWNTOWN VERO BEACH ASSOC.
1998-08-13
2,428.27
0247194
DONLEY, BILLY JOE
1998-08-13
141.63
0247195
EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
1998-08-13
26.88
0247196
ECONO LODGE
1998-08-13
11.64
0247197
ELPEX, INC
1998-08-13
899.07
0247198
EDLUND & DRITENBAS
1998-08-13
7,495.98
0247199
ELMORE, JAMES A
1998-08-13
78.73
0247200
EGGEN, BETH
1998-08-13
25.75
0247201
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP
1998-08-13
66.00
0247202
FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY
1998-08-13
114.87
0247203
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
1998-08-13
2,793.43
0247204
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
1998-08-13
5,251.49
0247205
FLORIDA SLUDGE, INC
1998-08-13
4,135.50
0247206
FLORIDA TODAY/USA TODAY
1998-08-13
156.00
0247207
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
1998-08-13
54.12
0247208
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
1998-08-13
3,909.00
0247209
FOREST HOUSE BOOKS
1998-08-13
43.84
0247210
FALCON CABLE TV
1998-08-13
25.10
0247211
FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER
1998-08-13
163.52
0247212
FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE
1998-08-13
18.00
0247213
GATOR LUMBER COMPANY
1998-08-13
62.44
0247214
GARCIA, ART
1998-08-13
500.00
0247215
GRAVELY INTERNATIONAL, INC
1998-08-13
3,998.00
0247216
GILES, RICHARD & CORNELIA
1998-08-13
29.65
0247217
GLASER, AMY SMYTH
1998-08-13
67.80
0247218
GRILL REFILL, INC
1998-08-13
45.00
0247219
GLISKER, RICHARD
1998-08-13
500.00
0247220
GOLD STAR OF THE TREASURE
1998-08-13
2,032.00
0247221
GHO, VERO BEACH, INC.
1998-08-13
5,592.00
0247222
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
1998-08-13
1,187.22
0247223
HARRISON UNIFORMS
1998-08-13
785.47
0247224
HORIZON NURSERY
1998-08-13
26.00
0247225
HTE INC
1998-08-13
1,592.63
0247226
HANSON, MICHAEL & CHERYL
1998-08-13
47.40
0247227
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
1998-08-13
5,125.86
0247228
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1998-08-13
330.00
0247229
INDIAN RIVER BLUE PRINT, INC
1998-08-13
66.40
0247230
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
1998-08-13
206.92
0247231
INGRAM
1998-08-13
735.62
C247232
INDIAN RIVER ANIMAL HOSPITAL
IV98-08-id
15.UU
0247233
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING
1998-08-13
19.50
0247234
IRVINE MECHANICAL, INC
1998-08-13
583.17
0247235
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1998-08-13
75.00
0247236
IBM CORPORATION
1998-08-13
1,512.57
0247237
INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT
1998-08-13
72,125.00
0247238
JACKSON ELECTRONICS
1998-08-13
23.52
0247239
JOELSON CONCRETE PIPE COMPANY
1998-08-13
6,868.16
0247240
JONES, RAY
1998-08-13
16.50
0247241
J A WEBSTER, INC
1998-08-13
101.70
0247242
JOHNSON CONTROLS INC
1998-08-13
571.97
0247243
JORDAN PUBLISHING
1998-08-13
44.45
0247244
JONES, DAVID M
1998-08-13
8,500.00
0247245
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
1998-08-13
3,020.00
0247246
KELLY TRACTOR CO
1998-08-13
79.64
0247247
KLIEMISCH, STEVEN & MICHELE
1998-08-13
32.44
0247248
KRUGER CONSTRUCTION CORP
1998-08-13
1,075.00
August 25, 1998
6
0 0
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0247249
KLINK, RICHARD
1998-08-13
1,540.00
0247250
KOEHN, ADAM
1998-08-13
491.83
0247251
LONG, STEVEN A ESQ
1998-08-13
11050.00
0247252
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1998-08-13
238.91
0247253
LEWIS, RUTH A
1998-08-13
35.06
0247254
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
1998-08-13
168.00
0247255
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
1998-08-13
2,940.80
0247256
LAVIN, CHARLES H & SHIRLEY
1998-08-13
4.62
0247257
LINDER INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY
1998-08-13
3.85
0247258
LESCO, INC
1998-08-13
532.65
0247259
LEWIS, BRIAN
1998-08-13
63.00
0247260
LAPSCO INC
1998-08-13
46,645.00
0247261
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
1998-08-13
10.60
0247262
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1998-08-13
156.22
0247263
LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC
1998-08-13
5,340.00
0247264
LODGE, AGNES T
1998-08-13
6.00
0247265
LECHIFFLARD, LYNN & PATRICIA
1998-08-13
29.36
0247266
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
1998-08-13
292.95
0247267
MICKLER'S FLORIDIANA, INC
1998-08-13
27.15
0247268
MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC
1998-08-13
226.06
0247269
MICRO WAREHOUSE
1998-08-13
1,234.14
0247270
MAC PAPERS, INC
1998-08-13
59.75
0247271
MITRON SYSTEMS CORPORATION
1998-08-13
559.00
0247272
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
1998-08-13
366.44
0247273
MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC
1998-08-13
26.92
0247274
MARC INDUSTRIES
1998-08-13
240.57
0247275
MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES INC
1998-08-13
150.78
0247276
MASSEY, EDWARD S
1998-08-13
1,457.29
0247277
MALT IV, INC
1998-08-13
1,516.76
0247278
MACMILLIAN DISTRIBUTION LIMITD
1998-08-13
100.03
0247279
MULLAN, MARY L & W DREW
1998-08-13
7,91
0247280
MCMAKIN SHAWN & KELLY
1998-08-13
500.00
0247281
MOHSIN, MOHAMMAD
1998-08-13
1,027.22
0247282
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
1998-08-13
633.21
0247283
NATIONAL PROPANE CORP
0247284
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
1998-08-13
197.22
0247285
OMNIGRAPHICS, INC
1998-08-13
82.00
0247286
ON IT'S WAY
1998-08-13
104.35
0247287
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
1998-08-13
149.99
0247288
ODYSSEY GOLF
1998-08-13
34.00
0247289
OCEAN HOMES CORP
1998-08-13
28.78
0247290
ORANGE ELECTRIC CO INC
1998-08-13
475.00
0247291
PAN AMERICAN ENG CO
1998-08-13
460.60
0247292
PARKS RENTAL INC
1998-08-13
1,755.64
0247293
PETERSON'S
1998-08-13
25.29
0247294
PITNEY BOWES, INC
1998-08-13
209.00
0247295
POSTMASTER #216
1998-08-13
15,000.00
0247296
PUBLIC DEFENDER
1998-08-13
2,877.79
0247297
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
1998-08-13
774.78
0247298
PRESS JOURNAL
1998-08-13
348.00
0247299
POSTMASTER
1998-08-13
160.00
0247300
PANGBURN, TERRI
1998-08-13
24.00
0247301
PRESS JOURNAL/STUART NEWS
1998-08-13
1,691.83
0247302
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
1998-08-13
55.00
0247303
PEEK MEASUREMENT, INC
1998-08-13
360.03
0247304
PROMEDIX
1998-08-13
2,914.86
0247305
PLUNKETT RESEARCH LTD
1998-08-13
156.49
0247306
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
1998-08-13
16.45
0247307
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
1998-08-13
1,900.19
0247308
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
1998-08-13
195.00
0247309
RECORDED BOOKS
1998-08-13
5.95
August 25, 1998
h
BOOK JL6 PAGE OJ32
BOOK 1p PACE
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0247310
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
1998-08-13
82.70
0247311
RENTAL 1
1998-08-13
392.07
0247312
RITZ CAMERA CENTERS
1998-08-13
420.95
0247313
RUSSELL, WILLIAM & PATRICIA
1998-08-13
3.08
0247314
SCOTTY'S, INC
1998-08-13
630.50
0247315
SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
1998-08-13
134.05
0247316
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
1998-08-13
994.96
0247317
SHELL OIL COMPANY
1998-08-13
1,203.39
0247318
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
1998-08-13
384.04
0247319
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
1998-08-13
452.12
0247320
ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
1998-08-13
216.73
0247321
SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
1998-08-13
120.00
0247322
SIMON & SCHUSTER
1998-08-13
672.81
0247323
SUBWAY STAMP SHOP INC
1998-08-13
31.68
0247324
SAM'S CLUB
1998-08-13
144.99
0247325
SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES
1998-08-13
75.81
0247326
SPALDING
1998-08-13
200.94
0247327
SUPERIOR PRINTING
1998-08-13
798.00
0247328
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
1998-08-13
164.88
0247329
STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
1998-08-13
29,780.62
0247330
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
1998-08-13
4,084.15
0247331
SYSTEMATIC SERVICES, INC
1998-08-13
1,023.13
0247332
SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF
1998-08-13
180.00
0247333
SPECIALIZED DISASTER SYSTEMS
1998-08-13
1,187.62
0247334
SMITH, LEROY
1998-08-i3
LU3.UO
0247335
STANLEY, JOHN & DELORES
1998-08-13
4.30
0247336
STOUT, JOEL A & LORI A STOUT
1998-08-13
961.20
0247337
TITLEIST DRAWER
1998-08-13
3,257.04
0247338
TERRA
1998-08-13
1,320.00
0247339
TIPPIN, JOHN W
1998-08-13
83.31
0247340
TCI MEDIA SERVICES
1998-08-13
100.00
0247341
TRI -COUNTY CONCRETE PRODUCTS
1998-08-13
1,723.00
0247342
TRI -COUNTY GAS
1998-08-13
37.02
0247343
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
1998-08-13
685.00
0247344
TRADEWINDS
1998-08-13
482.50
0247345
TREASURE COAST BUILDERS INC
1998-08-13
500.00
0247346
THELMA DREYER & ASSOCIATES INC
1998-08-13
209.55
0247347
UMI
1998-08-13
47.07
0247348
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
1998-08-13
2,512.18
0247349
VELDE FORD, INC
1998-08-13
1,603.39
0247350
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1998-08-13
50,522.71
0247351
VERO STARTER & GENERATOR
1998-08-13
240.00
0247352
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1998-08-13
364.51
0247353
VERO MARINE CENTER, INC
1998-08-13
116.59
0247354
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
1998-08-13
75.00
0247355
VERO BOWL
1998-08-13
132.80
0247356
VERO BEARING & BOLT
1998-08-13
580.56
0247357
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
1998-08-13
75.00
0247358
WAL-MART STORES, INC
1998-08-13
3,356.20
0247359
WALSH, LYNN
1998-08-13
52.20
0247360
WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CTR
1998-08-13
1,923.00
0247361
W W GRAINGER, INC
1998-08-13
1,368.26
0247362
WILLHOFF, PATSY
1998-08-13
260.00
0247363
WHITE ALUMINUM PRODUCTS, INC
1998-08-13
35.30
0247364
WHARTON-SMITH, INC
1998-08-13
337,627.75
0247365
WHITESIDE PARTS & SERVICE INC
1998-08-13
67.05
0247366
WSCF-FM
1998-08-13
300.00
0247367
WASTE MANAGEMENT
1998-08-13
85,120.75
0247368
XEROX CORPORATION
1998-08-13
1,674.48
0247369
YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
1998-08-13
35.25
0247370
ZIEGLER, MICHAEL R
1998-08-13
186.20
August 25, 1998
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0247371
MULL, DOUGLAS L
1998-08-13
144.64
0247372
STEWART, LISA
1998-08-13
52.50
0247373
METT, MARCIA D
1998-08-13
52.50
0247374
BAKER JR, FRED & MARY
1998-08-13
52.50
0247375
WAL MART
1998-08-13
1,233.64
0247376
GARCIA, ANGELO A
1998-08-13
7.21
0247377
BRANDON CAPITAL CORP
1998-08-13
86.14
0247378
CAL BUILDERS INC
1998-08-13
120.92
0247379
CAMP , MARY & DOMICK
1998-08-13
49.37
0247380
WYDRAS, NANCILEE
1998-08-13
5.26
0247381
COLLINS, GEORGE
1998-08-13
3$,71
0247382
ARCHER OF VERO INC
1998-08-13
51.66
0247383
SAUNDERS, SHERI
1998-08-13
5.59
0247384
FLACH, N W
1998-08-13
50.00
0247335
WIDNER, TIMOTHY B
1998-08-13
bb.d;d
0247386
LANE, MRS HERMAN D
1998-08-13
90.58
0247387
JOHN LLOYD BUILDERS INC
1998-08-13
32.69
0247388
C & S DEVELOPMENT CORP
1998-08-13
44.61
0247389
ST PIERRE, NELDA M
1998-08-13
31.05
0247390
GHO VERO BEACH INC
1998-08-13
47.77
0247391
GEHRING, ALICE & TERRY
1998-08-13
32.81
0247392
MARTIN,GEORGE
1998-08-13
42.03
0247393
BELL, CLAUDETTE
1998-08-13
73.51
0247394
BROWNE, ROSALEE B
1998-08-13
26.64
0247395
LEONARD, PAUL P
1998-08-13
4.26
0247396
ACKER, RITA & JORDON
1998-08-13
37.79
0247397
GOODRICH, THOMAS
1998-08-13
37.26
0247398
JOBE, THOMAS
1998-08-13
15.44
0247399
HYATT, NELSON
1998-08-13
82.26
0247400
MANCUSO, SHARON G
1998-08-13
52.50
0247401
GEIGER, JOE
1998-08-13
30.40
0247402
CARDEC, MARIA
1998-08-13
25.42
0247403
R MAX OF IR INC
1998-08-13
78.99
0247404
WEIMANN, BRUCE E
1998-08-13
27.74
0247405
BUTLER, JOHN & KATHLEEN
1998-08-13
2.58
0247406
MALLOY, JEFFREY J
1998-08-13
73.46
0247407
SPITZA, CHARLENE
1998-08-13
33.33
0247408
ROMERO, LORNA
1998-08-13
9.28
0247409
DADE QUALITY SHOES #13
1998-08-13
26.69
0247410
WASHER, CHARLES & RUSTIE
1998-08-13
52.58
0247411
BLAKESLEE, BRIAN D
1998-08-13
83.38
0247412
WILLIAMS, RANDALL E
1998-08-13
37.07
0247413
BANOV ARCHITECTURE & CONST
1998-08-13
51.80
0247414
COMMINS, STEPHANIE
1998-08-13
66.09
0247415
DAY, PHILIP & VALARIE
1998-08-13
41.11
0247416
LUZAR, MARIE
1998-08-13
8.87
0247417
GOODWIN, LEE & YVONNE
1998-08-13
54.56
0247418
PENDLETON, THOMAS & VALERIE
1998-08-13
34.19
0247419
MYERS, STEVEN H
1998-08-13
1.83
0247420
HILL, SHERRY
1998-08-13
18.72
0247421
TURNER, CAROL
1998-08-13
39.78
0247422
BOWMAN, SUSAN
1998-08-13
92.55
0247423
NALBANDIAN, KNARIK
1998-08-13
50.00
0247424
BARRBER, PROCTOR
1998-08-13
36.51
0247425
SABONJOHN, PETER
1998-08-13
26.08
0247426
GARCIA, ARTURO
1998-08-13
67.01
0247427
R ZORC & SONS BUYILDERS INC
1998-08-13
24.70
0247428
CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO
1998-08-13
32.24
0247429
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO INC
1998-08-13
49.01
August 25, 1998
E
•
BOOK UU' PAGE OJ
BOOK 106 PAGE i
CHECK
NAME
NUMBER
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
0247430
MORGAN, YOLANDA
0247431
ZILCH, HELEN E
1998-08-13
31.87
0247432
KIRTLEY, DAVID W
1998-08-13
39.02
0247433 ANDD BUILDING CORP
1998-08-13
52.591998-08-13
0247434 SLAUGHTER, ROBERT
41.94
0247435
PROBST, CATHERINE
1998-08-13
92.86
0247436
KANE, REBECCA
1998-08-13
36.60
0247437
HELD, LUCILLE
1998-06-i3
t8,y.3
0247438
FORDE, KAREN
1998-08-13
34.19
0247439
THIBODEAU ELAINE
1998-08-13
45.42
0247440
,
NORDMAN, JAMES O
1998-08-13
30.43
0247441
BRITT, JEFFREY I
1998-08-13
28.99
0247442
ARNOLD, BARBARA
1998-08-13
23.25
0247443
WELLS, MARK E
1998-08-13
24.59
0247444
HUVANE, JOAN C
1998-08-13
68.78
0247445
NOWLIN, SHELLEY
1998-08-13
73.75
0247446
MC GUIRE, GERALDINE
1998-08-13
28.03
0247447
MULKEY, DANNY & SANDRA
1998-08-13
25.74
0247448
DOOLING, JAMES
1998-08-13
51.25
0247449
STEVENS, STEPHANIE ANN
1998-08-13
1.98
0247450
JACKSON, JOHN C
1998-08-13
7.99
0247451
GHO VERO BEACH INC
1998-08-13
16.05
0247452
COLLINS, GEORGE
1998-08-13
46.56
0247453
RUSSO, GIROLAMO
1998-08-13
1.08
0247454
MOSLEY, LILLIE M JENKINS
1998-08-13
136.86
0247455
INDIAN RIVER VILLAGE CARE CTR
1998-08-13
1998-08-13
614.06
0247456
SILKEN GROUP
52.01
0247457
SEQUOIA CORP
1998-08-13
6.02
0247458
GIFFORD GROVES LTD
1998-08-13
92.64
0247459
CAL BUILDERS INC
1998-08-13
20.33
0247460
HINTON, MARION D
1998-08-13
28.30
0247461
DAWSON, G WILLIAM & JAN
1998-08-13
30.20
0247462
SACKVILLE, WALTER
1998-08-13
58.82
0247463
SABONJOHN, JAMES
1998-08-13
28.30
0247464
C
CHARACTER CORNER, INC
1998-08-13
47.42
0247465
P R INVESTORS
1998-08-13
66.28
0247466
CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES INC
1998-08-13 1998-08-13
1998-08-13
4.56
0247467
JOHNSON, MARY JOHN
0247468
NAGLE, DOROTHY
1998-08-13
25.15
0247469R
ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC
1998-08-13
107.12
0247470
WEIMANN, BRUCE E
1998-08-13
15.90
0247471
SANDY PINES LTD
1998-08-13
15.03
1998-08-13
3.24
August 25, 1998
10
1,079,118.96
7.0 SHIP Program Annual Reports
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 10, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
7DEPTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
WK�i
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Direct
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S' ' /L
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: August 10, 1998
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHIP PROGRAM ANNUAL
REPORTS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at their regular meeting of August 25, 1998.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On April 6, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Local
Housing Assistance Plan (Ordinance #93-13). By adopting the plan and subsequently receiving
Florida Housing Finance Corporation approval of the plan, Indian River County became eligible to
receive State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program funds.
The purpose of the SHIP program is to provide affordable housing for qualified households. As
structured, the county's SHIP Program provides low interest, deferred payment, subordinated loans
to very low income, low income, and eligible moderate income households. Most of these loans
provide downpayment and closing cost assistance, with private financial institutions providing
principal mortgages.
Since the plan was approved, the county received a SHIP fund allocation of $250,000.00 per year
for FY 92/93, FY 93/94, and FY 94/95; $565,773 for FY 1995-96; $632,136 for FY 1996-97. and
$622,455 for FY 1997-98.
The following table indicates the allocations and number of loans given to applicants by fiscal year
and by income category.
August 25, 1998
11
BOOK 106 PACE��
BOOK 1011 FACE'tji I
SHIP PROGRAM REPORT
arc �. 1 / lUl X70
* Very Low Income (VLI)
** Low Income (LI)
*** Moderate Income (MI)
The table below indicates the number of loans foreclosed and the number of loans paid back to the
Housing Trust Fund to be utilized by other applicants.
SHIP Program Loan Foreclosures or Repayments
Total number of loans
granted
MOUNT OF
HIP FUNDING
state funding
nly)
OF LOANS
APPROVED
6 AND % OF LOANS APPROVED
BY INCOME CATEGORY
VLI
%
I
280 (as of 7/14/98)
5
1.77
2-93
250,000.00
41
13
31.71117
41.66
11
26.83
3-94
250,000.00
37
12
32.4318
48.65
7
18.92
4-95
250,000.00
30
11
36.6713
43.33
6
20.00
5-96
565,773.00
58
19
32.76135
60.34
14
6.90
6-97
632,136.00
74
35
47.3Ok4
45.95
k
6.70
7-98 year to date
6/8/98)
622,455.00
42
17
40.48
1
50.00
9.51
8-99
665.833.00
EOTAL
n..... 7Hr/ne
2,617,880.00
82 1107
b7.941138
k93
7 113.12
arc �. 1 / lUl X70
* Very Low Income (VLI)
** Low Income (LI)
*** Moderate Income (MI)
The table below indicates the number of loans foreclosed and the number of loans paid back to the
Housing Trust Fund to be utilized by other applicants.
SHIP Program Loan Foreclosures or Repayments
Total number of loans
granted
Foreclosure Action
Loan Repayments
Number
% of Total
Number
% of Total
280 (as of 7/14/98)
5
1.77
11
3.9
As per the requirements of the SHIP Program, the county must submit an annual report for each
fiscal year for which SHIP funds have been used. These reports must be signed by the Chairman of
the Board of County Commissioners or his designee. The final reports for FY 1992-93, FY 1993-94,
FY 1994-95, and FY 1995-96 were previously submitted to the state. Attached to this staff report
are the county's SHIP Program FY 1996-97 and FY 1997-98 annual reports. All funds for FY 1996-
97 have been expanded and the attached report is the closeout report for that fiscal year. These
reports must be submitted to the state by September 15, 1998.
August 25, 1998
12
40 0
C]
ANALYSIS
According to state regulations, SHIP funds must be utilized in such a manner that all state
requirements and all requirements of the county's Local Housing Assistance Program are met.
Among the State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) requirements are the following:
0 At least 30% of funds must be utilized by very low income (VLI) households
• At least 30% of funds must be utilized by low income (LI) households
• At least 65% of funds must be utilized for homeownership
• At least 75% of funds must be utilized for construction, rehabilitation and emergency repair
• Not more than 10% of funds can be utilized for administration costs
In administering the SHIP program, the county has met all of these requirements as well as local
requirements for homeownership, credit, employment, assets and others.
These two annual reports have been distributed to members of the county's Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee, the Affordable Housing Partnership Group, municipalities, Treasure Coast
Builders Association and other interested persons for their review and comment. Also, the
availability of the report was advertised in the Press Journal on July 22, 1998. Only one question
regarding these reports was received, and clarification to address that question was provided to the
interested party.
The purpose of this staff report is to request that the Board of County Commissioners review the
attached Annual SHIP reports and authorize the Chairman to sign fiscal years 1996/97 and 1997/98
reports.
ALTERNATIVES
The Board of County Commissioners has two alternatives with respect to the SHIP Annual Reports.
These are:
■ To approve the attached SHIP Annual Reports and direct staff to submit the reports to the
Florida Housing Finance Corporation.
■ Not to approve the attached SHIP Annual Reports. Choosing the second alternative.
however, would cause the county to become ineligible to receive additional SHIP funds.
Staff supports the first alternative.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached SHIP Annual
reports and authorize the Chairman to sign these reports.
Attachments:
- SHIP Annual Report for FY 1996-97
SHIP Annual Report for FY 1997-98
August 25, 1998
13
BOOK iO G PAGE Oj)
i" (" Ari
BOOK 06 HAGE OJ
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
annual SHIP reports and authorized the Chairman to sign same,
as recommended in the Memorandum.
REPORTS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.D. St. _Johns River Water Management District - Abandoned Flow
Well Plugging Cost -Share Agreement Renewed
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 18, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
'ole— :,v
� Robert M. Keating, AICP/
Community Development Director"
FROM: Roland M. DeBloi , ICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: August 18, 1998
RE: Renewal of Countywide Abandoned Flow Well Plugging Cost -Share
Agreement with the St. Johns River Water Management District
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of August 25, 1998.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Since 1989, the County has participated in a cost -share program with the St. Johns River Water
Management District (SJRWMD) to plug abandoned artesian wells on County Utilities property. In
1990, the program was expanded countywide to include the plugging of abandoned flow wells on
private property (subject to authorization from the private landowner). As a result of the program,
over 200 wells have been plugged or repaired in Indian River County, saving millions of gallons per
day (mgd) of ground water.
From 1990 to 1996, concerning the countywide, private property well plugging program, the County
allocated $15,000 in matching funds on a fiscal year basis. In turn, SJRWMD matched the county's
funds with $15,000 of its own, resulting in a total of $30,000 per fiscal year allocated for the
August 25, 1998
14
E-]
•
countywide well plugging program. In 1997, however, because there had been a backlog of wells on
private property to be plugged, the Board approved an increase of its match from $15,000 to $20,000
for the countywide program -The SJRWMD followed suit and increased its 50% match to $20,000,
resulting in a total allocation of $40,000 for the countywide well plugging program.
The proposed agreement renewal for FY 1998-99 is similar to last year's agreement, with each
agency allocating $20,000 toward the program. In addition, the District is proposing to obligate an
amount not exceeding $5,000 to the County as compensation for county staff time attributed to
administering the well plugging program.
The attached cooperative agreement renewal for countywide well plugging is hereby presented
to the Board for approval consideration for fiscal year 1998-99.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In 1995, as a change from previous years, two separate contracts - one for Utilities property, and
one for countywide private property - were executed. This memorandum and the attached contract
renewal pertain only to the countywide well plugging program; well plugging relating to County
Utilities property will be addressed by the County Utilities Department under a separate agreement.
The attached FY 98-99 countywide contract renewal follows the same format as the 1995
countywide agreement (entered in January, 1996) that was renewed last fiscal year.
Abandoned flow wells result in the unnecessary consumption of ground water. Moreover, artesian
flow wells tend to have high chloride levels, and in turn lower water quality in the surficial aquifer,
which is commonly used for private potable wells. Renewal of the attached agreement will result
in the continuation of an important and successful water quality and quantity protection program.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached countywide
abandoned flow well plugging cost -share agreement renewal with the SJRWMD for FY 1998-99,
and authorize the chairman to execute the agreement.
ATTACHMENT
Copy of the proposed cooperative agreement renewal
Copy of the January, 1996 countywide well plugging agreement (approved by the Board on
10/17/95)
Standard County Grant Form
August 25, 1998
15
BOOK DO PAGE I.'.G
ill
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed countywide abandoned flow well plugging cost -share
agreement renewal with the St. John's River Water Management
District for FY 1998-99 and authorized the Chairman to execute
the agreement, as recommended in the Memorandum.
COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
06 PAGP 01-L
7.E. Bid #9008 - Traffic Signal EguiTment - TW Comcorn, Traffic
Parts, Inc. Duro-Test CorT., TranVortadon Control S stems
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 14, 1998:
DATE: August 14, 1998
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services Director
FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, PurchasingManageJr : J
SUBJECT: Bid Award: lRCMo8 for Traffic Signal Equipment
Traffic Engineering Division/ Annual Contract
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date: August 5, 1998
Advertising Dates: July 22, 29, 1998
Specifications Maned to: Twenty five (25) Vendors
Replies: Four (4) Vendors
"No Bid" Response: Seven (7) Vendors
SEE ATTACHED BID TABULATION SHEET FOR VENDORS LISTED BELOW
TW Comcorp, Traffic Parts Inc.
Orlando, Florida Spring, Texas
Duro-Test Corp. Transportation Control Systems
Tampa, Florida Tampa, Florida
RECONA0NDATION:
• Staff recommends the following: Tw Comcorn is awarded Items 1 thru 19, 21 thru 25, 27,
and 44; Traffic Parts Inc is awarded Items 28 thru 41; Daro-Test Corn is awarded Items 42
and 43; and Transportation Control Systems is awarded Items 45, 46 and 48 thru 51. All
recommended awards are to the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidders meeting
specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
• Establish an Open End Contract with all vendors listed above the period October 1, 1998
through September 30, 1999. Last year's expenditures totaled $55,000.00.
• Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract subject to sads&ctory performance,
zero cost increase, vendor acceptance and the determination that renewal of this annual
contract is in the best interest of the County.
August 25, 1998
16
•
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
recommendation of staff as set forth in the Memorandum.
7.F. Miscellaneous Bud
getAmendment 025
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 19, 1998:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: August 19, 1998
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 025
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director'
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. The State of Florida, Department of Labor, has charged Indian River Countv for
Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees for the quarter ending June
30, 1998. A budget amendment is required to reflect these payments. (Memo attached
from Interim Personnel Director, Tom Bisaillon).
2. The Summer Recreation program exceeded expectations and we received $11,677 in
revenue over the budgeted amount. Expenditures also were more than expected (Other
Professional Services) due to the need for additional people to supervise the children.
The attached entry appropriates funding.
3. Expenses for the 800 MHz system that were anticipated in 1996/97 occurred in the
1997/98 fiscal year.
4. The Sheriff received 593,055 for the month of June in prisoner revenue. The attached
appropriates funding.
5. The attached entry appropriates funding for the tax certificates in the amount of S4.189.
6. The attached entry appropriates funding fiber optic cable link and computer hook-up
between the Library and Courthouse. This will complete the loop between the County
Administration Building, Library, and Courthouse. Funds in the amount of 525,000 will
be transferred from the General Fund Contingency.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment.
August 25, 1998
17
BOOK 106 FACE J 12'
GOOK 106 PAGEOU
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 025, as recommended in the
Memorandum.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director `
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 025
r
DATE: August 19, 1998
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Recreation/
Unemployment Compensation
001-108-572-012.15
$116
SO il
GENERAL FUND/Supervisor of
Elections/Unemployment Compensation
001-700-519-012.15
$4
SO
GENERAL FUND/
Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
5120
EMERGENCY SERVICES
DISTRICT/Fire Services/
Unemployment Compensation
114-120-522-012.15
51,375
$0
EMERGENCY SERVICES
DISTRICT/Fire Services/
Reserve for Contingency
114-120-522-099.91
SO
$1,375
S.W.D.D./Landfill/
Unemployment Compensation
411-255-534-012.15
$1,457
$0
S. W.D.D./Landfill/
Retirement Contributions
411-255-534-012.12
$0
$1,457
2.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUND/Summer Camp Fees
001-000-347-212.00
511,677
SO
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Recreation/
Other Professional Services
001-108-572-033.19
$11,677
50
3.
EXPENSES
OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Emergency
Services/Construction in Progress
315-208-525-066.51
$509,142
50
OPTIONAL SALES TAX/
Cash Forward
315-199-581-099.92
50
$509,142
August 25, 1998
18
TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 025
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird DATE: August 19, 1998
OMB Director
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
4.
REVENUE
GENERAL FUNDBroward Prisoner
Revenue
001-000-341-057.00
$93,055
50
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Sheriff/Law
Enforcement
001-600-586-099.04
S65,674
50
GENERAL FUND/Sheriff/Detention
001-600-586-099.14
S27,381
SO
5.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/BCC/Other
Professional Services
001-101-511-033.19
S4,189
0
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for
Conungency
001-199-581-099.91
SO
54,189
6.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Computer Services
001-241-513-066.47
$25,000
$0
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for
Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$25,000
7. G. PEP Reef - Marine Turtle Monitor Consultant Selection
WITHDRAWN at the request of Commissioner Adams.
7.H. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 14, 1998:
August 25, 1998
19
BOOK 106 PAGE UL
I
BOOK 10PACE U.
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: August 14, 1998
SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors
for the weeks of August 3 and August 10, 1998. Listed below are the vendors names and the
amount of each court related costs.
Steven A. Long, Esq.
Legal Services
1,050.00
Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
850.00
R.B. Meadow & Associates
Investigator
1,703.40
G. Russell Petersen, P.A.
record research
18.90
American Reporting
Transcription
40.00
Celeste Hartsfield
Transcription
59.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
119.00
Raymond Tattergrain
Court Interpreter
50.00
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Celeste Hartsfield
Transcription
87.50
Sheila I. Flinn
Transcription
24.50
Patricia B. Held
Transcription
42.00
Medical Record Services
Record Research
9.05
Patrcia� B. Held
Transcription
535.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
31.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
297.50
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
87.50
Ralph Mora, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
300.00
Ralph Mora, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
161.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
63.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
56.00
Pegasus Travel
Witness Reimbursement
245.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict - Misd.
300.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict - Juvenile
300.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict - Felony
12,000.00
C. Jonathan Ahr, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
225.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
476.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
112.00
Kevin MacWlliam, Esq.
Legal Services
1,022.51
Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D.
Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D.
1,900.00
TOTAL
$23,166.36
Vice Chairman Macht called attention to the fact that there were many "high ticket
items" on the list and credited Assistant County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien with getting
reductions where possible. He then requested that the citizens of Indian River County be
given information about Constitutional Amendment #7.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted the
report.
August 25, 1998
20
0 40
U Resolutions 98-084 and 98-085 - Tax Cancellations - Two
Recently Acquired Properties (Thomas S. Hammond and Edward
Massey & Malt, Ito
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 13, 1998:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
*A, a .
WLu�
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA
Legal Assistant - County Attorney's Office
DATE: August 13, 1998
RE: 2 Recently Acquired Properties - Tax Cancellations
The County recently acquired some property and, pursuant to Section 196.28,
F.S., the Board of County Commissioners, after formally accepting it, is allowed
to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the property acquired
for public purpose. Such cancellation must be done by resolution with a
certified coot being forward to the Tax Collector (along with copies sent to the
Property Appraiser and Fixed Assets).
Requested Action. Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached
resolutions canceling taxes upon lands the County recently acquired.
Attachments: Resolutions with legals -
R/W - 26th St. (Hammond)
CR #510 (Massey & Malt)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 98-084 canceling certain delinquent taxes upon
publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida
Statutes. (R/W 26' Street - Thomas S. Hammond)
August 25, 1998
21
BOOK 10 PAGE 6.x,6
BOOK 106 PAGE
Re: RAN - 26th Street
Parcel Me #31-32-39-00001-0140-00001.0
Thomas S. Hammond
RESOLUTION NO. 98-8_
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners
of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or
owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by
any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road
purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and
setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the
county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the
records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions
of Section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The right of way Is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current,
against the property described in OR Book 1223, Page 1918, which was recently acquired by
Indian River County for future right of way are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of
Section 196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a cerUfled copy
of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner r q q a r t . and the motion was
seconded by Commissioner M a r h t and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin
Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner Fran S. Adams
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this _2�5_ day of
August, 1998.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attesti-LJ!�Barton, Clerk
TAX CERTIFICATE03 CUTSTP^ 1011.1 13
r� no
PRuR4TEr, TAS: RECEIVED
'-C WITH 1"i1n COLLECTOR "
August 25, 1998
22
J
ey
QZ
John W. Tip6 t
r✓ Chairman
Into R-0 4vra.ea � us:d
t Aam'1 t � i
L,tvl
Risn ht�r.
N
W
i
rn
x
0
Section Line & S. Line Tract 14 J'
co
C A N A L 0)
LEML DFSMPMN
The North 50 feet of the South 80 feet of the West 30.34 acres of Tract 14, Section 31, o
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, according to the last general plat of the lands of the WW
Indian River Farms Company, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25 of the Public Records of o
St. Lucie County, Florida. a
Now lying in Indian River County, Florida.
3
0
61619dUZIUo
•
40
R
I, Charles A. Cramer, hereby certify
that I am. a registered Professional Surveyor and
Mapper licensed to practice in the state
of Florida, that this sketch was
made under;;rny supervision, and that it is
accurate and correct. I further certify
N
that this sketch meets the Minimum
,immediate
TechnicOl - stah,4ards. as described in Chapter 61G17
of the Florida Administrative Code,
pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472.
THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
SKEfCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 30
Charles A. Cramer, P.S.M. Reg.
#4094 1840, 25th St, Vero Beach, FL 32960
0
Indian River County Surveyor
(561.),;.567-8000
Date
61619dUZIUo
•
40
BOOK 106 PAGE � 9
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 98-085 canceling certain delinquent taxes upon
publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida
Statutes. (CR510 - Edward Massey & Malt, IV - 2 parcels)
Re: County Road #390 - 2 parcels
Edward Massey & Malt, IV
Tax ID #28-31-39-5-0000-1.0
RESOLUTION NO.98- 85
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28,
FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners
of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or
owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by
any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road
purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and
setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the
county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the
records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions
of Section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The property /s hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current,
against the property described in OR Book 1225, Page 1464, which was recently acquired by
Indian River County as future right of way, are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of
Section 196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certified copy
of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner E a a e r t , and the motion was
seconded by Commissioner M a c h t and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin
Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K Eggert
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 25 day of
August, 1998.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest: JK Barton, Clerk
1� V
( _. .. ._ ,. ,?\,' ;�:\•.. V, I.L,•,�`1'�., ,... -tet
August 25, 1998
24
B
John W. I 1
Chairman
inaan Rve w I Acvoo.•ed
A.1- L
L.0 •:'moi.
Ue 1a
0 0
W
0
0
'Plot
rn
C,-)
110
W
V+
N
U
N.►
�O
00
�
r
Z
!
i
U
WABASSO
~ N 6)TOURIST
W
N
LOT ?) s��,¢?ry 3
N
Curve Dato
�
R =
638.19'
0=
2'14 19
L =
24.93
I C. B.
= N 8921 '00" E
N N 710'21" W 0.64=
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
CCOIR:{1
r'U'(;' CA 510
SW Corner Lot 3
PARCEL #1
IR
Scale: 1"=5'
Commence at the Southwest corner of Lot 3 as shown on the Wobasso Tourist Court plat recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 72 of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, and run
N 2'TO'21" W. along the West line of said Lot 3, a distance of 0.64 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, the said point lying in the
arc of a 638.19—foot radius curve, concave to the Northwest. Then run
Along the said curve, whose chord bears N 89'21'00" E. through a central angle of 714'19", an arc distance of 24.93 feet to
a point. Then run
N 6741'42" W, a distance of 27.39 feet to a point lying in the West line of the aforesaid Lot 3. Then run
Along the West line of Lot 3, S 2'10'21" E, a distance of 11.99 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 151.47 square feet_
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
CERTIFlCA110N
I, Charles A. Cramer, hereby certify that I am a registered Professional Surveyor and Mapper licensed to practice in the state
of Florida, that this sketch was mode under my immediate supervision and that it is accurate and correct. I further certify
that this sketch—meets the Minimum Technical standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida Administrative Code,
pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472. PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
S-! ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
Charles A. Cromer, P.S.M. Reg. #4094 1840 25th St, Vero Beach, FL 32960 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Indian River County Surveyor (407) 567-8000 Date 7 ejj!aa� /9 9 G
C q,. 1111 1 l
a
:7
•
N
CT
•
COURT `�
Scale: 1"=20 01' �`
bl
-C' /
S
Curve Data
R = 638.19'
P.0.8.
N ZIO'21" W 0.64' P.O.C. C.R. 510 C.B. = N97706'35" E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SW Corner Lot 3
Commence at the Southwest comer of Lot 3 as shown on the Wobasso Tourist Court plat recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 72 of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, and run
N 710'21" W. along the West line of said Lot 3,. a distance of 0.64 feet to a point lying in the arc of a 638.19—foot radius
curve, concave to the Northwest, whose chord bears N 8252'28" E Then run
Along the curve, through a central angle of 9'12'04", an arc distance of 102.48 feet to a point lying in the said curve,
the POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run
Still along the curve, the chord bearing N 7706'35" E. through a central angle of 704'24", an arc distance of 23.09 feet to
a point of compound curve. Then run
Along a 20—foot radius curve, concave to the Northwest, whose chord bears N 2619'25" E. through a central angle of
101'53'34", an arc distance of 35.57 feet to a point. Then run
S 4707'45' W. a distance of 48.84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 443.34 square feet.
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
CERTIFICATION
I, Charles A. Cromer, hereby certify that I am a registered Professional Surveyor and Mapper licensed to practice in the state
of Florida, that this sketch was made under my immediate supervision: and that it is accurate and correct. I further certify
that this sketch meets the Minimum Technical standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida Administrative Code,
pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472. PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
f ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
"� 0"" L ,,',! THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
Charles A. Cromer, P.S.M. Reg. #4094 1840 25th St. Vero Beach, FL 32960 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Indian River County Surveyor (407) 567-8000 Date
Curve Data
R = 20'
o= 101'5334"
L = 35.57'
C.B. = N 25' 19'25" E
99'1 ! 9,-0, ?,(*; ( t"a
PARC EL If -2
M
X
W
OD
O
3E
m
J
WABASSO TOURIST
Z
Curve Data
O
R = 638.19'
0= 9'12'04"
Q
L = 102.48'
C.B. = N 8r52'2g' E
O
COURT `�
Scale: 1"=20 01' �`
bl
-C' /
S
Curve Data
R = 638.19'
P.0.8.
N ZIO'21" W 0.64' P.O.C. C.R. 510 C.B. = N97706'35" E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION SW Corner Lot 3
Commence at the Southwest comer of Lot 3 as shown on the Wobasso Tourist Court plat recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 72 of
the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida, and run
N 710'21" W. along the West line of said Lot 3,. a distance of 0.64 feet to a point lying in the arc of a 638.19—foot radius
curve, concave to the Northwest, whose chord bears N 8252'28" E Then run
Along the curve, through a central angle of 9'12'04", an arc distance of 102.48 feet to a point lying in the said curve,
the POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run
Still along the curve, the chord bearing N 7706'35" E. through a central angle of 704'24", an arc distance of 23.09 feet to
a point of compound curve. Then run
Along a 20—foot radius curve, concave to the Northwest, whose chord bears N 2619'25" E. through a central angle of
101'53'34", an arc distance of 35.57 feet to a point. Then run
S 4707'45' W. a distance of 48.84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 443.34 square feet.
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
CERTIFICATION
I, Charles A. Cromer, hereby certify that I am a registered Professional Surveyor and Mapper licensed to practice in the state
of Florida, that this sketch was made under my immediate supervision: and that it is accurate and correct. I further certify
that this sketch meets the Minimum Technical standards as described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida Administrative Code,
pursuant to F.S. Chapter 472. PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
f ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
"� 0"" L ,,',! THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
Charles A. Cromer, P.S.M. Reg. #4094 1840 25th St. Vero Beach, FL 32960 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Indian River County Surveyor (407) 567-8000 Date
Curve Data
R = 20'
o= 101'5334"
L = 35.57'
C.B. = N 25' 19'25" E
99'1 ! 9,-0, ?,(*; ( t"a
PARC EL If -2
M
X
W
OD
O
3E
m
J
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-019 - REZONING
APPROXIMATELY 9.55 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -6 (NORTH SIDE
OF 26th STREET, % MILE EAST OF 74TH AVENUE) - FARM CREDIT
OF SOUTH FLORIDA
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board Of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River County,
Florida, will consider the adoption
of a county ordinance rezoning
land within the unincorporated
portions of indian River County.
The subject property is owned by
Farm Credit of South Florida ACA.
A public hearing at which parties
In interest and citizens shall have
an opportunity to be heard, will be
held on Tuesday, August 25, 1998
at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commis-
sion Chambers of. the -County
Administration Building, located at
1840 25th_ Sheet _ Vero Beach,
Florida. The proposed ordinance
to rezone the subject property is
entitled:'
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING ' THE . ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM-
PANYING ZONING MAP FOR +-
9.55 ACRES LOCATED ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF 26TH STREET,
APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF
MILE EAST OF 74TH AVENUE,
FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIS-
TRICT (UP TO 1 UNIT/5 ACRES),
TO RM -6, MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESI-
DENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 6
UNITS/ACRE); ANd PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, tWERABILITY,
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
The rezoning application. may'
be inspected by the public at the
Community Development Depart-
ment located omthe second floor of
the County Administration Building
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida, between the hours
of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on
weekdays. For more information,'
contact John Wachtel at (561)
567-8000, extension 247.
The proposed ordinance may be
Inspected by the public between
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the
office of the Clerk to the Clerk to
the Board of County Commission-
ers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida.
The Board of County Commis-
sioners may adopt another Toning .
district, other than the. district
requbsted, provided that the zon=
Ing district if consistent with the
county's comprehensive plan.
August 25, 1998
mss -JOU R;NAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River Cowity, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the hrhdersfgrhed authority pa�dy appeared Darryl K. tWts who on
oath aays that ha is President of the Press -Journal. a dally newspaper PAbWW at Vero Beach
In Indian Rim County. Flarida: that the attached copy of advertent, being
a
In the matter of
in the CCourt, was pub -
wailed in said newspaper in the Issues of
Attiant fuller says that the said Pres&iaumal is a newspaper Wished at Vero Beach, in
said Indian Rim, County, Florida, conIttrullously published in sold Indian Rhear Cou►dy. F&ki% that the said newspaper
mall matter at the Post Beach, Men%hea been entered has heretofore as
class
d of one year r County, Florida,
prg the Put0a-01 the ttached copy of
adyertiserrhent; and affiant h= says that he has neither paid nor promised any paw• flan
a aoaorrppacraatbrh any discount, rebets. cornmiesion or refund for the purpose of aecxrirhg this
a dvevertiserhrent for publication in said newspaper.
Swog;;o and subscribed befagrthe
'a�.•apA STAC. . _iJG
�rrca � `1oo�s o
t ; o91
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 evi-
dencb upon which the appeal is
based.
Anyone who needs a special
accommodation for this meeting
must contact the county's Ameri-
cans with Disabilities (ADA) Coor-
dinator at (561) 567-8000, exten-
sion 223, at Trost 48 hours in
advance of the meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County
.Commissioners
By:s-John W. Tippin
Chairman
7;'ugust 12, 1998 1409377r
27
_day off D .D.1
A.
teey 0-M
Note blit, State of Florida
My Commission Ext. Jan, 2001
cam. No. GC 611Rt3 /
Personally Known tx Produced ID ❑
Too of 11) predmil --
BOOK 106
na 1,06 FAcE &'?,�
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of August
5, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
C ouuiy Adiniuisiraiur
Dg^RTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
M.
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP " ' It -
Chief, Long -Range lanning
FROM: John Wachte
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: August 5, 1998
RE: Farm Credit of South Florida's request to rezone approximately 9.55 acres from
A-1 to RM -6 (RZON 98-07-0014)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of August 25, 1998.
This request is to rezone approximately 9.55 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5
acres) to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). The subject property is
located on the north side of 26`h Street, approximately half a mile east of 74`h Avenue. The purpose
of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site consistent with its comprehensive
plan land use designation.
On July 23, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to RM -6.
The subject property and adjacent property on the north are zoned A-1 and contain citrus groves.
Land along the subject property's east boundary is zoned RM -6 and has been cleared, except for
several oak trees and sabal (cabbage) palm trees. The Vista Plantation Condominiums, zoned RM -4,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre), are to the south of the subject property,
across 26`h Street. Abutting the Vista Plantation Condominiums on the west is the Village Green
Mobile Home Park. That mobile home park is zoned RMH-8, Mobile Home Residential District (up
to 8 units/acre). Land abutting the subject property on the west is owned and used by the mobile
home park for storage and maintenance, and is also zoned RMH-8.
The subject property and adjacent properties to the east are designated L-2, Low -Density
Residential -2, on the county future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with
densities up to 6 units/acre. Land abutting the subject property on the north is designated L-1, Low -
Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential
August 25, 1998
28
uses with densities up to 3 units/acre. Land to the south and west of the subject property is
designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map. The M-1
designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre.
Being a citrus grove, the subject property is -a disturbed site. The subject property is not designated
as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No
wetlands nor native upland plant communities exist on site. According to Flood Insurance Rating
Maps, the subject property does not contain any flood hazard areas.
The site is within the UrbanService Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site
from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available to the
site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
The property's south boundary abuts 26 h Street. Classified as a collector road on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 26`h Street is a 2 -lane paved road with approximately 60 feet
of existing public road right-of-way. No expansion of this segment of 26`h Street is currently
programmed.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented.
Specifically, this section will include:
• an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan;
• an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and
• an analysis of the request's potential impact on environmental quality.
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is
necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also require that new development be reviewed
to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the
requested zoning. For residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the County's
LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property
and the maximum density under the proposed zoning. The site information used for the concurrency
analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 19.55 acres
August 25, 1998
29
•
BOOK 106 PAGE'..
I
BOOK 106 PACE 625
2. Existing Zoning District: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
3. Proposed Zoning District: RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre)
4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Existing Zoning District: 2 Si - gie-r 4,u;ly u niis
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Zoning District: 57 Single -Family Units
- Transportation
As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Statement
(TIS). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIS. A TIS
reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district, and assigns those trips
to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more
project trips, whichever is less.
According to the approved TIS, the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be
lowered by the traffic generated by development of 57 single-family units on the subject property.
- Water
With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 57 residential units, resulting
in water consumption at a rate of 57 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 14,250 gallons/day.
This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Residential development on the
subject property would be served by the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has
a remaining capacity of approximately 1,800,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional
demand generated by the proposed rezoning.
When the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant begins operating, the subject property will be served
primarily by that plant. Since the North County Plant has capacity for approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day, that plant also can accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed
zoning
- Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the property
will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 57 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or
14,250 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day.
County wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment
Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 139,000 gallons/day and can
accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The
county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/year. With
the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a 57 unit residential development would be
anticipated to house approximately 131 people (2.3 X 57). For the subject request to meet the
county's adopted level of service standard of 1.97 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must have
enough capacity to accommodate approximately 258 (131 X 1.97) cubic yards/year.
August 25) 1998
30
C:
•
•
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 830,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 1 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff
determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed zoning district.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require
on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
Management Ordinance. Since the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian
River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited
from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the
approved IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property
does not he within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply.
With the most intense use of this site under the proposed zoning district, the maximum area of
impervious surface would be approximately 249,599 square feet, or 5.73 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm,
and given the IRFWCD two inch discharge requirement, would be approximately 274,570 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain
approximately 205,225 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject
property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 31.17 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard would be met by limiting off-site
discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and
requiring retention of 205,225 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most
intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district indicates
that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional
park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus
acreage.
Park Information
LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population)
Project Demand (Acres)
Surplus Acreage
4.0
0.5244
838.5
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district.
Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan.
Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future
August 25, 1998
31
t6 6-Y 106 Fl{ "E t' J"
BOOK 106 PAGE 0`2 7
Land Use Map; which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes
throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of actioii committed to by -die county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, land use
designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition, Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service
area.
Since the subject property is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's future land use
plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district
would permit residential uses no greater than the 6 units/acre permitted by the L-2 designation, the
proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2
Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the county shall encourage and direct growth into
the urban service area through zoning and LDRs. Since the proposed rezoning would allow and
encourage more development on the subject property, and the subject property is within the urban
service area, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4
Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that the county will reduce the number and length of
trips on county roads. The site is located near several employment centers, including the Vero Beach
Municipal Airport, Dodgertown, the SR 60/1-95 commercial/industrial node, and the SR 60/58th
Avenue commercial/industrial node. Those nodes are two of the county's largest employment
centers. Most people who work in those nodes live in moderately -priced, low to medium density
housing. The RM -6 zoning district is intended for such uses. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will
increase the opportunity for people who work in those nodes to live near their job, thus reducing the
length of their trips to and from work. For this reason, the request implements Future Land Use
Element Objective 4.
- Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1
Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1 state that the county will increase densities in
the urbanized area and along major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass transit
provision. Since the proposed rezoning will increase the allowed density along and near several
major transportation corridors, this request implements Transportation Element Objective 11 and
Policy 11.1.
As part of its consistency analysis, staff.compared the proposed request to all the objectives and
policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, staffs position is that the request is consistent
with the comprehensive plan.
August 25, 1998
32
Staff s position is that multiple -family residential development is appropriate for the site and that
such development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Because adjacent land to the
east of the subject property is zoned RM -6, the request is for a continuation of an existing zoning
pattern. In fact, multiple -family and mobile home development are already prominent in this area
of the county. Located near the SIR 60/53" Avenue commercial industrial node, the subject property
is particularly well suited to meet the demand for multiple -family housing generated by development
within that node. In effect, the proposed rezoning would increase the opportunity for people to live
near their place of employment.
Development of the subject property would be expected to have little or no impact on the Vista
Plantation Condominiums to the south. That project, zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 4 units/acre), contains a vegetative buffer, golf course and ponds along its north
boundary, which is 26" Street.
Similarly, incompatibilities between the subject property and adjacent A-1 zoned land to the north
are not anticipated. The land north of the subject property is designated L-1 and is expected to be
eventually converted to residential uses. Regardless of the adjacent use, county regulations require
that multiple -family residential buildings maintain a rear yard setback of at least 25 feet. At 9.55
acres in size and nearly a quarter mile in length, the subject property has sufficient dimensions to
accommodate larger setbacks and buffers if desired by a developer.
Additional county regulations apply to subdivision and planned development projects located within
the urban service area and proposing new residential lots adjacent to active agricultural operations.
In that situation, the residential project, at a minimum, must provide a 25 foot wide setback with a
type B vegetative buffer and a six foot high opaque feature.
With respect to zoning, the county's policy has always been to retain agricultural zoning on property
rather than changing it when the underlying land use designation increases. This not only reflects
the county's policy of using agricultural zoning as a "holding" category, but also recognizes that
urbanization occurs incrementally with various tracts remaining agricultural for longer periods.
Two factors, however, indicate that urban type zoning districts would be appropriate for this portion
of the county. The first factor is the underlying designation on the future land use map. This area
is within the urban service area and is deemed appropriate for residential development with densities
of up to 6 units/acre.
Equally important is the development pattern in that portion of the county. Located near two C/I
nodes, a regional mall, Dodgertown, and Vero Beach Municipal Airport, the site is within one of the
fastest growing areas of the county. Additionally, that area has convenient access to the county's
transportation system. These factors indicate a trend toward continued urbanization in that portion
of the county.
For these reasons, staff feels that the requested RM -6 zoning would be compatible with development
in the surrounding area.
The environmental impacts of development on the subject property are not a major concern. Being
a citrus grove, the site is disturbed and contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands
or sensitive uplands. For those reasons, no adverse environmental impacts associated with this
request are anticipated.
August 25, 1998
33
:100K 106PAGE O92
BOOK 106 FAGE 04,
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested zoning district is compatible with
surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will
have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. Most
importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for low-density multiple -family
residciitial uses. r ui these reasons, staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that
the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from A-1
to RM -6.
1. Rezoning Application
2. Location Map
3. Approved minutes of the July 23, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
4. Rezoning Ordinance
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Bruce Barkett, attorney for the applicant, was in agreement with what had been said
by Director Keating and staff. He was available to answer questions, if any.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 98-019 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the
accompanying Zoning Map from A-1 to RM -6, for property
located on the north side of 26' Street, approximately 1/z mile
east of 74' Avenue.
Commissioner Ginn reiterated her continued concern about the transition from
residential to agricultural and lack of greater buffering around agricultural properties.
Commissioner Adams agreed.
August 25, 1998
34
0
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 19
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO RM -6, FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 26TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY ONE
HALF MILE EAST OF 74TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on
such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this
rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did
publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this
rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
THE WEST 10 ACRES OF TRACT 15, SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE
39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN
RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDMSION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE
25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS NOW
LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT
THE SOUTH 60 FEET FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Be changed from A -Ito RM -6.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development
Regulations.
August 25, 1998
35
BOOK 106 W, 6"56
BOOKiOG PACE .
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 19
This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on
this 25`h day of August, 1998.
This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 121h day of August, 1998 for a public
hearing to be held on the 25' day of August, 1998 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner A d a m s '
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin A yam_
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A v e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn AQP
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert �Te
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ATTEST BY: 1:?__K11 . 3��t�
Jeffrey K. artgarGWk
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
u\v\j\rz\farm\rzonord.ord
August 25, 1998
InAm Rive Ca
Approved 081e
Admin
C p
Legal
—p "
Budget
Dept.
Rlak Mgr.
36
0
9.A.2.PUBLIC HEARING - ORCHID PLACE. LTD. - REQUEST TO
REZONE APPROXIMATELY 11.2 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RM -6 AND
APPROXIMATELY 37.7 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -6 (BEAZER
HOMES FLORIDA, INC.)
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority ply appeared Darryl K. tacks who on
oath says that he is President of the Presa,loumal. a daily nawapapor pubtiathed at Vero Beach
In Indian River County, Flada; that the attached Copy of edverUaem nt, being
a
in the matter of
in" Court, was pub•
din said newispaper in the issues of _l _ eJ '"12L /9�r-174L —
Affiant further says that the said Press faunal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beads, in
said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said rpap� has heretofore been
cantkumu>sy publehned In sad Indian Rim Canty. Florida. a tasty and h� been entered as
seaxd clans map matter at the past ottice in Vero Beach, in seld Indian River County, Florida,
for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he hes neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commnissbm or refuel for the purpose of seaming this
�t for publication in said newspaper.
beforewo@ 4A
•'`OaDA sT ..0 % K
:3•Ir•���7d�{•7;11:[
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
will consider the adoption of a county ordinance rezoning land within
the unincorporated portions of Indian River County. The subject property
is owned by Orchid Place, LTD. A public hearing at which parties in
interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held
on Tuesday, August 25, 1998 at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida. The proposed ordinance to rezone the
subject properties is entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING
MAP FOR +.48.9 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN THE EXISTING ISLAND
CLUB SUBD)VISIOM-AND T,11!INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, FROM +-
48.9 ACRES OF A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (UP TO 1 UNIT/5
ACRES), TO +•11.2 ACRES OF RM -6, MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE),AND +.37.7 ACRES OF RS -6,
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE), AND
PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
The rezoning application may be inspected by the public at the
Community Development Department located on the second floor of the
County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. an weekdays. For
L W cit I at 561 567 8000 .tension
August 25, 1998
37
BOOK 10 6 PA"'E u� ,312"
more information, contact Jo n a eal
•V
5t°sEftt�s i* '
a� o
247.
The proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public between
qtr °cieoovt
*
�yA�9• , g •
Notary c, State of Florida
2001
8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the office of the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
My Commission Exp. Jan. gis
Comm. No.
The Board of County Commissioners may adopt another zoning dis-
99y • Qa��, •`•
'• �gLIC,P••'
parsonaliy Known or Produced ID 13
nic, other than the district requested, provided that the district is consis-
``•+,..... ••
Type d ID Produasd
tent with the county's comprehensive plan.
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 proceed-
ings is made, which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must
contact the coutdy's Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Coordinator at
(561) 567-8000, extension 223, at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By--s-John W. Tippin, Chairman
August 12, 1998 1409592r
August 25, 1998
37
BOOK 10 6 PA"'E u� ,312"
rr 9'� ';;
BOOK 10 PACE'k���'
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 1721998:
TO: James E. Chandler
Couuiy Adminisiraior
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
M. Keating,
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel(/
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: August 17,1998
RE: ORCHID PLACE, LTD'S REQUEST TO REZONE ±11.2 ACRES FROM A-1
TO RM -6 AND ±37.7 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -6 (RZON 98-06-0002)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of August 25, 1998.
This is a request to rezone ±48.9 acres located on the north barrier island, between the existing Island
Club Subdivision and the Indian River Lagoon. The entire ±48.9 acre subject property is currently
zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). As depicted on Attachment 2, the request
involves rezoning ±37.7 acres to RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) and
±11.2 acres to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
Generally, the portion of the site proposed to be rezoned to RM -6 is located on the western one-third
of the site. More specifically, the area proposed for RM -6 zoning is setback 100 feet from the
subject property's southern boundary and 25 feet from the subject property's northern boundary.
Additionally, the area proposed for RM -6 zoning is setback 80 feet from Jungle Trail.
The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary zoning to expand the existing Island Club
subdivision with single- and multiple -family uses.
On July 23, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners rezone the entire subject property to RS -6. Thus, the portion of the
request involving rezoning ±11.2 acres to RM -6 failed. Consistent with county land development
regulations, rezoning requests are forwarded to the Board only when the request receives a favorable
recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission or when the applicant files an appeal
within 15 days. In this case, the applicant filed the rezoning appeal within the necessary time period.
Zoned A-1, the subject property consists primarily of citrus groves. The exception is the western
portion of the site, along the edge of the Indian River Lagoon. That part of the subject property
contains a portion of Jungle Trail, a county designated Scenic and Historic Road. In this area, most
August 25, 1998
0
of Jungle Trail is bounded on both sides by environmentally sensitive and environmentally important
habitat such as mangroves, estuarine wetlands, and tropical hammock.
A-1 zoned citrus groves abut the subject property's north boundary. Those groves extend as much
as 500 feet from the subject property. North of those groves, land is zoned RM -6 and contains 1 or
2 single-family houses, the four unit Jungle Cove apartment complex, and more than 100 acres of
environmentally important ttupical mariudme hammock.
Most of the land containing the tropical hammock was purchased jointly by the state and the county
for conservation purposes. Funds for the county's portion of the purchase came from its
Environmental Lands Acquisition Program, while state funds came from the state Conservation and
Recreation Lands (CARL) program. Although that land was referred to as the Cairns Tract at the
time it was purchased, it is now known as the Jungle Trail Conservation Area. In the future, the
county plans to rezone the Jungle Trail Conservation Area to Con -1, Public Lands Conservation
District (zero density).
North of the Jungle Trail Conservation Area are several residential developments with both single -
and multiple -family units. Those developments and all land north to CR 510 are zoned RM -6.
Land abutting the subject property on the south is within the boundaries of the Town of Indian River
Shores. That land is zoned RIA, Single -Family Residential (up to 2.5 units/acre) and contains the
Marbrisa subdivision of single -fancily residences. The RS -6 zoned Island Club subdivision of
single-family residences abuts the subject property on the east, and the Indian River Lagoon abuts
the subject property on the west.
The subject property and adjacent properties to the north and east are designated L-2, Low -Density
Residential -2, on the county future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with
densities up to 6 units/acre.
The Jungle Trail Conservation Area is designated C-1, Publicly Owned or Controlled Conservation -
1 (zero density), on the county future.land use map. The C-1 designation permits conservation and
recreational uses.
South of the subject property, land is designated Low Density Residential, LD, on the Town of
Indian River Shores' future land use map. The LD designation permits residential uses with
densities up to 3 units/acre.
Being a citrus grove, most of the site is disturbed and has no environmental significance. The
western portion of the site, however, contains environmentally sensitive and environmentally
important habitat such as mangroves, estuarine wetlands, and tropical hammock. The subject
property is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement
ranging from seven to nine feet NGVD.
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater collection lines extend to the
subject property from the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Although the site is located
within the North County Water Service Area, water lines from the South County Reverse Osmosis
Plant extend to the site. When the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which is currently
undergoing final testing, becomes operational, the site will be served primarily by that plant.
August 25, 1998
39
BOOK 106
BOOK 106 PAGE' '3
The subject property can be accessed from SR AIA, via the existing Island Club subdivision.
Although the site is adjacent to Jungle Trail, automobile access to the site from Jungle Trail is
prohibited. SR AlA is a two-lane road with approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way.
The segment of SR AlA that would serve the subject property is classified as an urban minor arterial
road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map and is programmed for expansion to 120 feet of
public road right-of-way by 2020.
Jungle Trail is a two-lane, unpaved, local road that has been designated by the county as an historic
and scenic road with special building setbacks and vegetation protection areas along its entire length.
Although the county has a forty foot wide public road right-of-way for this segment of Jungle Trail,
the actual width of the traveled way ranges from eight feet to twenty-two feet.
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the request will be presented. Specifically, this
section will include:
• an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities;
• an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area;
• an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; and
• an analysis of the request's potential impact on environmental quality.
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale
development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is
necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulations also require that new development be reviewed to ensure
that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it
is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based on the most intense use of the subject property based on the
requested zoning district.
The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±48.9 acres
2. Existing Zoning District: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
3. Proposed Zoning District: RS4, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 uints/
acres) for ±37.7 acres and RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) for ±11.2 acres
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing
Zoning District: 9 single-family units
August 25, 1998
W
•
•
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed
Zoning District: 293 single-family units
- Transportation
As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submiaed a Traffic impact Anaiysis
(TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. A TIA
reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district, and assigns those trips
to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more
project trips, whichever is less.
According to the approved TIA, the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be
lowered by the traffic generated by development of 293 single-family units on the subject property.
- Water
Centralized potable water service is available to the subject property from the South County Reverse
Osmosis Plant. With the most intense use allowed under the proposed rezoning, the subject property
will have a water consumption rate of 293 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 73,250
gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Since the South
County Reverse Osmosis Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 1,800,000
gallons/day, the plant can accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed zoning.
When the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant is operating, the subject property will be served
primarily by that plant. Since the North County Plant has capacity for approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day, that plant also can accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed
zoning.
- Wastewater
Centralized wastewater service is available to the subject property from the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant. If a 293 unit residential project on the site connected to the regional
sewer system, that project would have a wastewater generation rate of 293 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 73,250 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service standard of 250
gallons/ERU/day. Since the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 816,000 gallons/day, the plant can accommodate the additional demand
generated by the proposed zoning.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The
county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/year. With
the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a 293 unit residential development would
be anticipated to house approximately 674 people (2.3 X 293). For the subject request to meet the
county's adopted level of service standard of 1.97 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must have
enough capacity to accommodate approximately 1,328 (674 X 1.97) cubic yards/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 830,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 1 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff
determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed zoning district.
August 25, 1998
41
BOOK '106 PAGE 63
BOOK MG PAGE 037
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require
on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
Management Ordinance. Any development on the subject property will be prohibited from
discharging any runoff in excess of the pre-ueveioprueut gate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard applies, since the property lies
within an AE flood zone, as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Flood
Insurance Rate Map. Consistent with Stormwater Management Sub -Element Policy 1.2 and section
930.07(2) of the county's LDRs, any new buildings constructed within an AE flood zone "must be
elevated a minimum of six inches above the base flood level." Since the subject property lies within
Flood Zone AE -9, any development on this property must have a minimum finished floor elevation
of no less than 9.5 feet above mean sea level.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and discharge standards also apply
to this request. With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface under
the proposed zoning classifications will be approximately 1,278,050 square feet, or 29.34 acres. The
estimated runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design
storm, will be approximately 1,405,912 cubic feet. In order. to maintain the county's adopted level
of service, the applicant will be required to retain approximately 344,275 cubic feet of runoff on-site.
With the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff
rate is 230.41 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level of service standards will be met by limiting off-site
discharge to its pre -development rate of 230.41 cubic feet/second, requiring retention of 344,275
cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property, and requiring that all finished floor
elevations exceed 9.5 feet above mean sea level.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval
process.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most
intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning classification
indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the
additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing
surplus acreage.
Park Information
LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population)
Project Demand (Acres)
Surplus Acreage
4.0
2.70
838.5
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities,
including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district.
Therefore, the concurrency test has been .satisfied for the subject request.
Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan.
Rezoning requests must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on
August 25, 1998
42
0 0
the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and
commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are
located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies
are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action wtunutted to by the county, policies provide the
basis for all county land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are
important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular
applicability for this request are Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that the L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, land use
designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to six units/acre. In addition, that policy
states that those residential uses must be located within an existing or future urban service area.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 specifically allows both single- and multiple -family residential
development with densities up to six units/acre within the L-2 land use category.
Because the subject property is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's future land
use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning districts
would permit residential uses no denser than six units/acre, the proposed request is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12.
While Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12 are particularly applicable to this request,
other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff
evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that
analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
For the subject property, environmental issues focus on the site's western portion, an area bisected
by Jungle Trail. The rest of the site, being a citrus grove, has been disturbed and is not
environmentally significant. The Jungle Trail area, however, contains mangroves, estuarine
wetlands, and tropical hammock upland habitat. The County's adopted Jungle Trail Management
Plan provides some protection to those habitats. That plan established a thirty foot wide protected
area on both sides of Jungle Trail. Within that protected area, activities that may disturb plants or
animals are severely restricted.
Beyond the protected area, mangrove and wetland protection regulations are the same for both the
agricultural and the residential zoning districts. Within residential zoning districts, however, there
are more likely to be requests to build docks or marinas. Such docks or marinas would have to meet
all applicable county, state, and federal permitting requirements.
In contrast to mangrove and wetland regulations, protection of the tropical hammock habitat differs
between the agricultural and residential zoning districts. While residential development is subject
to the county's 10-15% native upland plant community preservation requirement, agricultural uses
are exempt from that requirement. For these reasons, no significant adverse environmental impacts
associated with this request are anticipated.
Although currently zoned and used for agriculture, the subject property is anticipated to eventually
be converted to residential uses. That fact is reflected in the subject property's residential future land
use designation. Staff's position is that developing the entire site with single-family uses would
August 25, 1998
43
'gyp`
BOOK �O PAGES
BOOK 10PAGED
ensure that potential incompatibilities are minimized. Since the established development pattern of
the area surrounding the subject property is single-family and since single-family is the exclusive
use of the area south of the Jungle Trail Conservation Area to Old Winter Beach Road and west of
SR AIA, except for the Baytree condominiums adjacent to SR AIA, the RS -6, single-family, zoning
district would be more consistent with the existing development pattern in the area than the proposed
RM -6 zoning.
While single-family and multiple -family are different uses, they are within the overall residential use
category. Generally, multiple -family buildings are taller and bulkier, and concentrate activities (such
as parking and recreation) to a greater degree than single-family buildings. These differences,
however, are not as significant as those between residential and commercial. In fact, multiple -family
is often a transitional use, providing a buffer between more intense commercial uses or heavily
traveled roadways and adjacent single-family areas.
When well designed, multiple -family and single-family uses can complement each other and provide
a diversity of residential options for the community. Through the Planned Development (PD)
process, multiple -family uses can be compatibly integrated with single-family uses within a
residential development project. In this case, staff encouraged the applicant to use the planned
development option for the development of the subject property.
The PD process requires the applicant to submit a binding conceptual plan which limits uses and sets
forth specific development standards on the site. Those standards can include landscaping, buffers,
lot size, building design, and others. Thus, the PD process allows the creation of a unique PD zoning
district to be developed specifically for each site. Through the use of the PD process, the county can
review actual site design standards, and therefore better ensure compatibility among different uses.
Because single-family areas are easily impacted, this is particularly important where single-family
areas abut other uses.
By placing the RM-6/RS-6 zoning district boundary 80 feet east of Jungle Trail and 100 feet north
of the subject property's south boundary, the applicant has only partially addressed, not eliminated,
the compatibility issues raised in this section. Those issues could be better addressed through the PD
process. The applicant, however, has chosen not to take advantage of that option at this time.
Therefore, based on the analysis of the existing development pattern surrounding the subject
property, the proposed rezoning, as structured, appears to be incompatible with surrounding areas.
With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has the following three
alternatives:
1. rezone the subject property from A-1 to RS -6 and RM -6 as requested by the applicant. Staff
does not support this alternative;
2. deny the request and let the subject property remain zoned A-1. This alternative is not
consistent with the subject property's residential future land use map designation. Staff does
not support this alternative; or
3. rezone the entire subject property from A-1 to RS -6. Staff supports this alternative.
Residential zoning on the subject property is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all
concurrency criteria, and will have no negative impacts on environmental quality. The development
pattern in this area of the county, however, indicates that only single-family zoning on the entire site
can ensure compatibility with the surrounding areas. For these reasons, staff supports Alternative
3.
August 25, 1998
MI
I
•
•
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve Alternative 3 and rezone the entire subject property to RS -6 by
adopting the attached rezoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Rezoning Application
2. Location Map
3. Approved minutes of the July 23, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
4. Rezoning Ordinance
Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins ll explained this is an appeal of the
denial of a multi -family rezoning request. The property is currently zoned agricultural and
when it went before the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC), the applicant requested
a combination of single family and multi -family zoning. Based on staff's recommendation
and input at the public hearing, the PZC approved the rezoning to RS -6, but denied the multi-
family request. From that denial, the applicant has taken an appeal to the County
Commission with respect to the multi -family zoning. The attorney for the applicant has
requested that this hearing be continued to September 1' because one of the parties he
wished to testify was not able to be present. Since it is his appeal, Attorney Collins thought
he had the right to a continuance, but because it had been advertised as a public hearing
today, he believed it would be advisable to open the public hearing, hear comment from
anyone that would not be able to attend the continued hearing next week, but leave the main
body of the discussion and the analysis to next week's hearing. He suggested that after the
hearing is opened, the matter be continued to next week at 9:05 a.m., so the hearing would
not have to be re -advertised.
Chairman Tippin understood and agreed with Attorney Collins that it was the right
thing to do. He read the title of the ordinance into the record.
Commissioner Eggert understood they would not be hearing stafr s presentation and
analysis at the meeting, but that would be heard next week.
Attorney Collins confirmed her understanding adding that he felt it would be more
appropriate to hear everything next week other than anyone who wished to speak at this
meeting.
August 25, 1998
45
BOOK AG PAGE 6401
BOOK 106 FAGUE 64" i
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Ralph Evans, attorney for the applicant, requested a continuance of the public
hearing to next week (September 11) because the property owner was not available for this
meeting.
Anne Anderson, 945 Island Club Place, read the following letter of support which
had been signed by 38 year-round residents in the Island Club.
From Homeowners
The ISLAND CLUB
Vero Beach, Florida
Item It —
sy
Deputy Ci�:rk
To County Commissioners:
Please be advised that we the undersigned homeowners in The
Island Club community have reviewed the zoning request that
is being presented to you by Orchid Place, Ltd. We support
this request as proposed. We are pleased that the plan
provides us with an additional setback from Jungle Trail which
will protect and preserve the integrity of the Trail. We see no
problem with the RM -6 zoning being against the RS -6 zoning,
as is done in other communities.
Signed:
August 25, 1998
�v gy�S- JJA.A U.4
Ih
L; KA -1 'TW L�(" &a P44M
Ccj, f 6 160'15N04 -)'L c1'k.6 Aare
z . foo? (ltLb Drive-
. 'W11 �� c 1 ,I
��►�_ i �� it
M
0
(CLERK'S NOTE: The above letter with all signatures is on file
with the backup in the office of the Clerk to the Board.)
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously continued the
public hearing to the September 1, 1998 meeting at 9:05 a.m., as
requested by the Applicant.
11.A. I-95/OSLO ROAD INTERCHANGE JUSTIFICATION
REPORT PROJECT CONTRACT - REYNOLDS. SMITH AND HILLS,
INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 13, 1998:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP A01'
Community Development Director
FROM: Jacob Riger ?R
MPO Staff Planner
DATE: August 13, 1998
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONSULTANT CONTRACT FOR I-95/OSLO ROAD
INTERCHANGE JUSTIFICATION REPORT PROJECT
It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of August 18, 1998.
At its February 10, 1998 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved the execution of
a Joint Participation Agreement with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to fund the
preparation of an Interchange Justification Report (UR) for a proposed interchange at I-95 and Oslo
Road. Subsequently, staff initiated the process of selecting a consultant to prepare the IJR. At its
July 7, 1998 meeting, the Board approved the consultant selection committee's rankings of the
proposals received for this project.
Since then, staff has successfully negotiated a contract with the top-ranked firm, Reynolds, Smith
and Hills, Inc. (RSH), of Jacksonville. The proposed contract is attached to this staff report
ttachment 1 The contract, which commits the consultant to complete the project in 18 months,
August 25, 1998
47
•
BOOK 106 prE U47
BOOK I� FACE'A3
k
is in the total amount of $69,963.28, which is less than the total JPA amount of $7"000 that the
BCC has received for this project from FDOT. The total labor hours budgeted for the project by the
consultant are 1174.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed contract between
the BCC and RSH for the preparation of an Interchange Justification Report for I-95 and Oslo Road.
Staff further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the BCC Chairman
to execute the contract upon approval.
1. Proposed contract between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and
Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. for the I-95/Oslo Road Interchange Justification Report
Project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
proposed contract with Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. for the
preparation of an Interchange Justification Report for I-95 and
Oslo Road and authorized the Chairman to execute the contract,
as recommended in the Memorandum.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.H.1. DEDICATION OF ABANDONED SUPPLY WELLS AS ST.
JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MONITORING
WELLS
' The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 3, 1998:
DATE: AUGUST 3,1998
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. f'
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHIUSS, P.E. � 9
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTII.TfY SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEDICATION OF COUNTY ABANDONED SUPPLY WELLS AS ST.
JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT MONITORING
WELLS
August 25, 1998
48
:7
•
BACKGROUND
On January 20, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved a contract w::h St. Johns
River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to share in the cost of plugging three utility supply
wells at the North Beach R.O. Plant (see attached agenda item and minutes). One of the wells is
in the process of being plugged. SJRWMD is now requesting the County to dedicate the other
two wells for monitoring groundwater conditions on the barrier island (see attached letter from
William L. Osburn dated April 6, 1998). The Department of Utility Services requests that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached agreement with SJRWMD to utilize wells
for monitoring.
ANALYSIS
The original well plugging agreement allocated $9,000.00 of SJRWMD fimding with a County
expense of $27.000.00 for a total funding of $36,000.00 to plug three of the County's abandoned
water supply wells for fiscal year 1997-1998. As stated in the above -referenced letter from
William L Osborn, dedication of the wells to SJRWMD will relieve the Utilities Department
from the expense of plugging two of the wells in the future. This will result in the County saving
an estimated $18,000.00.
RECONA�IEENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute some, as
presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
license agreement with St. Johns River Water Management
District and authorized the Chairman to sign same, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED LICENSE AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.H.2. SEA OAKS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
TEMPORARY RESTART
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 14, 1998:
DATE:
AUGUST 14, 1998
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. \ 1
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SI!:R'�I'C S
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN, P.E.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
BY:
SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY/SEA OAKS WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY STATUS -
August 25, 1998
G .�
KOK 10 Fr F
I
MOK 106 PAGE o"4
BACKGROUND
In July 1997, construction was completed on a wastewater transmission main
to allow the Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Facility to be taken out of service.
In January 1998, a connection between the North County and the Central
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facilities was completed. The County is
currently in the process of expanding the Central Regional Wastewater
Treatment Facility. The connection between the two facilities was constructed
to allow excess flow from North County, which now receives flow from the
barrier island to be transferred to the Central Regional Facility, deferring the
expansion of the North County Facility to approximately the year 2005.
Increasing flow on the barrier island and in the North County service area has
created a potential deficiency in capacity and delays in the construction of the
Central Regional expansion has delayed the transfer of excess flow as planned.
ANALYSIS
Staff has evaluated two altematives to help solve the capacity issue. The
following alternatives are being considered:
1. Temporarily restart the Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Facility for use as
necessary. The estimated recommissioning costs are approximately $6,000,
plus a permit fee of $3,000 for a total cost of $9,000.
2. Construct an additional clarifier at the North County Facility. The
estimated costs are $600,000 - $800,000.
Staff has concluded that to accommodate the upcoming season, Option No. 1 is
the most expeditious alternative. Additional evaluation will be performed by
staff in an ongoing manner to determine if the Sea Oaks restart will provide the
needed interim capacity. The Sea Oaks Homeowners Association and
management have been involved in the evaluation process and have no
objection to the restart of the facility on a temporary basis. The Sea Oaks
community will receive benefit of a reinstated reuse supply, reducing reliance
on onsite water resources.
The additional months of Sea Oaks operation
dedicated to this capacity relief measure. It is
those budgeted will be brought to the Board
approval.
RECOMMENDATION
may result in operational costs
expected that any costs above
of County Commissioners for
The staff of the Department of Utility Services asks that the Board of County
Commissioners concur with the Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Facility start-
up as presented and requests authorization to expend limited budgeted funds
to achieve this objective.
August 25, 1998
50
•
0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously concurred with
the Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Facility start-up as
presented and authorized expending limited budgeted funds to
achieve the objective, as recommended in the Memorandum.
Commissioner Eggert understood that the start-up would take about 7 days if and
when needed, and Utilities Department Director Don Hubbs confirmed that it would take
between 5 and 7 days.
Commissioner Ginn commented that Director Hubbs had worked out a very nice
agreement with the people at Sea Oaks and they were very pleased.
11.H.3. SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
EXPANSION TO 2.0 MGD - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - CAMP,
DRESSER & McKEE, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 18, 1998:
DATE: AUGUST 18. 1998
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS. P:E
DIRECTOR OF UTfLIT Ct§
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN. P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERP
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT- EXPANSION
TO 2.0 MGD - CHANGE ORDER NO.1,3
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -90 -20 -DC
BACKGROUND
On November 25. 1997, the Board of County Commissioners approved Change Order No. 2..
adjusting the contract original amount to $5,771.813.00. (See attached agenda item. dated October
30. 1997). We now wish to bring Change Order No. 3, a mid -point reconciliation change order to the
Board for approval.
August 25, 1998,
51
i 4
BOOK106 PAGE
ANALYSIS
The project is 53% complete. The accumulated field orders during the past ten months of
construction have been reconciled and are presented in Change Order No. 3. The change order was
recommended by staff in an effort to minimize the engineering consultant's fee. The agreement with
the engineer limits the project to three no -cost change orders.
Change Order No. 3 consists of ten items which are mostly small field items with little change to the
cost of the project. (See attached Change Order No. 3.) The following items are ofmost significance:
Item No. 2. The reduction in a project computer requirement. Staff has re-evaluated the computer
needs and requirements for the project. The evaluation resulted in a reduction of computer equipment.
The credit to the County is $22.323.00.
Item No. 5. Air compressor enclosure modifications. This item allows for better operator access to
service and utilize the compressor. The additional cost submitted is $12,661.41.
Item No. 6. Change effluent flow meter configuration and size. This item was due to a conflict with
an existing 30" effluent line. The as -built drawings had inaccurate elevations requiring a
reconfiguration of the pipe and meter. The proposed additional cost for this item. is $26.847.86.
Item No. 10. Offsite wetland mitigation at the wetland in Sebastian. This issue was approved by the
Board on June 17, 1997 (See attached agenda item). The contractor sought quotes from six
subcontractors with only one (Ecotech Consultants, Inc.) submitting a formal proposal. The costs
associated with the proposed work was negotiated and recently accepted by the Department of Utility
Services and Community Development. The Community Development Department has an interest in
this mitigation project since the wetland is under their management. The cost for the wetland
mitigation is $82.700.00. As a result of a three-year DEP performance requirement on the wetland,
the South County Wastewater Treatment Plant Contractor, Wharton -Smith, will transfer the
maintenance aspect of the Ecotech contract to the County to avoid any retainage upon completion of
the construction.
Item No. 9. Credit for removal of alternate bid Item No. 1 for chlorine scrubber system. Staff
recently decided, after long and careful consideration. that it would be in the best interest of the
Department to remove alternate bid Item No. 1, the chlorine scrubber system, and proposed to
investigate the utilization of chlorine generation on-site as a replacement. The staff considered the
chlorine generation system, because it would eliminate the risk of handling hazardous materials on-site.
The credit to the County is $160,000.00. Upon conclusion of our investigation, the staff will bring
back a substitute recommendation to the Board for approvaL.
Change Order No. 3 reflects a decrease in the original contract amount of $58.193.47, adjusting the
contract amount with Wharton -Smith to $5.713.619.53.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $58,193.47 resulting in a new contract amount of
$5.713.619.53. as presented above.
August 25, 1998
52
•
0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Change
Order No. 3 to the contract with Camp Dresser & McKee, in the
amount of $58,193.471 resulting in a new contract amount of
$5,713,619.53, as recommended in the Memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MHA CENTRAL REGION WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY CONSTRUCTION OF NON -SPEC EFFLUENT LINE -
DRIVEWAYS. INC. AND U.S. FILTER/DAVIS - FINAL PAYMENT
AND CHANGE ORDER
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 6, 198:
DATE: AUGUST 6, 1998
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: D011ALD R. HUBBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERC S
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E. (1 �1
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINES
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CENTRAL REGION WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
CONSTRUCTION OF NON -SPEC EFFLUENT LINE
LABOR CONTRACT NO. 4007. AUTHORIZATION NO. 51
FINAL PAYMENT AND CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -95 -23 -DC
WIP NO. 475-000-169-244.00
BACKGROUND
On April 21, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
utilization of the Labor Contract in the amount of $9,310.70 to construct a
non -spec effluent line to the Bent Pine Ponds Cell No. 1. The material was
purchased directly from U.S. Filter/Davis, a County supplier (Bid No. 6010), in
the amount of $35,939.47.
ANALYSIS
Due to a misunderstanding of the construction plans, the labor contractor
overlooked some items in the construction drawing, which resulted in a
shortage in his preliminary estimate. The oversight was in the area where
there was an interconnection of pipe with the existing force main, which is
reflected in the amount of fittings and restrainers for adjustment. The actual
location of the existing pipe was also different than was shown on the as -built
August 25, 1998
53
Boor. 10
BOOK JOG PAGE64
drawing. The pipe was located under overgrown Brazilian Peppers along the
edge of the ditch requiring some additional clearing during construction. The
existing pipe is also deeper than expected resulting in additional cubic yards of
material and exploratory excavation time. (See attached spreadsheet.) Lastly,
the seed and mulch for rights-of-way stabilization was not estimated in the
preliminary cost. The originally suspected location of the pipe was in an area
where seed and mulch was not required, since ground cover would grow back
naturally. However, the actual pipe location was in an area where erosion
could easily take place so seed and mulch was placed to prevent erosion. The
total additional labor cost is $4,076.00 and adjusts the total contract amount
to $13,386.70.
The preliminary estimated cost for material was inadequate. The adjustment in
material costs is $6,667.37. As stated earlier, the existing pipe was found four
to five feet deeper than suspected, requiring adjustment for valve accessibility.
Two options for correction were considered:
a. Build a seven foot high, 10 -foot by 10 -foot concrete vault at an estimated
cost of over $10,000.00, including material and labor, or
b. Extend the stems of the valves at a cost of $1,945.00, including installation.
The adjustment of valve stems is the more economical approach.
In summary,
Labor Material
Original amount $ 9,310.70 $ 35,939.47
Additional/ adjustment 4,076.00 8,612.37 +
New Contract Amount $13,386.70 $ 44,551.84
Amount paid to date 7,096.23 35,939.47
Balance to date $ 6,290.47 $ 8,612.37
This figure includes the material adjustment cost in the amount of
$6,667.37 and valve adjustment material and installation in the amount of
$1,945.00.
The labor contract portion is complete. The material portion is not complete.
The County will compensate the material supplier upon completion of the
installation of the valve stems. This will be done by the material vendor in the
amount of $1,945.00, which is included in the $8,612.37 cost.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends the Board of County
Commissioners approve the following:
1. An adjustment in the labor contract in the amount of $4,076.00 to
Driveways, Inc., which adjusts the final contract amount to $13,386.70.
2. Final payment to labor contractor, Driveways, Inc., in the amount of
$6,290.47 for services rendered to complete existing authorization.
3. Adjustment in the material cost to U.S. Filter/Davis in the amount of
$8,612.37, including adjustment cost of valve stems with installation in the
amount of $1,945.00.
4. Final payment to U.S. Filter/Davis of a balance of $8,612.37 upon
completion of the valve stem adjustment.
August 25, 1998
54
0 0
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Eggert, to approve staff's recommendation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Eggert wanted to know how the County got into this
misunderstanding, and Director Hubbs explained that basically the misunderstanding was a
combination of as -built interpretation or misinterpretation and a difference in actual field
conditions versus what was expected. He added that it seems like the smaller the job is, the
more trouble it is.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Approved: 1) an adjustment in the labor
contract in the amount of $4,076 to Driveways, Inc., which
adjusts the final contract amount to $13,386.70; 2) final
payment to Driveways, Inc., in the amount of $6,290.47 for
services rendered to complete existing authorization; 3)
adjustment in the material cost to U.S. Filter/Davis in the
amount of $8,612.37, including adjustment cost of valve stems
with installation in the amount of $1,945; and 4) final payment
to U.S. Filter/Davis of a balance of $8,612.37 upon completion
of the valve stem adjustment.)
CHANGE ORDER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.H.5. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - CITY OF FELLSMERE-
WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT SERVICES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of August 19, 1998:
DATE: August 19, 1998
TO: JAMES E. CHAPIDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY -SHR TC S
SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FELLSMERE
AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR THE PROVISION OF
WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT_SERVICES
August 25, 1998
55
BOOK N PAGE W
800K IjG PAGE("35i,
On December 30, 1997, the City of Fellsmere addressed a letter to the Department of Utility
Services initiating discussions regarding limited County provided utility services to the City of
Fellsmere and on March 13, 1998, the County responded regarding the willingness to serve the
City of Fellsmere under limited, constrained conditions. (Please see the attached
correspondence) Due to a lack of available funding, the City retained Jordan and Associates, Inc.,
of Orange Park, Florida to apply for CDBG Economic Development Grant. On April 30, 1998,
the County attended a City sponsored kick-off session to assess the likelihood of a successful
application.
On May 29, 1998, the Florida State Clearinghouse received and distributed the State of Florida
Small Cities CDBG Economic Development Grant Application, submitted by Jordan and
Associates, Inc., on behalf of the City of Fellsmere. On June 16, 1998, the County responded
with a letter of support to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council regarding the project.
(Please see attached correspondence) On July 7, 1998 the County received correspondence
notifying the City of the rejection of the application by the Department of Community Affairs
due to 16 insufficiency items, one of which was the lack of an interlocal agreement between
Indian River County and the City of Fellsmere for the transmission, treatment and disposal of
wastewater. Since receipt of the attached application rejection notice, the City has worked
diligently to rectify all insufficiency items and wishes to reapply at the earliest possible date,
necessitating the execution of the interlocal agreement.
County staff has circulated several drafts of the attached agreement for departmental comment
and has incorporated all comments as received.
ANALYSIS
The attached interlocal agreement requires no funding by the County. In 1992, the Board of
County Commissioners adopted a bulk sewer charge intending to serve non -retail situations
where the County may provide bulk sewer service to other agencies. Among other provisions,
the interlocal agreement provides for:
• Sewer service area which matches the City of Fellsmere municipal limits, as shown in the
attached Exhibit I.
• Ownership and Operation defining individual responsibilities of the entities.
• Metering and Associated Capacity and Commodity Charges; the Agreement provides for
recovery of cost as per Chapter 201 of the Indian River County Code and specifically
requires that all ER reserves be paid in advance of connection to the County system.
• Maintenance of the System; the Agreement provides for prescribed maintenance of the City
system.
• Facility expansion; the City acknowledges that future system expansion may trigger Master
Plan improvements which may or may not be funded.
• Termination of Service; should obligations of the Agreement not be fulfilled.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners execute the attached interlocal agreement between the City of Fellsmere and
Indian River County and authorize the Chairman to execute same.
August 25, 1998
Commissioner Adams advised that when the City of Fellsmere goes to the State for
a grant, she will be a party to an agreement with several other businesses in town. She asked
Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins Il whether she should vote on this matter.
Attorney Collins advised that if the agreement would enure to her personal financial
gain, she should not vote. If she was one of a whole community of people who may benefit
from this, she could vote. He was not sure of the nature of the project, but if it was limited
to just commercial businesses, he suggested she not vote.
Commissioner Adams agreed that she would abstain from voting on this matter.
(CLERK'S NOTE: Form 8B, Memorandum of Voting Conflict was completed
by Commissioner Adams and is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board.)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Adams abstained) approved and authorized the
Chairman to execute the interlocal agreement with the City of
Fellsmere, as recommended in the Memorandum.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
U.B. VICE CHAIRMAN MACHT - COMMENT REGARDING A
LOCAL ARCHITECT'S OPINION ON COSTS OF CONVERTING
VERO MALL FOR A COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
Vice Chairman Macht advised that a local architect, with a good track record, had
contacted him recently regarding the Spillis, Candela and Partners report on the use of the
Vero Mall for a County Administration Building. The architect was of the opinion that the
estimates were too high, that he could reduce the consultant's figures from $101 per square
foot to $75 per square foot. The architect asked if the Board would take into consideration
some information that he would submit in a relatively short time. Vice Chairman Macht had
informed the architect that there was nothing to prevent him from doing so and felt that it
would be worthwhile to listen to what he had to say.
August 25, 1998
57
UGK 10 6 PAGE�f2
BOOK M PAGE
Commissioner Eggert advised that while she was on vacation, she began thinking that
maybe the County needed another objective opinion from someone who had no strings
attached, no agenda, and who was not hired to do other things. She did not want this to
sound like a criticism of the SCP group in any way, just that there have been so many
questions raised. She thought it would be good to get additional information. She
commented on the suggestions about adding a third floor to the present Administration
Building and recalled that the Board had gone to the City of Vero Beach earlier for approval
to do that and the City would not even support the County in a referendum to add a third
floor. She, therefore, felt that was not an option.
Commissioner Ginn suggested the Board could approach the City again and maybe
the thought of the County spending $20 million would encourage them. She wanted to point
out that the only reason the Board had chosen SCP was because they were doing the space
needs assessment. She thought the Board should not take any action until that needs
assessment is completed and the Board had received the report.
Administrator Chandler thought the consultant was still a few weeks away from
completing the needs assessment.
Vice Chairman Macht was a little put off by the consultant's reference to "the image
we want to project"; he felt the image the County wanted to project was that we do our
business as economically and as functionally as possible. How much that "image" might
have influenced the mall report, he did not know.
Commissioner Ginn suggested the Board wait until they have the space needs
assessment so anyone else can use the information.
Chairman Tippin thought the Board might even decide to put out another RFP and
others agreed. He recognized a speaker even though it was not a public hearing.
Brian Heady had wanted to speak under "Public Discussion" about the mall, and was
advised how that portion of the agenda is handled by first submitting a letter to the County
Administrator.
The Commissioners agreed to hear his comments about the mall.
Mr. Heady advised of his involvement in converting many types of buildings to office
buildings for private industry as well as several governmental entities. He believed that using
the Vero Mall would be good for the county. He questioned many points of the SCP report
including landscaping estimates, the need for windows, traffic ingress and egress, bathroom
August 25, 1998
58
facilities, lighting, wiring, proximity to train tracks, et cetera. He also suggested that location
of the county offices at 12' Street & US -1 would help that "deteriorating section" of town,
which was an important part of the equation; use of existing buildings would be good for the
entire county.
Commissioner Ginn commented that the only building in that area that appears
blighted is the mall, a commercial property. She mentioned another commercial property on
43' Avenue and SR -60 and questioned whether the Board should make a choice of one over
the other. She stated that the Board is at the "gathering information stage" and no one is
really pushing for anything in particular. She appreciated his helpful information.
There was CONSENSUS to get the needs assessment before making any decisions.
Vice Chairman Macht recalled that during the early planning stages of the new
Courthouse, the City of Vero Beach was interested in possibly sharing some facilities when
the County was ready to build a new Administration Building. He advised that City Planning
staff seemed to be interested in discussing it, so he suggested the Board might want to bear
that in mind to the extent that it might be feasible.
13A COMMISSIONER EGGERT -PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Commissioner Eggerthas been distressed aboutthe way Public Discussion items have
been used over the last six months. She felt they had gotten away from their purpose. She
did not wish to prevent anyone from speaking on legitimate items of importance, but she
thought they needed to get back to the previous procedure where exactly what was to be
presented to the Board was put into a letter. The Board then had an idea of what the
background was and what the person wanted to accomplish and there was an opportunity for
staff to be available. It should also be kept to 5 minutes or so. She wondered if they should
ask Administrator Chandler to come back to them with either re-establishing the old
procedures or another procedure that would put the focus back where it should be.
Commissioner Ginn did not want to stifle the public in any way, and felt that a letter
should be the only requirement, that anything beyond that might be intimidating.
Commissioner Adams thought there was not a problem at all in requesting
information or stating questions they wanted answered, so when the matter comes to the
Commission staff is present to answer the questions. The way it was operating now, 99
August 25, 1998
59
MOP 106 PAGE654
Pr
Boor U6 PACE a
questions are asked and nothing gets accomplished. At the end of the discussion, there is no
answer, no solutions offered, and no ability to deal with the situation. She felt this was
neither an appropriate use of the Commission nor an effective use of time.
Vice Chairman Macht stated that by writing a letter to Administrator Chandler, who
controls the agenda, very often the problem can be resolved by staff without it coming to the
Board. But if what the person hears from staff is not satisfactory to them, they always have
the right to come to the Board and discuss it on policy lines rather than technical lines.
Administrator Chandler clarified that the policy his office has followed for a number
of years is that requests be in writing so that staff and the Board know what is involved. It
must be submitted by 12 noon on Wednesday the week before the Board meeting. If he feels
the matter can be handled by staff, he attempts to get the person to meet with staff first. If
the person does not wish to do so, then it goes to the Board. Depending on what the subject
is, staff will be present for assistance to the Board.
Commissioner Eggert felt it was important to stick to the subject whatever it is. She
thought that County Attorney Vitunac had made a remark that the Board has to hear
everybody, which she was glad to do, but she has felt that some of the background work has
not been done. She suggested the person's request might be postponed to the next agenda
to allow time to do that. She felt there has been less of that than there used to be.
Commissioner Adams stated the policy currently in use is what the Board directed
Administrator Chandler to do, but now that the Board has experienced what appears to be
some abuse or over -use, then the Board probably needs to review the policy to make it more
effective. She felt the Board has just become a sounding board for frustrations.
Administrator Chandler will look into the matter and bring back some suggestions.
U.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the meeting the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners for the Solid Waste Disposal
District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
August 25, 1998
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 9:55 a.m.
ATTEST:
,
r4w='A-_
1 '�
iarton,
Minutes approved Y � 7 g
August 25, 1998
61
John W. Tippin, tfiiiiiiian
POOP. iOG PAGEO'56