HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/8/19980 0
MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8,1998 - 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)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5)
Ruth Stanbridge (District 2)
9:00 am. 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. John W. Tippin
ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
13. C.1. Time Extension -Beach Preservation Plan re Financing
13.C.2. Report on Tallahassee Trip - LAMAC meeting - Shared Title
13.C.3. Concerns about Widening US#1 in Sebastian
PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
APPROVAL OF NHNUTES
A. Special Meeting of November 6, 1998
B. Regular Meeting of November 17, 1998
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of the Overall Economic Development
Plan (OEDP) Annual Report (1997-98)
(memorandum dated December 2, 1998)
B. Lindsey Garden, Ltd,s Request for Final Plat
Approval for a Multi -Family Planned Develop-
ment to be Known as Lindsey Garden Apts.
(memorandum dated December 1, 1998)
C. Request to Enter Into a Public Transportation
Joint Participation Agreement with the Fla. Dept.
of Transportation (FDOT)
(memorandum dated December 1, 1998)
D. Consideration of Intergovernmental Coordination
and Review and Public Transportation Coordina-
tion Joint Participation Agreement
(memorandum dated December 1, 1998)
BACKUP
PAGES
1-22
23-27
28-48
49-61
UO�i� urti F>,GErI
Fr- I
600K 107 FACE Flu
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cout'd.)BACKUP
E. Bid Award: IRC Bid #9033/Replenish Bunker
Sand, Lakes & Dunes Course/Sandridge Golf
Course
(memorandum dated December 1, 1998) 62-67
F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 003
(memorandum dated December 2, 1998) 68-69
G. Changing the Interest Rate on All County Financing
(Petition Paving, Utility Assessment Projects, Utility
Impact Fee, etc.)
(memorandum dated December 1, 1998) 70
_ 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Pelican Pointe Corp.'s Request for Special
Exception Use / Conceptual PD Plan Appro-
val for 15 Detached Single Family Units
(memorandum dated December 1, 1998) 71-80
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING
SURETY BOND REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS
(memorandum dated December 3, 1998) 81-83
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Communift Development
Approval of Fla. Communities Trust (FCT) Con-
ceptual Approval Agreements for Cost -Share
Acquisition of the Harmony Oaks, Blue Goose,
and Oyster Bar LAAC Sites
(memorandum dated November 18, 1998)
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
None
84107
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): BACKUP
E. Office of Management and Budget PAGES
Escambia Housing Mortgage Program Industrial
Revenue Bond
(memorandum dated December 2, 1998) 108
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
Consultant Selection - Civil Engineer/Construction
Contractor - Design/Build for CR512 Roadway
Bridges over Fellsmere Fauns Water Control District
Park Lateral Canal and Lateral "U" Canal East of Sun
Ag
(memorandum dated December 2, 1998) 109
H. Utilities
Continuing Service Agreements - Surveying Services
(memorandum dated November 20,1998) 110-123
L Human Services
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman John W Tiepin
B. Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams
D. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
E. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Stormwater Management Planning
(memorandum dated November 14, 1998) 124
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emereency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
C. Environmental Control Board
None
boa 3.07 �Aa 7xpJG
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon -which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours. in advance
of meeting. --
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
0 41
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF DECEMBER 8. 1998
1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1
2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ................................... 1
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ......................... 2
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................ 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 2
7.A. Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) Annual Report (1997-98)
Approval................................................. 2
7.13. Lindsey Garden Apartments - Final Plat Approval for a Multi -Family
Planned Development - Requested by Lindsey Garden, Ltd. .......... 4
7.C. Resolution 98-135 - Public Transportation Joint Participation Agreement -
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) - (Community Coach -
Council on Aging) .......................................... 5
7.D. Resolution 98-136 - Public Transportation Coordination Joint Participation
Agreement - Intergovernmental Coordination and Review (Community
Coach - Council on Aging) .................................. 10
7.E. Bid No. 9033 - Replenish Bunker Sand - Lakes and Dunes Course -
Sandridge Golf Course ...................................... 14
7.F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 003 ......................... 15
7.G. Interest Rate Changed to 7%% on Financed County Projects ......... 16
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - PELICAN POINTE CORPORATION - SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USE/CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
APPROVAL FOR 15 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS ............ 17
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-027 - SURETY BONDS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS (SHERIFF, CLERK OF THE COURT, TAX
COLLECTOR) ................................................. 24
I LA. FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST (FCT) CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL
AGREEMENTS FOR COST -SHARE ACQUISITION OF THE HARMONY
OAKS, BLUE GOOSE, AND OYSTER BAR LAAC SITES .............. 29
I I.E. ESCAMBIA HOUSING MORTGAGE PROGRAM INDUSTRIAL REVENUE
BOND....................................................... 31
1
Bm 10 7 PAGE 7 f -JQ
gox 1.0
r P iix -J,�3k
11.G. CONSULTANT SELECTION (NEGOTIATE WITH ZEP CONSTRUCTION,
INC.) - CIVIL ENGINEER/CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR -
DESIGNBUILD FOR CRS 12 ROADWAY BRIDGES OVER FELLSMERE
FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT PARK LATERAL CANAL AND
LATERAL "U" CANAL EAST OF SUN AG .......................... 32
I I.H. CONTINUING SERVICES AGREEMENTS - SURVEYING SERVICES -
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. - MASTELLER, MOLER AND REED, INC. -
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC ........................... 33
13.C.1. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - TIME EXTENSION - BEACH
PRESERVATION PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED TO
ESTABLISH INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT
METHOD............................................... 34
13.C.2. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - REPORT ON TALLAHASSEE TRIP -
LAMAC MEETING REGARDING SHARED TITLE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS ............................... 36
13.C.3. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - CONCERNS ABOUT WIDENING US#1 IN
SEBASTIAN ............................................. 36
13.E. COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE - STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PLANNING.............................................. 39
December 8, 1998
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, December 8, 1998. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht,
Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Ruth Stanbridge. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia
Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Commissioner Ginn delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Tippin led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of three items:
13.C.1. Time Extension - Beach Preservation Plan re Financing
13.C.2. Report on Tallahassee Trip - LAMAC meeting - Shared -title
13.C.3. Concerns about DOT widening US#1 in Sebastian
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously added the above
items to the Agenda.
December 8, 1998
1
r
BOOK 107 mcE 794
BOOK 107 FACE 70
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the
Special Meeting of November 6, 1998. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Special Meeting of November 6, 1998, as written
and distributed.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of November 17, 1998. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 17, 1998, as
written and distributed.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Vice Chairman Macht requested that 7.A. be separated from the Consent Agenda.
7.A. Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) Annual Report
x997-98) Approval
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 2, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
obe r Kea g, "T-
Community
I
Community Developme t Dir
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S 40. -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
December 8, 1998
2
FROM: Peter J. Radke
Economic Development Planner
DATE: December 2,1998
RE: APPROVAL OF THE OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
(OEDP) ANNUAL REPORT (1997-98)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 8, 1998.
In 1984, Indian River County was contacted by the federal government and informed that, because
of its consistently higher than average unemployment rate, the county was eligible for assistance
under the Economic Development Act. In order to qualify for this assistance, Indian River County
created an Overall Economic Development Plan Committee, prepared an economic development
plan, and established a set of strategies for implementing this plan. This Plan was prepared as a
cooperative effort of county government and citizens in the community for the purpose of promoting
economic growth and attracting qualified, desirable types of businesses to the county. The Overall
Economic Development Plan (OEDP) was originally adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners in June of 1985.
On July 31, 1985, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) designated Indian River
County as a Title IV Redevelopment Area, a designation which qualifies the county to apply for
federal funds for economic development projects. Subsequently, representatives from the OEDP
Committee along with selected members of the county's Economic Development Committee were
chosen to form the Economic Development Council (EDC). Consequently, the Economic
Development Council fimctions as the County's OEDP Committee and; therefore, is responsible for
the implementation of the OEDP.
On October 28, 1997, the revised Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) was reviewed and
approved by the county's Economic Development Council. The Board of County Commissioners
then approved the revised OEDP at its meeting of November, 18, 1997, and a copy of the revised
OEDP was forwarded to the Economic Development Administration. Except for the introduction
section, the revised OEDP contains the same existing conditions, analysis, and goals, objectives and
policies sections as found in the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
To maintain its redevelopment area designation, Indian River County has had to prepare an OEDP
Annual Report and submit this report to the EDA on an annual basis. An annual report has been
completed by the county each year since the 1985 approval of its OEDP.
On November 24, 1998, the Economic Development Council voted 12-1 to recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the OEDP Annual Report (1997-98) and direct staff to
forward the annual report to the Economic Development Administration (EDA).
The OEDP Annual Report addresses the period from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998. This report
outlines the progress that the county made during that period in implementing the OEDP. This
report also discusses changes in the economy, new potentials and problems relating to economic
development, the goal, objectives and policies of the OEDP, and the OEDP implementation matrix.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Economic Development Council recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP)
Annual Report and direct staff to forward the annual report to the Economic Development
Administration (EDA).
1. OEDP Annual Report (1997/98)
December 8, 1998
3
'07 RGE7%
Vice Chairman Macht requested the matter be deferred.
Chairman Tippin asked staff if deferring the matter would cause a problem with any
deadlines which needed to be met, and Community Development Director Bob Keating said
that it would be okay to table the item for a week.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously TABLED the item
for a week.
7.B. Lindsey Garden Apartments - Final Plat Approval for a Multi -
Family Planned Development - Requested by Lindsey Garden, Ltd.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 1,,1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. eating, AICP /
Community Development irectd
THROUGH: Stan Boling AICP
Planning Director
FROM: R. Eric Blad
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: December 1, 1998
SUBJECT: Lindsey Garden, Ltd's Request for Final Plat Approval for a Multi -Family Planned
Development to be known as Lindsey Garden Apartments
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 8, 1998.
Lindsey Garden Apartments is a two phase 176 unit multi -family affordable housing planned
development and child care facility located on 15.41 acres. The subject site is located in the 3800
block of 49' Street (Lindsey Road) on the south side of 49t° Street. Final plat approval is required
prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) for any portion of the project.
December 8, 1998
4
is 0
•
•
On September 11, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval
for the planned development known as Lindsey Garden Apartments. The developer subsequently
obtained a land development permit and completed construction of all required infrastructure
improvements for both phases. To date, two apartment buildings and the child care facility have
been constructed, while the remaining apartment buildings in the first phase are currently under
construction. Mosby and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Lindsey Garden Ltd, is now requesting final
plat PD approval for the entire project and have submitted the following:
1. A final PD plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PD plat.
2. A certificate of completion for all required improvements.
All required infrastructure improvements for both phases (the entire project) have been constructed,
and the developer has obtained a certificate of completion from the Public Works Department,
certifying that all required improvements are complete and acceptable. All such improvements are
to be privately dedicated, with the exception of utility services, which are separately war -anted
through the Department of Utilities Services. No other warranty and maintenance agreement is
required. All requirements of final PD plat approval are satisfied.
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
PD plat approval for Lindsey Gardens Planned Development.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2_ Location Map
3. Plat Graphic
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously granted final
PD plat approval for Lindsey Gardens Planned Development, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
7. C. Resolution 98-135 - Public Transportation Joint Participation
Agreement - Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
(Community Coach - Council on Agin)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 1, 1998:
December 8, 1998
5
BOOK 10 1 PnE 798
BOOK M 7 FACE 7 9
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator , A
THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP��` K
Community Development Director
FROM: Jacob Riger 'S
MPO Planner
DATE: December 1, 1998
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO ENTER INTO A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT)
It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 8, 1998.
For the past several years, Indian River County has applied for and received federal mass transit
capital and operating assistance under 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 (formerly known as Section 9
of the Federal Transit Act). For FY 1998/99, Indian River County is eligible to apply for a Section
5307 grant in the total amount of $632,924 in federal fimds. Of this amount, $225,188 would be
used for capital assistance, and $407,736 would be used for operating assistance. The federal funds
used for operating assistance are to be matched by $407,736 in state and local fiends. Of the
$407,736 match amount, $203,868 is to come from a state Public Transit Block Grant (PTBG), and
$203,868 is to be provided by Indian River County and the City of Vero Beach. To receive the
PTBG fiends, the County must enter into a Joint Participation Agreement with FDOT, a copy of
which is attached to this staff report (Attachmnt 1).
Applying for Section 5307 funds includes several steps. For FY 1998/99, the first step is to apply
for Florida PTBG funds. Subsequent steps include applying for federal capital and operating
assistance and applying for Florida toll revenue credits for use as a soft match to receive federal
capital assistance. In requesting authorization to apply for PTBG fiords, staff is also requesting
authorization to apply for federal and other state funds comprising the Section 5307 program. Staff
will obtain separate Board authorization for each application to be submitted as part of the Section
5307 program. The County will pass the Section 5307 and the PTBG fiords through to the Indian
River County Council on Aging, Inc. for continuation and expansion of public transportation
services. The Council on Aging will use the Section 5307 and PTBG monies to fimd its Community
Coach fixed route, dial -a ride, and paratransit services.
A significant component of the matching fimds for the operating assistance portion of the Section
5307 grant comes from the state PTBG. Enacted by the Florida Legislature to provide a state -based
source of fimding for public transit, state PTBG fimds are awarded to those public transit providers
eligible to receive funding from the Federal Transit Administration's Section 530.7 and Section 18
programs and to Community Transportation Coordinators.
According to state regulations, the PTBG funds may be used for eligible capital and operating costs
of public transit providers. Projects are to be consistent with applicable approved local government
December 8, 1998
0
0 41
comprehensive plans. For support of transit operations, state participation may not exceed 50% of
the total eligible operating costs of transit service provision. Local tax revenues made available for
operating costs shall not be supplanted by block grant fimds. Because the local match requirement
for the capital portion of the County's FY 1998/99 Section 5307 grant may be met by soft -match
rather than cash -match funds, the entire $203,868 state PTBG is proposed as a match for operations
funding.
As with the FTA Section 5307 grant program, only public agencies may be designated recipients of
PTBG fimds, although a nonprofit provider may receive such fimds through a designated recipient.
Under these restrictions, the Indian River County Council on Aging has requested that the Board of
County Commissioners apply for state PTBG fiords on its behalf
The Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) is an agreement between FDOT and Indian River County,
and specifies the requirements which the County must meet in order to receive PTBG finding. One
of the most important of these requirements is that the County submit a Transit Development Plan
to FDOT. Recently, the Indian River County MPO developed an updated Transit Development Plan
for the entire MPO area, and submitted the plan to FDOT in September 1998 in order for the County
to be eligible to apply for and receive PTBG fimds.
As indicted in the attached JPA, by May 1999, the County must publish in the newspaper the
productivity and performance measures established for the transit system. The Council on Aging
will provide these data along with other required reports of local transit service. There are also equal
employment and disadvantaged business requirements in the JPA. While no formal plan is required
of the County, the County is to ensure that disadvantaged persons and businesses are afforded the
maximum opportunity to participate in employment or contracting. As the transit service provider,
the Council on Aging prepared plans to meet the equal employment and disadvantaged business
requirements, and these plans were approved by the Federal Transit Administration.
The attached resolution (Attachment 2) authorizes the Chairman to sign the JPA with FDOT. Upon
the Board's adoption of the resolution and the Chairman's execution of the JPA, County staff will
transmit the JPA to FDOT.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Public
Transportation Joint Participation Agreement and adopt the attached resolution authorizing the
Chairman to sign the agreement Staff further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
authorize staff to proceed with the application process for federal and other state finds comprising
the Section 5307 program.
1. FDOT Public Transportation Joint Participation Agreement
2. Resolution Authorizing the Signing of a Public Transportation Joint Participation Agreement
December 8, 1998
7
r
BOOK 7 �nE u
I
600K 107 PAE 30.E
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 98-135 authorizing the execution of a Public
Transportation Joint Participation Agreement with the Florida
Department of Transportation.
RESOLUTION NOD 8 4 3 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
WHEREAS, funding under the Florida Public Transit Block Grant Program may be used
as a portion of the required funding match for grants under 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 and 49
USC 1614; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County intends to submit an application for funding assistance
under 49 USC Section 5307, with the required matching funds to come from local funds and a
Florida Public Transit Block Grant; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County is eligible to receive grant funding under Section
341.052(1), Florida Statutes, and under 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 and 49 USC 1614; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation will provide a Public Transit Block
Grant to Indian River County to assist in the continuance and expansion of local public
transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AUTHORIZES THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO EXECUTE A PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE FUNDING ASSISTANCE TO BE USED AS A
PORTION OF THE REQUIRED FUNDING MATCH FOR OPERATING ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE COUNTY'S FEDERAL 49 USC CH. 53, SECTION 5307 MASS TRANSIT
GRANT FOR CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS FUNDING ASSISTANCE.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by F r a n A d a m s ,
and the motion was seconded by Ruth S t a n b r i d a e __ , and, upon being put to
a vote, the vote was as follows:
December 8, 1998
8
0 0
•
Chairman John W. Tippin A y e
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht A _
Commissioner Fran B. Adams A y P
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A y e
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge 4e
•
The Chairperson thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 8 day of
_g ®6 a mom, 1998.
�•
ATTES �
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
State of Florida
County of Indian River
BOARD OF COUNTY CONEVUSSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
�oft W. Tippin$ C
Board of County Commissioners
'00� ae_�
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in this State
and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared JQQIN W. TIPPIN, as Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners, and 'A a'TP— re iog /n. cc. V, as Deputy Clerk, to me
known to be the persons described in and who executed the fore oing instrument and they
acknowledged before me that they executed the same.
WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this JO
day of , A.D., 1998.
Notary Public
Atk L *10
� i�ylrr6li���weelflWeA±d�
cM■1tAalb�
Mf'��6tir'ti�6r!
rws�suecoa�o wrn rw�sa�or,�• �. s�
bdm wvr c.
December 8, 1998
Legal
Bud9 11
JOINT PARTICIPAT10N AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
W
Aper ove 0
BOOK t l PACs
I
600K 107 F'AGE J303
7.D. Resolution 98-136 - Public Transportation Coordination Joint
Participation Agreement - Intergovernmental Coordination and
Review (Community Coach - Council on AginP)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 1, 1998:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP' AM )<
Community Development Director
FROM: Jacob Riger T(?-
MPO Planner
DATE: December 1, 1998
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND
REVIEW AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION JOINT
PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT (ICAR PTC JPA)
It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 8, 1998.
According to state and federal regulations, each MPO in Florida must execute and maintain an
agreement with FDOT and with local and regional agencies responsible for the provision and
coordination of transportation services within the MPO area. Although the primary focus of this
agreement is coordinated intermodal public transportation planning, its provisions relate to the
overall transportation planning process. Specifically, the purpose of this agreement is to:
1. describe the process for coordination of MPO planning and programming activities with
other transportation agencies,
2. specify the role of transportation planning and programming activities in the comprehensive
planned development of the metropolitan area, and
3. specify conflict resolution procedures for disputes arising through a coordinated
transportation planning process.
Because the agreement relates primarily to coordinated intermodal public transportation planning,
several agencies in addition to the MPO must also execute this agreement. The Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners must execute this agreement because it oversees and funds the
Community Coach public transportation system. Other affected agencies include the City of Vero
Beach and the City of Sebastian, both of which operate municipal airports. As the regional agency
responsible for coordinated transportation planning and conflict resolution, the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council must also execute this agreement. At its November 4, 1998 meeting, the
MPO authorized the MPO Chairman to execute the agreement and authorized MPO staff to solicit
execution of the agreement by the other agencies specified within the agreement.
December 8, 1998
10
•
MPO staff has coordinated with FDOT to prepare the attached agreement (Attachment 1 to this staff
report), which needs to be executed by the Board of County Commissioners and the other agencies
discussed above and then transmitted to FDOT. Because the ICAR-PTC JPA must be executed
through an authorizing resolution, staff has prepared the attached resolution (Attachment 2 to this
staff report). The resolution authorizes the Board Chairman to execute the agreement.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the attached Intergovernmental
Coordination and Review and Public Transportation Coordination Joint Participation Agreement and
the' attached authorizing resolution, make any necessary changes, and adopt the attached resolution
authorizing the Chairman to execute the agreement.
1. Intergovernmental Coordination and Review and Public Transportation Coordination Joint
Participation Agreement (ICAR-PTC JPA)
2. ICAR-PTC JPA authorizing resolution
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 98-136 authorizing the execution of an
Intergovernmental Coordination and Review and Public
Transportation Coordination Joint Participation Agreement with
the Florida Department of Transportation.
RESOLUTION NO. 9 8 -13 6
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND REVIEW AND PUBLIC
TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (FDOT).
WHEREAS, the Federal Government requires that each metropolitan area, as a condition
to the receipt of federal capital or operating transit assistance, have a continuing, cooperative, and
comprehensive transportation planning process that results in plans and programs consistent with
the comprehensively planned development of the metropolitan area;
WHEREAS, pursuant to 23 CFR Section 450.310(b) and Section 339.175(9)(a)3, Florida
Statutes, the Indian River County MPO must execute and maintain an agreement with the State and
the operators of public transportation systems, including transit systems and airports, describing the
means by which activities will be coordinated and specifying how public transit and aviation
planning (including corridor and subarea studies pursuant to 23 CFR Section 450.316 and 450.318)
and programming will be part of the comprehensively planned development of the metropolitan area;
December 8, 1998
11
BOOK i0l PuE 0
I
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 339.175(9)(a)2, Florida Statutes, the Indian River County
MPO shall execute and maintain an agreement with the metropolitan and regional intergovernmental
coordination and review agencies serving Indian River County;
WHEREAS, the aforesaid agreement must describe the means by which activities will be
coordinated and specify how transportation planning and programming will be part of the
comprehensively planned development of Indian River County;
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners oversees and funds
the operation of the Community Coach public transportation system;
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest that the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners, the Indian River County MPO, aviation authorities serving the County, and other
affected agencies jointly pledge their intention to cooperatively participate in the planning and
programming of transportation improvements within Indian River County;
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement desire to participate cooperatively in the
performance of a continuing, cooperative, coordinated, and comprehensive transportation planning
process to assure that highway facilities, mass transit rail systems, air transportation and other
facilities will be properly located and developed in relation to the overall plan of community
development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
1. That the Chairman of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is authorized
to execute an Intergovernmental Coordination and Review and Public Transportation
Coordination Joint Participation Agreement with the Indian River County MPO, FDOT, and
the other agencies specified within the Agreement.
2. That the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners shall regularly coordinate
with the Indian River County MPO, FDOT, and the other agencies specified in the
Agreement to implement, maintain, and update the Agreement.
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by F r a n A d a m s , and the
motion was seconded by Ruth Stanbridge , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was
as follows:
Chairman John W. Tippin A y e
Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams A y e
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A y e
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye
The Chairperson thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this A day of
December , 1998.
December 8, 1998
•
12
40
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By: -
W. Tippin, Ch ' m
and of County Commissioners
ATTEST(.-.--];-4�
Jeffrey K. Barton, Cler
State of Florida
County of Indian River
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in this State
and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared�OHN W. TIPPIN, as Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners, and �' -I R I e is! Al. r3 4k 6 %- -as Deputy Clerk, to me
f
known to be the persons described in and who executed the regoing instrument and they
acknowledged before me that they executed the same.
WITNESS m v hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this
day of , A.D., 1998.
December 8, 1998
0►Y ft Alice F- Wleite
Notay hblic„ Stas of Florida ,
Commission No. CC576M >
aoe MyCominiss o Hip.OV13/2000 ;
14M3-NOTA1tY • FIS. Nary Service! Bmliy Co
L 0
> 0 R M Ca Approved
Admire. e
Legal
pmiaMill
INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND REVIEW
AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COORDINATION
JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
13
Date
BOQK
07 F,4Ct 3 0
900K i0 l PnuE 30"j,
7.E. Bid No. 9033 - Replenish Bunker Sand - Lakes and Dunes
Course - Sandridge Golf Course
DATE:
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 1, 1998:
December 1, 1998
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
u 7
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, General Services Direcborr/
FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Bid Award. IRC Bid #9033/Replenish Bunker Sand
Lakes and Domes Course/Sandridge Golf Course
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
"No Bid" Response:
November 30, 1998
November 11, and 18, 1998
Twenty Four - (24) Vendors
Two (2) Vendors
Three
ESTIMATED
AOR QUANTITY UNIT PRICE BID TOTAL
Sandtmp Services 1100 Tons 30.73iTon $33,800.00
Vero Beach, Fl
CSR Rinker 1100 Tons 41.40/ran $45,540.00
Davenport, Fl
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID
SOURCE OF FUNDS
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
$33,800.00
Sandridge Golf Course — Other Improvements Except
Buildings (418-221-572-006-39)
$30,000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Sandtrap Services, as the lowest most responsive and responsible
bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See Department Memo.)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
9033 to Sandtrap Services, as recommended in the
Memorandum.
December 8, 1998
14
•
7.F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 003
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 2, 1998:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: December 2, 1998
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 003
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. B
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. In November, the Board of County Commissioners approved having an appraisal done
for Dodger properties at a cost of $9,000. The attached entry appropriates funding from
the General Fund Contingency.
2. A new software system and training program for the Purchasing Department was
approved in the 1997/98 fiscal year. The installation was not complete until 1998/99
fiscal year.
3. In the past, Indian River County has participated in the cost of the dinner reception for
the Florida Inland Navigation District Board of Commissioners (F.I.N.D.). In previous
years the sponsors have been Indian River County, City of Vero Beach, City of Sebastian
and the Environmental Learning Center. They are requesting $100.00 from Indian River
County this year. Funding to come from the General Fund Contingency.
4. The Budget Director underestimated the Solid Waste Disposal charge for the County
buildings by approximately $7,000 for the 1998/99 fiscal year. The entry appropriates
funding from the General Fund Contingency.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment.
December 8, 1998
(CLERK'S NOTE: A CORRECTED COPY OF BUDGET
AMENDMENT 003 WAS DISTRIBUTED AND RECEIVED
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ON
DECEMBER 4, 1998.)
15
•
600K FAj[ 80
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 003, as recommended in the Memorandum.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: JosephA B '
OMB
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 003
DATE: December 3. 1998
(Corrected Copy)
Entry
Number
Funds/Deparnnent/Account Name Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
EXPENSE
GENERAL, FUND/BCC/Other Prof. Services 001-101-511-033.19
$9,000
$0
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91
$0
$9,000
2.
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND/Purchasing/PC
Maintenance Expense 001-216-513-036.83
$24,417
$0
GENERAL. FUND/Purchasing/All Travel 001-216-513-034.02
$1,500
$0
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91
$0
$25,917
3.
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/BCCI
Other Current Charges/Obligations 001-101-511-034.99
$100
$0
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91
$0
$100
4
EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND/Building and
Grounds/Garbage and Solid Waste 001-220-519-034.33
$7,000
$0
GENERAL FUND/Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91
$0
$7,000
R CEIVEO
DC
7• G• Interest Rate Changed to 7-Y4% on Financed County Proiects
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 1, 1998:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: December 1, 1998
SUBJECT: CHANGING THE INTEREST RATE ON ALL COUNTY FINANCING
(PETITION PAVING, UTILITY ASSESSMENT PROJECTS, UTILITY
IMPACT FEE, ETC.) - CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
December 8, 1998
16
•
DESCRIPTION AND CONDPITONS
Fixed interest rates charged by the County for financing utility assessments, utility impact fees,
petition paving assessments, and any other financing is scheduled to be set on an annual basis in
January of each year. For the 1998 calendar year, the assessment/financing fixed interest rate was
set at the -prime rate which was 81/2% at the time. The prime interest rate in the Wall Street Journal
on Tuesday, December 1, 1998, is 7 % % which would mean a decrease in the rate from 1998 to
1999 of 3/4%. (.75 %). The only exception to this interest rate would be if the project was directly
affiliated with a bond issue and the requirements dictated a different interest rate.
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the fixed interest rate of 7 3/4%.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
new annual fixed interest rate of 73/4% for the 1999 calendar
year, as recommended in the Memorandum.
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - PELICAN POINTE CORPORATION -
SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE/CONCEPTUAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL FOR 15 DETACHED SINGLE
FAMILY UNITS
wrlsss-Jourtwu
Published Daffy
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undralgned eutnrity Paieorha� appeared Darryl K. HRccs who an
oath says that he a F4esldrrt of Bre Pre"9s4o n a dally newspaper published at Vero Beady
In Irdan River Canty. Florida: that tie attached copy of art, being
in the Court, was pub
Bshed lo saidnewspaperm the lasues of Nbdk � r 75 n A CIA
Affiant further says that the sold Press Journal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in
said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said has heretofore been
confinuouslypublished semrd Class mel matterlo at t he � of a In Vero 8 � new has
Chou ty Fiaddaa,,
for a prod of she year next preceding the first pubscatbrh at the attached copy of
edvertsement and affiant twdot says that he hes neither paid nor prahhaed any person, firm
ar caoorrppoorraation airy Y=
rte, cormbsion or refund for the purpose of securing this
advrtlsemrrt for pubBcatan in said newspaper.
subscribed before me Vilsft E t dell oL1LW-1 a n. /meq
srcox�msss�oxcxsiofs`•,*9 iC,
k n�euy���pgO"C[6/1093 : c ; RHONDA STANG
o s Notary Public, State of Florida
tAy Commission 01, 2001
Comm. No. CC811 Known o Produced ID 0
•ya`�`fi: $� o000
Pereanaih'
TypeotIn Produced
December 8, 1998
17
ESM
wr*. err
Cil
CGiJi. �
t;hr
?PIOTia OF PUBLIC HEARING•
4.Wce of hewing to..cauidr
galling of special exception use
opp�l for a 15 lot single family
I)Iph-d development on properly
ku"Y owned by Pelican Porde,
Edpl; and located In Sed" 20,
fiownship 31 and Rarge 39, in the
stoop portion of. thK Pelcan
Penile dmrolopnhnd. See the above
map for thus bastion.
• A, public ih wbV at which poi.
ges'•In tiftest mid ai:iruNovi an ilnad
bs nth e B to be oaf
'
Co=ksfaners of Indian
RivesCounty, Florida, In the
Ca>+nfy Commission Chambers of
fli► Coady Administration Bulldnp,
�Oogled at 1840 25th•Stred, Vero
11e0, Florida on Tuesday, Denm-
,3t•1998
Pleass direct piambg-related
�ypns to the currrd develop-
!!� dO:plaming section at 567.
W. 242.
-,(►Pyone who may wish to
gppeal any decision which may be
".Cad4 at this mea" will need to
ero)e that a verbatim record of
t,0e,,proceedins Is male, which
irxludes testimony, and "wence
YDA>f .which the appeal Is based.
•
grNE WHO NEEDS A SPE.
gr
ACCOMMODATION FOR
THI5rMEETING MUST CONTACT
THE,,:000NTY'S AMERICANS
WITH. DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)
COORDINATOR AT 5674000
X223. AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN
AgYaANCE OF THE MEETING.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ww,n BOARD OF. COUNTY,
COMMISSIONERS
BY•s John W. Tipper
UO,WAw 25, IM • 1551691r
�� r 01
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of December 1, 1998 with
the aid of an aerial photo of the subject property as well as a preliminary site plan projected
on the ELMO:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
;D7ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
uA
Robert M. Keating, AI
Community Developm Direc�!
,4.6,
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP NIA
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: December 1, 1998
SUBJECT: Pelican Pointe Corp.'s Request for Special Exception Use/Conceptual PD Plan
Approval for 15 Detached Single Family Units
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 8, 1998.
14 1
On behalf of Pelican Pointe Corp., Houston Cuozzo Group Inc. has submitted an application for
special exception use/conceptual PD plan approval and preliminary PD plan approval to construct
15 detached single family units on a 3.6 acre site. The subject property is located within the existing
Pelican Pointe development just south of the existing Pelican Pointe marina and adjacent to the
Indian River Lagoon. Pelican Pointe is located between US 1 and the Indian River Lagoon,
immediately east of the City of Sebastian.
The applicant is requesting to modify the approved Pelican Pointe plan which presently allows 72
units on the subject site. The approved plan, which was originally approved in the 1970's and
modified in 1982, depicts 4 three story buildings in this area, with each building containing 18 units.
That site plan approval is still in effect. With this proposal, the 3.6 acre site would be controlled by
the proposed PD, while the remainder of the overall project would continue to be controlled via the
1982, approved site plan. Since the applicant is proposing design criteria which are not consistent
with the standard RM -6 zoning district criteria, the applicant is required to go through the PD
process to obtain approval of the proposed design. If approved, this plan will supersede the previous
plan approval for this 3.6 acre portion of the Pelican Pointe development.
December 8, 1998
18
*PD Process / PZC and BCC Reviews
The PD project review and approval process is as follows:
Approval Needed Reviewing Body
I- Conceptual Plan/Special Exception PZC & BCC
2. Preliminary PD Plan PZC
3. Land Development Permit or Waiver Staff
4. Final PD Plat BCC
The applicant has requested approval of the first two steps.
Planning and Zoning Commission Review
At its regular meeting of August 27,1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously
(6-0) to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception use.
The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary PD plan subject to the Board of
County Commissioners approval of the special exception use. As a result of comments at the public
hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that a condition be added to the
special exception approval regarding a pedestrian easement through the project to link all parts of
Pelican Pointe (see attachment #4). Staff has added the condition to this report.
Board of County Commission Review/Action
If the PD special exception use request is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the
preliminary PD approval will become effective. The applicant will then need to obtain a land
development permit or waiver for the required PD infrastructure improvements.
The developer submitted a similar PD approval request in 1996 to construct 19 single family
detached residential homes on the 3.6 acre subject property. However, that proposal would have
required the developer to obtain approval from the existing Pelican Pointe unit owners to allow use
of their common property to meet PD setback/buffering requirements. That application was tabled
by the Board of County Commissioners on October 15, 1996, and subsequently expired. The current
proposal scales back the number of proposed units and satisfies all PD requirements within the 3.6
acres.
The Board of County Commissioners is to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special
exception use request. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board is to consider the
appropriateness of the requested use for the subject site and surrounding area. The county may
attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of
the use with the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Area of Development: 3.6 acres uplands
Overall Size: 51.66 acres uplands
20.60 acres wetlands
72.26 acres total
2. Zoning Classification: RM -6, Residential Multi -Family District (up to 6 units per acre)
December 8, 1998
19
BOOK l9 i PACE
900K J0,7 PAGE 31'e-)),
3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units per acre)
4. Number of Proposed Lots: 15 lots on the 3.6 acre area of development
Note: Under the existing, approved plan, up to 72 units could be constructed within the area
of development.
5. Proposed Density: 4.1 units/acre (area of development)
5.92 units/acre (overall Pelican Pointe project approved)
4.90 units/acre (overall Pelican Pointe project proposed)
Note: This PD proposal would result in a substantial decrease from the density approved for
the site many years ago. Approval of the proposed PD would decrease approved units for
the overall project from 326 units to 269 units.
6. Open Space: Required: 40%
Provided: 66%
7. Minimum Lot Size:
Required: 7,000 sq. ft. (RM -6 single family lot minimum)
Proposed: 5,825 sq. ft. (smallest proposed lot)
Note: proposed lot sizes vary from 12,257 square feet to 5,825 square feet, and have an
average size of 7,500 square feet.
8. Recreation Area: Pursuant to section 915.19(1), no recreation area is required for this
planned unit development since it contains fewer than 60 units.
9. Environmental Issues: Wetland and upland issues were addressed in the previous phases
of the overall project. Since the overall project was approved, however, the county has
instituted a required 50' Indian River Lagoon shoreline setback requirement, applicable to
new development. This requirement is incorporated within LDR section 929.07.
With this request, the applicant is seeking a partial waiver from this "new" setback
requirement. Because the 1982 site plan was approved prior to the 50' shoreline setback
being established, the approved plan depicts buildings within 30' of the Lagoon, with a lawn
type landscape treatment up to the Indian River.
Through the PD process, the county has the ability to waive the 50' setback requirement
(915.15). Generally, staff would not support a waiver to the 50' setback, however staff does
support this request since it is an improvement over what is allowed under the existing site
plan. The applicant's proposal is to require all principal structures to be set back 50' from the
mean high waxer line (MHWL), while pools and patios will be set back 30' from the MFiWL
on lots 1-6 and 50' from the MHWL on lots 7-14. The applicant also proposes to re -vegetate
the setback area between the building and the lagoon with native vegetation, rather than a
typical lawn. To ensure compliance with county lagoon buffer requirements, the final
landscape plan for the area to be re -vegetated must be approved by the environmental
planning section prior to issuance of a land development permit.
Thus, the proposed PD would provide for native upland planting in the setback area from the
lagoon, decrease the number of units along the shoreline and increase the setback for
principal structure along the Indian River Lagoon.
December 8, 1998
20
10. Stormwater Management: As with standard single family subdivisions, the stormwater
management plan has been given conceptual approval by the public works department. Final
review and approval of the stormwater management plan will be accomplished through the
land development permit or land development permit waiver process.
11. Traffic Circulation: The proposed development will be accessed through the existing
driveways of the Pelican Pointe development and will essentially be the last phase of Pelican
Pointe. The individual units will be accessed by a proposed 20' wide paved internal access
road. The conceptual traffic circulation plan has been approved by the Traffic Engineering
Division.
12. Dedications & Improvements: None are applicable for this project.
13. Proposed Waivers:
Setbacks
Lot 1
Lots 2-6
Lots 7-14
Lot 15
Normal RM -6
Single Family
Lots
Front
10'
25'
25'
15'
25'
Side
6/0'
14/0'**
14/0'**
8/0'
10'
Rear
50'*
50'*
50'*
18'
25/50'*
Pools:
Front
10'
25'
25'
15'
25'
Side
6/0'
14/0'**
14/0'**
8%0'
10'
Rear
25'
25'
50'
3'
10'
Patios/Decks
Front
10'
25'
25'
15'
25'
Side
6/0'
14/0'**
14/0'**
8/0'
5'
Rear
25'
25'
50'
1'
10/50'*
Lot Size
5,700 sq. ft.
6,500 sq. ft.
8,000 sq. ft.
5,825 sq. ft.
7,000 sq. ft.
Lot Width
44' 1
44' 1
44'
44'
70'
*The 50' setback is the setback from the Indian River Lagoon pursuant to section 929.07.
* * The plan provides a 0' setback on one side and a 14' setback on the other, so there will be a 14'
separation between units.
Generally, the applicant is proposing to reduce the right-of-way from 60' to 30' with 6' easements
on either side to create a 42' wide right-of-way/utility corridor. This will be further reduced near the
north end of the road in front of lots 14 to a 26' right-of-way with a 6' utility easement on one side
to create a 32' right-of-way/utility corridor. In this area, the street will function as a driveway
serving the four lots only.
14. Utilities: The project will be serviced by county water and sewer services. These utility
provisions have been approved by the Department of Utility Services and the Environmental
Health Department.
15. Buffer and Setbacks: Based upon the compatibility matrix in PD ordinance section 915.16,
no buffers are required, since the site is surrounded by multi -family development. At the PD
perimeter, the required 25' setback will control.
December 8, 1998
21
BOOK, 1,07 art G
Ll
BOOK M 7 PACE U5
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant conceptual
special exception use and conceptual PD plan approval, and approve the requested waivers, with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a land development permit (LDP), the applicant shall obtain
approval from the environmental planning staff for the final landscape plan for
lagoon shoreline vegetation plantings.
2. Prior to issuance of a C.O. for any unit adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon, the
native re -vegetation planting along the lagoon shoreline shall be completed in
accordance with the approved, final landscape plan.
3. Prior to or via the final plat, a pedestrian easement shall be established in favor of the
overall Pelican Pointe Condominium Umbrella Association which provides for a
pedestrian path through this portion of the development.
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Application
2.
Location Map
3.
PD Plan
4.
PZC Minutes
MARINA
d
UNW tb&"
December 8, 1998
INDIAN RIVER
PROTECTED LANDS +/- W Acres
RMI - 1 q►
MOM Pak" w„&.e /ltoctonon
e
22
ByIminanr Site Plan 0
W%salb
0 41
Director Boling advised of an error on the chart in the memorandum under 13,
Proposed Waivers. He advised that under columns Lot 1 and Lots 2-6, the rear setback
should be 25 feet, not 30 feet as was noted on the original page. (CLERK'S NOTE:
Corrected page has been inserted above.)
Commissioner Adams understood that additional recreational area was not required
at this time for the project and that it was sufficient to reduce the right-of-way with a 6'
utility easement. Director Boling confirmed her understanding in both instances.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Donald J. Cuozzo, of Houston Cuozzo Group, Inc., agent for the applicant, advised
that the applicant has agreed to the conditions specified by staff and that he was present to
respond to any questions.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously granted
conceptual special exception use and conceptual PD plan
approval and approved the requested waivers with the following
conditions: (1) Prior to the issuance of a land development
permit, the applicant shall obtain approval from the
environmental planning staff for the final landscape plan for
lagoon shoreline vegetation plantings; (2) Prior to issuance of a
C. 0. for any unit adjacent to the Indian River Lagoon, the native
re -vegetation planting along the lagoon shoreline shall be
completed in accordance with the approved, final landscape
plan; and (3) Prior to or via the final plat, a pedestrian easement
shall be established in favor of the overall Pelican Pointe
Condominium Umbrella Association which provides for a
pedestrian path through this portion of the development.
December 8, 1998
23
BOOK. 107 �,,U SIG
600K 107 FK14'E 3-17
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-027 - SURETY
BONDS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS (SHERIFF, CLERK OF
THE COURT, TAX COLLECTOR)
NOTICE
Svar�
ORDINANCE PUBLIC h1EARING
The Board of County Commisslan•
us at Indian Rivet County, Florida,
hereby provides notice of a Publk
}porins set far 945 o.m. an Tues.
day, 12/8%98, at the County Com•
mission ambxs In the County
Administration Builft 1840 25th
SmI, Vero Beach, PFL. 32960, to
discuss a proposed ordinance
which Is "fled as follows
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ESTABLISHING SURETY &OND
REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS.
Interested parties mayappear of
they meeling and be hoard with
respect to the proposed spWol
ono men}. Anyone who wants to
Inspeet any proposed c1mments
may do ser al rhe Utility Services
Department, 1840 25th Skeet,
Vero Eado, FC.
Anyone who may wish to appeal
any dscaloo which may be made
at this meeting will need to ensure
that o verbatim record of the pro•
medirgs li made, which Includes
testimany and wldettre upon which
the oopwl Is based.
Anyone who needs a special
acco modoton far this meerAl
nwy OW00 the County's Amerb-
cans with DlsabiliRes Art Coordi-
noler of $67-0000, Ext, 223 at
least e,8 hours in advance of the
meeiing,
November 20,1998 1544902r
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 3, 1998:
TO: r
of County ommissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: December 3,1998
RE: Public Hearing scheduled for December 8, 1998
on "Surety Bonds for Censtitutinnai Affix- aress
On November 17, 1998, the Board directed our office to proceed with advertising for a
Public Hearing on a proposed County ordinance establishing bond requirements for
Constitutional Officers. The legal advertisement was In the Press Journal on Friday,
November 20, 1998, and the item Is scheduled to be heard by the Board at a Public
Hearing on December 8,1998.
December 8, 1998
24
County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the history of this proposed ordinance including
information on the recent amendment to the Florida Statutes which prompted the Board to
request that this ordinance be drafted. He also explained why the other two constitutional
officers (Property Appraiser and Supervisor of Elections) were not included in the bonding
requirement. He pointed out that it was the choice of the Commissioners as to how the bond
premiums should be paid.
Executive Aide to the Board Alice White recalled that in the past the Sheriffhad paid
his own bond premium, but the Board of County Commissioners had paid for the others.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Frank Coffee, 88 Cache Cay Drive, Vero Beach, understood that the constitutional
officers are separately elected for the County and operate as separate entities setting their
own policies, procedures, employee hiring, and line item budget management. He also
understood that the Tax Collector's and the Property Appraiser's budgets are approved by
the State Department of Revenue, giving the County no control over the activities of those
constitutional officers. Also, prior to 1998, he understood the State was responsible for the
bond. He asked the purpose of the bond, what legal steps are available to the County if there
is an alleged wrongful act by a constitutional officer, that is, can the County sue the State and
who pays the cost. He asked why the County should purchase bonds for people who are not
under the jurisdiction of the County. He urged the Board not to assume the expenditures
which he believed were the responsibility of the State, or at least should come out of the
budget of the constitutional officers. He thought the budget of the Sheriff was the
responsibility of the County.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Commissioner Adams thought the constitutional officers should be responsible for
paying their own bond premiums.
December 8, 1998
25
BOOK N7 FAU G�
BOOK 10 7 FACE
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Adams, to adopt the ordinance and require
that each of the three constitutional officers pay for the bond
premium out of their own budgets.
Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn asked that County Attorney Vitunac respond
to Mr. Coffee's questions, especially with respect to the purpose of the bonds.
County Attorney Vitunac thought it necessary to go back into the early history of the
State of Florida when the constitutional officers were far away from Tallahassee, and had
little communication with the State and really did have personal control over property and
money and could abscond with it. Under the terms of a surety bond, the surety was charged
with finding the property and bringing it back or the constitutional officer would lose his
bond. He did not know of any county where it has had any good effect. Nowadays, it is
pretty hard for anyone to do anything improper with public money or property, and that was
why the Legislature gave the power to local counties to determine whether or not it is still
a valid safety procedure. In the case of some impropriety, the County would notify the
bonding company, notify law enforcement officials, and the Governor. The constitutional
officers are independent and equal to the Commissioners in our government. Each one has
a different budget method and the County does exert some control during the budget process,
but once that is over, they are subject only to the Governor and the voters for approval of
how they run their office.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Ordinance 98-027 adopted establishing
surety bond requirements for certain constitutional officers and
requiring that premium for bond be an expense of the budget for
the individual constitutional officer being bonded.)
December 8, 1998
26
•
•
11/98(ord/public)Vk
ORDINANCE NO. 98- 27
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING SURETY BOND
REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL
OFFICERS.
WHEREAS, Florida Law prior to 1998 required surety bonds of Boards of County
Commissioners and all Constitutional Officers; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 98-34, Laws of Florida, removed this requirement and
instead gave each county the power to, by ordinance, require any officer to give bond
conditioned for the faithful performance of the duties of his or her office, with the
amount of the bond being approved by the Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the law 'suggests that in determining the amount of the bond the
Board of County Commissioners consider the amount of money or property likely to be
in the custody of the county officer at any one time; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners determines that it is in the
public interest for the following officers to provide a surety bond in the amounts so
stated;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS THAT:
Section 1. Surety Bonds Requirements.
Under the authority of Section 137.01, Florida Statutes, it is required that the
following Constitutional Officers file with the Clerk of the Circuit Court a surety bond in
the amounts indicated:
Constitutional Officer Amount of Bond Required
Sheriff $100,000
Clerk of the Court $100,000
Tax Collector $100,000
Property Appraiser None
Supervisor of Elections None
Section 2. Payment of Bond Fee.
The cost for the surety bonds required by section 1 of this ordinance shall be an
expense paid by the respective constitutional offices.
December 8, 1998
27
&nt
e
Section 3. Filing of Bonds.
Any bonds required by this ordinance of Constitutional Officers in office at the
adoption of this ordinance shall be filed with the Clerk within 30 days after the effective
date of this ordinance, and kept in force during the Officer's term of office. For
Constitutional Officers who take office after the effective date of this ordinance, the
bond shall be filed with the Clerk by the time the Officer takes the Oath of Office.
Section 4. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect upon becoming law.
The ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on the 20
day of N n v p m h p r , 1998, for a public hearing to be held on the _ A day of
December , 1998, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner
M a c h t , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by
the following vote:
Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
8 day of December , 1998.
Attest: J. K. Barton, Clerk
Off I
Deputy -
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Oohn W. Tippin, an
ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this
day of . 1998.
December 8, 1998
28
mez� Rwr Cn AGGrove G;, ;t
Admlrl
Legal (� _
Dept
Risk Mgr.
11.A. FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST (FCT) CONCEPTUAL
APPROVAL AGREEMENTS FOR COST -SHARE ACQUISITION OF
THE HARMONY OAKS, BLUE GOOSE, AND OYSTER BAR LAAO
SITES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 18,,1998:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Mert
NT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
ea g, CP
Community Development Dire for
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: November 18, 1998
RE: Approval of Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Conceptual Approval Agreements for
Cost -Share Acquisition of the Harmony Oaks, Blue Goose, and Oyster Bar LAAC Sites
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 8, 1998.
On April 21, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners authorized staff to apply for 50% cost -share funding
grants from the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) for purchase of four sites on the County Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee's (LAAC) site list. The four LAAC sites submitted for FCT cost -share funding were:
- Harmony Oaks (after -the fact reimbursement) - Oyster Bar Salt Marsh
- Blue Goose - Wabasso Scrub Addition
Funding Approval
At a public hearing on August 27, 1998, the FCT finalized its ranking of 113 applications submitted
statewide under the 1998 funding cycle. As a result of the FCT rankings, three of Indian River County's sites
finished in the top 10 and were approved for funding: Harmony Oaks (#8); Oyster Bar Salt Marsh (#9); and
Blue Goose (#10).
The Wabasso Scrub Addition ended up with a ranking of 86. The amount of grant funds available under the
1998 cycle, approximately $68.7 million, was enough to fund the top 33 projects; therefore, the Wabasso
Scrub Addition did not qualify for funding.
Conceptual Approval Agreements
Since the August 27, 1998 FCT hearing, FCT staff has visited the three approved project sites with county
staff to verify site conditions as represented in the project applications. In accordance with State procedures,
the next step is for the FCT Governing Body and the County Commission to execute a "Conceptual Approval
Agreement" for each of the three approved cost -share funding projects.
December 8, 1998
29
BOOK 9 PAGE892
P:
BOOK io
The agreements consist largely of standard language and conditions pursuant to Rule 9K-4, Florida
Administrative Code, the rule which sets forth Florida Communities Trust program procedures. Each
agreement consists of eight main sections, as follows (paraphrased):
I.
General Conditions
H.
Requirements Prior to Initiation of Negotiations (Blue Goose, Oyster Bar)
M.
Project Plan Approval
IV.
Project Site Acquisition Requirements
V.
Obligations as a Condition of Project Funding
VI.
Obligations Relating to theUse of Bond Proceeds
VII.
Disallowable Activities/Remedies
VIII.
Site Specific Management Plan Conditions
The General Conditions section of the agreements contains standard language pertaining to timing and
coordination of steps between the County and FCT, and among other things identifies the key contact from
the County for purposes of coordinating project activities.
Requirements Prior to Initiation of Negotiations pertains to the Oyster Bar and Blue Goose sites. This
section outlines a number of steps and time frames including the requirement that the County identify and
authorize a representative of the County to execute all FCT documents relating to the acquisition. This
section also includes reference to a required Confidentiality Agreement (attached), which must include the
names and signatures of local representatives who will be privy to confidential appraisals during the
negotiation process.
Under this section of the agreement, the County has the opportunity to choose whether the County or FCT
will be the responsible party for all negotiation and acquisition activities. These activities include overseeing
appraisals, surveys, title reports, and environmental audits. It is staffs position that the County should opt
to be responsible for negotiation and acquisition activities for the Blue Goose and Oyster Bar Salt Marsh
projects. (Since the Harmony Oaks property has already been acquired by the County, this issue is not
applicable.)
Project Plan Approval outlines County documents required prior to FCT disbursement of State funds,
including a statement of total project costs, a signed agreement for acquisition, and a management plan
consistent with the criteria and conditions within the Conceptual Approval Agreement.
Project Site Acquisition Requirements relate to State requirements regarding transfer of title procedures,
and allow the County to determine whether title goes to the County or to the State. Staffs position is that,
in the interest of local control, the County should opt to obtain full title to the subject properties.
Obligations as a Condition of Project Funding ensure that any use of project property once acquired will
be consistent with the adopted management plan, or, if changes are proposed, that FCT approval is first
obtained.
Obligations Relating to the Use of Bond Proceeds requires the County to notify FCT if any use of project
property is proposed that may affect State bond proceeds used in acquiring the property, with respect to legal
and tax consequences.
Disallowable Activities/Remedies provide that the County will cease any "disallowable activities" on the
project property upon written notification from the FCT, as applicable, and that the FCT will be held
harmless from all claims relating to disallowable activities. "Disallowable activities" are specifically listed
in the Agreement, and include the operation of concessions on the property, and "any use of the project site
by any person other than in such person's capacity as a member of the general public."
Site Specific Management Plan Conditions reflect information presented to FCT in the County's grant
applications, including revisions deemed appropriate by the FCT, relating to proposed site improvements
and use. Proposed improvements to the Blue Goose and Oyster Bar Salt Marsh properties include limited
parking, boardwalks, nature trails, information signs, and limited parking. In addition to those improvements,
a canoe landing is proposed on the Harmony Oaks property as well. Invasive exotic plant removal and
resource management are proposed for each site, consistent with county environmental lands program
objectives.
December 8, 1998
cm
•
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Conceptual Approval Agreements
for the herein described LAAC sites, including the Blue Goose and Oyster Bar Salt Marsh Confidentiality
Agreements. Staff also recommends that the Board opt to have the County be the responsible party for
negotiation and acquisition activities, as applicable, and also opt to retain full title to the properties.
ATICACEMNIS
1. Project location maps.
2. Conceptual Approval Agreement (CAA) for the Blue Goose LAAC site
JLhe Oyster Bar Salt Marsh & Harmony OaksCA—Asare available {or r�tiew in the County Commission Of}ice)
3 Confidentiality Agreements for the Blue Goose and Oyster Bar Salt Marsh sites.
W:WSERS%0LAMN1AACTCT,98CA BCC.WPD
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
Conceptual Approval Agreements for LAAC sites described in
the Memorandum; approved the Blue Goose and Oyster Bar Salt
Marsh Confidentiality Agreements; opted to have the County be
the responsible party for negotiation and acquisition activities,
as applicable; and opted to retain full title to the properties, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
THREE PARTIALLY EXECUTED CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.E. ESCAMBIA HOUSING MORTGAGE PROGRAM
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 2, 1998:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: December 2, 1998
SUBJECT: ESCAMBIA HOUSING MORTGAGE PROGRAM
INDUSTRIAL REVENUE BOND
FROM: Joseph A.Bair C
OMB Director
At the Board of County Commissioner meeting on November 24, 1998 the board approved the
advertising of the Escambia Housing Mortgage Program public hearing, but did not approve the
request to waive the $1,000 administrative fee plus the .5% of the face value of the bonds (.5% up
to a maximum of $10,000).
Please advise staff as to what your wishes are.
December 8, 1998
31
•
BOOK Wl pAGE i �
BOOK �y0.1 `�
I r11�
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously waived the fee.
11.G. CONSULTANT SELECTION (NEGOTIATE WITH ZEP
CONSTRUCTION. INC.) - CIVIL ENGINEER/CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR - DESIGN/BUILD FOR CR512 ROADWAY BRIDGES
OVER FELLSMERE FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT PARK
LATERAL CANAL AND LATERAL "U" CANAL EAST OF SUN AG
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 2, 1998:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo;� r
SUBJECT: Consultant Selection - Civil Engineer/ Construction Contractor
- Design/Build for CR512 Roadway Bridges over Fellsmere Farms
Water Control District Park Lateral Canal and Lateral "U"
Canal East of Sun Ag
DATE: December 2, 1998
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The consultant selection committee, consisting of Terry Thompson
Capital Projects Engineer, Terry Cook Road and Bridge
Superintendent, and Jim Davis, Public Works Director, interviewed
three engineering firms on November 30, 1998, for the purpose of
consultant ranking for the CR512 Fellsmere Roadway Bridges over
Fellsmere Farms Water Control District Park Lateral Canal and
Lateral "U" Canal.
After considering the selection criteria published in the R.F.P.,
the committee recommends the following prioritized short-list:
1) Zep Construction Inc. - Ft. Myers, FL.
2) Murphy Construction, Co. - West Palm Beach, FL.
3) B.K. Marine Construction, Inc. - Vero Beach, F1.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the above prioritized short-list and
authorization to proceed with contract negotiation with the first
ranked firm, Zep Construction, Inc.
December 8, 1998
32
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Adams, to approve staff's recommendation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked Public Works Director -James Davis
to confine that staff is still looking at the same time element, and Director Davis assured her
that staff was on track with the schedule and, as a matter of fact, ahead of schedule.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Approved the prioritized short-list in the
Memorandum and authorized staff to proceed with contract
negotiations with the first -ranked firm, Zep Construction, Inc.,
as recommended in the Memorandum.)
11.H. CONTINUING SERVICES AGREEMENTS - SURVEYING
SERVICES - CARTER ASSOCIATES. INC. - MASTELLER, MOLER
AND REED, INC. - KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 20, 1998:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 20, 1998
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMIIVISTRATOR
FROM:
DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E.
J�0
DIRECTOR OF LJTI7.IT`Y
PREPARED
waxiAM F. , P.E.
AND STAFFED BY:
CAP1T CTS ENGINEER
SUBJECT:
CONTINUING SERVICE AGREEDEMM -
SURVEYING SERVICES
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The County Utilities Department currently has three firms under contract for
continuing surveying services as follows:
• Carter Associates, Inc.
• Masteller, Moler, and Reed, Inc.
• KGmley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
For details of contracts and Board approval, please reference the attached
agenda item, minutes, and associated contracts. Survey work is assigned to
the firms on a rotational basis for contracts in excess of $10,000.00 and on a
quotation basis for projects under $10,000.00. Staff now would like to emend
these contracts for an additional period of two years. Minding for these
services will be on a project -by -project basis.
RECO>lIMENDATION
Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends_ that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the extension of survey contracts for a period
of two years, as presented.
December. 8, 1998
33
BOOK PAGE 1,�
BOOK W PnUE 342�1 7
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Ginn, to approve staff's recommendation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked Utilities Department Director Don
Hubbs to explain how the rotation works under these agreements, and Director Hubbs
advised that the break-point is $10,000. Projects anticipated to cost over $10,000 are done
on a rotational basis and below $10,000 are done on a best -quote basis.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Authorized the extension of survey
contracts with Carter Associates, Inc., Masteller, Moler, and
Reed, Inc., and Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., for a period
of two years, as presented, as recommended in the
Memorandum.)
CONTRACT EXTENSION AGREEMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON FILE
IN TBE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
WEEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
B.C.1. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - TIME EXTENSION - BEACH
PRESERVATION PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED TO
ESTABLISH INTENT TO USE THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT
METHOD
Commissioner Adams reviewed a Memorandum of December 8, 1998:
D yTE. December 8. 1998
TO: Board of County Conurusbioners
FROM: Fran B. Adams, Chairman, Beach and Short Prescriation
RIE: Time E=ennsion
Staff and our consultants have been working diligenth and deliberately to bring to
the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee a plan detailing alternatives for
financing the previously approved Beach Preservation Plan Update.
Whine the altcrnatives havc not been presented to the Comnutiee yet, the original
time line developed by the Committee involved review and recomendation to the
Commission for a public hearing on the plan before January 1. 1999. Under the
December 8, 1998
34
0
extraordinary project scenario, our time line was a bit optimistic. There are four project
areas in the Bcach Plan under rcvicw and analizedon. The BSPAC will not rc icw the
plan and make a recommendation before January.
To preserve our ability to decide on possible assessments after January 1. 1999 to
be levied in July's trim notice based on January 1 values, State Statute allows us to
advertise and have a public hearing on the Uniform Assessment Method to be used. This
method simply states that the assessment will be collected on the ad valorem tax bill. If
special assessments are to be collected on the ad valorem tax bill. the Country must:
1) publish notice of its intent to use this collection method weekly for 4 conseciltive weeks,
2) conduct a public heating,
3) adopt a resolution of intent prior to January 1 of the calendar year in which the first ad
valorem tax bill will be mailed,
4) send copies of the resolution to the property appraiser, the tax collector, and the
Department of Revenue by January 10.
Both the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser have consented to defer the compliance
.dates to %-larch 1 of 1999.
We propose the Public Hearing for th!_ adoption of the Resolution of Intent to Use
the uniform Assessment Method for December 22. 1999. if we use assessments in the
project then we. have preserved our right to assess in the 1999 calendar year. The actzjal
Ccunumic plan will come to the Commission Bur review. public hearing, and
recommendation sometime in January.
In response to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry, Commissioner Adams advised that the
the topic for the public hearing would simply be if there would be any assessment on a tax
bill, not a plan or methodology which would come up early next year. The Board would
make the decision when the plan comes up again.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously scheduled a
public hearing for December 22, 1998, to consider for adoption
a resolution of Intent to Use the Uniform Assessment Method to
cover the financing of the previously -approved Beach
Preservation Plan Update.
Commissioner Adams expressed thanks to County Attorney Vitunac and Coastal
Engineer Jeff Tabar for working diligently to bring this all together, making sure every base
is covered, and leaving no rocks unturned.
December 8, 1998
35
BOOK JU"7 P,q X3,3
BOOK jrr PAGE
6*10
13.C.2. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - REPORT ON TALLAHASSEE
TRIP - LAMAC MEETING REGARDING SHARED TITLE TO
ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS
Commissioner Adams reported that the shared title issue came before the LAMAC
committee last week and she was able to get a concession. Their recommendation was to try
a couple of environmental land purchases with shared title on a trial basis. The concern on
what is being referred to as the "prenuptial agreement' is how the County relates to the State
in terms of appraisals, closing statements, and management. Our position has been that those
issues are not a problem, but just need to be worked out up front. Commissioner Adams
gave some examples of some "what ifs" on which the State wants to have a few workshops.
This matter will need to be worked through so that staff is comfortable with the "prenuptial
agreement'. Our biggest ally at the meeting was Jim Murley from the Department of
Community Affairs, who was very enthusiastic and supportive. Most questions were raised
by George Percy from the Division of Historical Resources, who was concerned mainly with
management issues, such as archeological resources. Our position was that those items are
continually addressed in the management plan to begin with, that whoever is the lead
management agency has to address archeological resources and plan for them. He was not
convinced and that is one of the reasons for workshopping the "prenuptial agreement'. The
recommendation will be, however, that we try shared titles since there is no historical reason
not to give shared titles to the counties, if they so desire. A 25% participation in cost should
give a vested interest. She felt a lot of headway was made in the 2 -hour discussion. Good
support was there from Brevard, Volusia, and St. Johns Counties. She will continue working
on this issue.
Chairman Tippin admired Commissioner Adams' patience and thanked her for her
efforts and skills at the State government level. He related difficulties that Walton County
(where the State owns almost three-quarters of the county) has had to purchase property from
the State in order to expand their county government buildings.
13.C.3. COMMISSIONER ADAMS - CONCERNS ABOUT
WIDENING USN IN SEBASTIAN
Commissioner Adams advised that she has been aware of a strong resistance from
people in Sebastian who are concerned about the 6 -laving of US#1 in Sebastian. Because
of this, she asked that the Board direct the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) to
look at alternatives, and perhaps energies can be spent in other areas which are more in need.
December 8, 1998
She thought the Commission might be able to short-circuit a lot of the pain that is being
caused the people.
Vice Chairman Macht thought widening US#1 in Sebastian was not needed.
Commissioner Stanbridge reported that the people of Sebastian had planned their
fishing village theme and believed that 64aning US# 1 would destroy that as well as their
small businesses and historical resources, which they are counting on for the heritage tourism
in the ecotourism industry.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Ginn, to have MPO look at the issue of
widening US#1 in Sebastian and make a recommendation to
DOT as to the disposition of that effort.
Commissioner Ginn was supportive and recalled that the issue had already been
addressed by the MPO, and MPO had taken a stand against widening US#1.
Community Development Director Bob Keating, who also serves as MPO staff
director, confirmed that the issue has been addressed by MPO and tomorrow's meeting
would be another good opportunity to address it. He explained the process which DOT goes
through in roadway planning and pre -planning, which takes many years. DOT is now doing
the pre -planning study, which is really a "fatal -flaw -type" of study where they first look to
determine if there is a need to do the project, and, second, determine if there are some
reasons that it cannot go forward. The MPO long-range plan, identified by the year 2020,
looks like there could be a need for additional lanes on US# 1, that is, there could be
congestion by that time. DOT is looking at that in more detail. The latest information from
DOT is that it might not be needed by that time. One of the things they will be looking at
is alternatives. It is important to remember that there is a lot more development (and traffic)
which will occur in Sebastian, but the question is will the widening be absolutely necessary.
Right now it looks like it might not be; it could be 10 years later.
It seemed to Commissioner Adams that the people of Sebastian think they are not
being listened to, that this project is being pushed without taking into consideration how the
people feel. She wanted to know if there is a way to stop it now and take another look in 10
years.
Director Keating stated there was. He thought DOT and the County had both stressed
December 8, 1998
37
BOOK 107 PAGE
600K 107 FnE 831 7
at the meeting that they were not out to build the roads, but merely to identify what the
conditions will be and look at any alternatives to deal with the congestion that is predicted
to occur. If it is overwhelming that the community does not want it, it will not be done.
Commissioner Stanbridge had been in the audience at the meeting and understood that
the process could be stopped "when the time came"; she asserted "this is the time."
Director Keating understood and added that the process can be stopped without
getting the information or the information can be gathered and determine if there will be a
problem, if there are ways to correct it, and then make a decision.
Commissioner Adams wanted to know what kind of information DOT is looking for,
and Director Keating advised that they are taking the information the County has provided
and trying to get more detail and better updated information for the particular area.
Chairman Tippin asked if DOT takes such things as historical districts into
consideration.
Director Keating affirmed that they do, that could be a reason for not widening. He
added that it is the consultant's responsibility to identify alternatives. Sebastian is different
from Vero Beach in that it does not have a grid system with alternative ways to travel. DOT
will be at the MPO meeting tomorrow to present their 5 -year work program, so they will be
able to answer some questions. Director Keating confirmed for Commissioner Ginn that all
of Indian River County is in District 4 and has all the same DOT staff.
It was Commissioner Ginn's opinion that DOT staff for District 4 did not have a good
record in keeping their word, and will so tell them at tomorrow's meeting.
MOTION WAS AMENDED by Commissioner Adams to have
the County Commission present a letter tomorrow to the DOT
representatives that we are very concerned about the 6-laning of
US# 1 in Sebastian and would request that they not look at it
again for 10 years. Amendment was agreed to by the SECOND.
Director Keating wanted to point out that from time of project conception it usually
takes 10-15 years to build it because of the processes a project has to go through.
Commissioner Adams thought the funny thing about that is the screaming need for
improving SR60 and US 192, where there seems to be no headway, compared to this project,
which is not wanted.
December 8, 1998
38
0 is
Director Keating advised that the first section of the 44aning of SR -60 west of I-95
is scheduled to begin construction in February 2000 (3-1/2 mile segment) and the second
segment construction will begin a couple of years later which will bring it out to CR512.
There is a $22 billion funding deficit on the Florida State Intra -State Highway System.
Commissioner Adams blamed that on mitigation.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
Commissioner Ginn commented that SR60 seemed safe now to her. A lot of
improvements have been made, but it does need to be 4 -land.
13.E. COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE - STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Commissioner Stanbridge reviewed her Memorandum of November 14, 1998:
November 14, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Tippin, Chairman
FROM: Ruth Stanbridge, Commissioner, District 2
SUBJECT Stormwater Management Planning
On the December 8th agenda, I would like to add under my matters a very brief discussion about
stormwater management.
Even though, I am new to this Commission, I am not new to the need for stormwater
management. As you recall, in the 1980s, when you were Planning and Zoning chairman and I
was vice chairman, we spend many, many hours with staff discussing the problems of containing
and cleaning up the county's stormwater systems. Limited staff and no money were our major
problems, but we did place goals, objectives, and policies in the final 1990 plan and hoped for the
best.
Over the past ten years as Indian River County has grown, other things have taken priority over a
county -wide stormwater management plan. Other things will continue to take priority, unless we
take an active role in addressing the problems, developing a pro -active plan, and seeking out
funding sources. I believe these sources are out there now and will be more available in the
future.
The expanded direction of P2000 monies and our local legislative delegation foresee accelerated
programs initiated this year to restore and improve the water conditions, both the quality and
quantity, in Florida. Florida's water management districts and our own St. Johns Water
Management District are already working toward that goal. The Environmental Protection
December 8, 1998
39
GOOK i0l FkGE P 12-10
600K 107 pxn 833 7
Agency (EPA) has several funding programs that would offer match and full grants for
stormwater management plans. I believe the timing is now to begin an effort to address the goals,
objectives, and policies that have been in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan since the 1980s.
Jim Davis and his limited staff have done an outstanding job in keeping the county's roads and
bridges together and addressing the drainage for these as they go. They have also found time and
funding sources through already established programs to prepare drainage plans for the older
communities. The poor drainage or no drainage in these areas effect the health and welfare of the
people living there - not to mention the property values.
Tun hopes to have some additional talented folks on his staff shortly, so the timing may be right to
begin the planning toward a stormwater management system. I would like to request Public
Works to consider a "multi -phased countywide" stormwater management plan as part of their
department's goals for the coming year, I would also like to offer my help in any way toward this
effort.
Commissioner Stanbridge believed it was time to be pro -active in stormwater
management planning. She suggested funding sources might be available and that Public
Works Director James Davis might possibly use his new staff members towards this goal.
She felt he had done an excellent job with the county's bridges and roads and in keeping up
with the drainage, and noted he had taken the time and sought funding to go after some
drainage in some of the older communities that were in desperate need.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Stanbridge,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, to request Public
Works to consider a multiple -phase countywide storinwater
management plan as part of their goals for the coming year.
Commissioner Ginn thought the State was going to require that. She felt the
ramifications of it tend to be frightening as to what it means for the average homeowner.
Public Works Director James Davis agreed that the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) process is going to a new level where smaller communities of
50,000 to 100,000 people will be affected by 2002. The County will be required to have a
stormwater management plan, have to do better mapping of the watershed areas, and have
to begin planning to reduce pollutant loadings to the Indian River Lagoon and the Sebastian
River. It will be a laborious process, even before 2002, to start accumulating the data, a lot
of which we have already begun to do. We certainly will need to refine our stormwater
management mapping of our watersheds, as the technology comes down in cost. He
supported completely what Commissioner Stanbridge was proposing. He recalled that six
years ago, staff had proposed a stormwater utility preliminary document, but the opportunity
December 8, 1998
40
0 is
has not been there to introduce another level of utility charges in the county. The State and
Federal governments are both pushing us in that direction and it is something we cannot hold
off.
Commissioner Adams thought something innovative might surface and preclude a
drastic measure like that.
Commissioner Stanbridge thought timing important, because there are a lot of funding
sources available now that can be used.
Referring back to a prior issue about US#1 in Sebastian, Director Davis added that
the T-21 Federal Transportation Legislation has a big pot of money for stormwater
improvements to clean up the run-off of the State highway system. He cautioned against
killing the US# 1 project (in Sebastian) completely because we may eliminate the possibility
of using T-21 money to clean the stormwater running off US# 1, even if we do not get the 6-
laning.
Commissioner Adams recalled that when the State did the 4 -laving, they still dumped
the run-off into the Lagoon.
Commissioner Stanbridge wondered if it would be possible for the St. Johns River
Water Management District to convince DOT that they have to be a partner in cleaning up
the Indian River and go back and address those DOT drainage ditches that have been there
since US# 1 was put in.
Director Davis thought SJRWMD could have some leverage, but DOT would be
looking for a funding source and that would have to be Federal transportation money, and
there is a big pot of money (in T-21) and we certainly do not want to eliminate our
possibility of tapping into that.
Commissioner Adams noted that it was nice to have Margaret Engle present from
SJRWMD and Kenny Kay from Senator Kurth's office.
Commissioner Ginn asked if Director Davis would require more staff for this project
and was pleased that Commissioner Stanbridge was spearheading this issue. She wondered
if it would be necessary to postpone until the next budget year, but stressed that sometimes
it is he who is in first who gets the money.
Director Davis advised that the two new staff members who were soon to start have
both declined. The County Engineer position will be filled right after the first of the year,
but the other three positions are still open. He attributed the dearth of qualified applicants
December 8, 1998
41
BOOK JV PA.GE 33
BOOK 107 FADE i�
to supply and demand in the market place.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously.
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 9:57 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approve4Q=, , t_ d Q, 199 8
December 8, 1998
42
Yohn W. Tipp in, Chairman