Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/19/1999• MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A TUESDAY, JANUARY 19,1999 - 9:00 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Kenneth R Macht, Chairman (District 3) Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1) Caroline D. Ginn, (District 5) Ruth Stanbridge (District 2 John W. Tippin, (District 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP PAGES 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Caroline D. Ginn 4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Delete Item 9.C., False Alarms - Law Enforcement 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Proclamation Designating February, 1999 as "Leave a Legacy Month" in Indian River County 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 5, 1999 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board: 1) Notice I.RC. Hosp. Dist. Meeting Change of Regular Meeting Date from 1/21/99 to 1/13/99 at 6:30 p.m. in the County CommissiowChambers, 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, FL 2) LR. Mem. Hosp. Inc. and Subsidiaries - Consolidated Financial State- ments for Sept. 30, 1998 and 1997 B. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated January 7, 1999) 2-10 C. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs (memorandum dated January 8, 1999) 11 D. Request for County Resolution Supporting Federal Acquisition of Kennedy Groves Property as a Buffer to the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (memorandum dated January 13, 1999) 12-17 BOOK 108 PAGE 78 BOOK PAGE 7 BACKUP 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): E. Consideration of Agreement for Mass Transit PAGES Service Provision Between Indian River County and the Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. (memorandum dated January 11, 1999) 18-25 F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 005 (memorandum dated January 12,1999) 26-29 G. Approval of Out -of -County Travel for Commissioners to Attend Briefing on Federal Environmental issues in Orlando, FL on February 17,1999 30 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 103 COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS TO AMEND THE CHILDREN'S SERVICES NETWORK (memorandum dated September 17,1998) 31-60 2. Consideration and Formal Selection of Categories for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Applications (memorandum dated January 13, 1999) 61-74 3. TCI Cable System Ownership Change (memorandum dated December 16,1998) 75-77 B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Beach Preservation Plan: Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan (copies of Report provided separately) (memorandum dated January 11, 1999) 78-79 (a) Presentation of the Plan by Applied Technology & Management, Inc. (b) Public Input 80-82 2. Request for Clarification of County Regula- tions Relating to Private Roadways Used as Frontage for Lot Splits (memorandum dated January 13, 1999) 83-98 C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS Scheduled for Public Hearing on February 2,1999: False Alarms - Law Enforcement (memorandum dated January 13, 1999) 99 10. COUNTY ADM MSTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Develogment None 0 10 G. Public Works Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements Project Resolution for Florida Dept. of Transportation Grant (memorandum dated January 6, 1999) 122-125 H. Utilities ' 1. Payoff of Utility Liens on Countryside North and Holiday Village Manufactured Home Communities (memorandum dated January 13, 1999) 126-159 2. Payment for County's Share of Abandoned North Beach Water Supply Well No. 2 (memorandum dated January 8, 1999) 160-169 3. Barber Street Trade Agreement - Final Pay Request (memorandum dated January 5, 1999) 170-194 I. Human Services None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams BOR F, BACKUP 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): B. Emergency Services PAGES 1. Approval of Fy 99 State & Local Assistance Agreement (memorandum dated January 12, 1999) 100-117 2. Renewal of 9-1-1 Communications Center Annual UPS Maintenance Agreement with MGE UPS Systems (memorandum dated January 11, 1999) 118-121 C. General Services None D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget None F. Personnel None G. Public Works Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements Project Resolution for Florida Dept. of Transportation Grant (memorandum dated January 6, 1999) 122-125 H. Utilities ' 1. Payoff of Utility Liens on Countryside North and Holiday Village Manufactured Home Communities (memorandum dated January 13, 1999) 126-159 2. Payment for County's Share of Abandoned North Beach Water Supply Well No. 2 (memorandum dated January 8, 1999) 160-169 3. Barber Street Trade Agreement - Final Pay Request (memorandum dated January 5, 1999) 170-194 I. Human Services None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams BOR F, 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd 1• C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge E. Commissioner John W Tippin 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS A. Emergency Services District None - BOOK 108 81 � BACKUP PAGES B. Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Approval of Minutes - meeting of 1/5/99 2. Analysis of Solid Waste Management Services (memorandum dated January 11, 1999) 195-208 3. Monitoring Well Construction C & D Landfill (memorandum dated January 11, 1999) 209-218 4. Request for Proposals - Closed Landfill Investigations (memorandum dated January 7, 1999) 219-250 C. Environmental Control Board None 15. ADJOURNMENT Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 X408 at 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 INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JANUARY 19, 1999 1. CALL TO ORDER .............................................. -1- 2. INVOCATION ................................................. -1- 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................................... -1- 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA .................................. -1- 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ......................... 2 - Proclamation Designating February, 1999 as "Leave a Legacy Month" in Indian River County ............................................. 2- 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ....................................... .3- 7. CONSENT AGENDA ........................................... -3- 7.A. Reports ................................................. -3- 7.B. List of Warrants .................. .........................3- 7.C. Payments to Vendors of Court -Related Costs ..................... 9- 7.D. Resolution 99-004 - Supporting Federal Acquisition of Kennedy Groves Property as a Buffer to the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge .. 40- 7.E. Mass Transit Service Provision - Agreement with Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc ...................................... .13- 7.F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #005 ....................... .14- 7.G. Approval of Out -of -County Travel for Commissioners to Attend Briefing on Federal Environmental Issues - Orlando, FL on February 17, 1999 - US Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV and Conference of Southern Counties Association ..................................... .17 - JANUARY 19, 1999 -1- BOOK 103 FAGS 82 BOOK 108 PAGE 83 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 99-001 AMENDING CHAPTER 103, CHILDREN'S SERVICES NETWORK (CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE) ............................................... .18- 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION - CONSIDERATION AND FORMAL SELECTION OF CATEGORIES ............................................... -31- 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION 99-005 - TCI OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY, INC. CABLE SYSTEM OWNERSHIP CHANGE TO MEDIAONE ACQUISITIONS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS, INC. ............................................................ -40- 9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BEACH PRESERVATION PLAN - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND COST ALLOCATION PLAN - APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, INC . .................................... 44- (a) - Presentation of the Plan by Applied Technology and Management, Inc. ...................................................... .45- (b) - Public Input ............................................... .68- 9.13.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - COUNTY REGULATIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE ROADWAYS USED AS FRONTAGE FOR LOT SPLITS - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION (MICHAEL O'HAIRE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO SPLIT A PARCEL - JACK KROVOCHECK OBJECTION) ............. .82- 9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - FALSE ALARMS - LAW ENFORCEMENT.... -87- 11.B.1-APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT (SLA) - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES ........................................................... -87- JANUARY 19, 1999 11.B.2.RENEWAL OF 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER ANNUAL UPS • MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - MGE-UPS SYSTEMS .............. .88- 11.G. RESOLUTION 99-006 - WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) GRANT..................................................... .90- 1 l.H.1. COUNTRYSIDE NORTH AND HOLIDAY VILLAGE MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES (GERALD ELLENBERG - ELL -CAP SAN SOUCI) - MHC LENDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ...................................................... .94- 11.11.2. ABANDONED NORTH BEACH WATER SUPPLY WELL NO. 2 - SJRWMD - PAYMENT FOR COUNTY'S SHARE .............. .96- I I.H.3.BARBER STREET TRADE AGREEMENT - FINAL PAY REQUEST - PROJECT CDS/CCS672 - WILLIAM SCHULKE (NELSON HYATT) ..... .97- 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............................ .98 - JANUARY 19, 1999 -3- BOOK 103 PAGE 8 January 19, 1999 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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, January 19, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; John W. Tippin; Caroline D. Ginn; and Ruth Stanbridge. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney;. and Patricia "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Macht called the meeting to order. 2. INVOCATION Reverend Urias Forbes of the Church of God delivered the Invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Ginn led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA County Attorney Vitunac requested the deletion of Item 9.C., False Alarms - Law Enforcement, and noted that the item will be readvertised. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously made the above change to the Agenda. JANUARY 19, 1999 -1- B X08 wt In 85 r BOOK 108 PAGE 86 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY, 1999 As "LEAVE A LEGACY MONTH" IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY The Chairman presented the following Proclamation to Mike Kint of the United Wav: PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING FEBRUARY, 1999 AS "LEAVE A LEGACY MONTH" IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WHEREAS, the residents of Indian River County have consistently displayed their charitable nature through many charitable works in our community; and WHEREAS, the Planned Giving Council of Indian River, a group of planned giving professionals, has undertaken the Leave a Legacy Program to foster and encourage charitable giving throughout our community; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the month of February, 1999 be designated as , LEAVE A LEGACY MONTH in Indian River County, and the Board encourages the residents of this county to consider charitable giving as part of their estate plan. Adopted this 19th day of January, 1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Kenneth K Macht, Chairman Mike Kint, of United Way and on behalf of Leave A Legacy, thanked the Board for its assistance and recognition. He asked that anyone interested in leariung more about the program call their hot line at 770-0705. JANUARY 19, 1999 • 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 1999. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 1999, as written. 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. REPORTS Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board: 1. Notice of Indian River County Hospital District Meeting Change of Regular Meeting Date from 1/21/99 to 1/13/99 at 6:30 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25`' Street, Vero Beach, FL 2. Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. and Subsidiaries - Consolidated Financial Statements for September 30, 1998 and 1997 7.B. LIST OF WARRANTS The 13oard reviewed a Memorandum of January 7, 1999: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS JANUARY 7. 1999 FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes. Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board. for the time period of January 6 to January 7. 1999. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period from January 6, 1999 through January 7, 1999, as recommended by staff. JANUARY 19, 1999 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0019763 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND 1999-01-06 944.26 0019764 FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM 1999-01-06 346,555.74 0019765 KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE 1999-01-06 138.50 0019766 BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF THE 1999-01-06 422.04 0019767 ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF THE 1999-01-06 135.20 0019768 ST LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF THE 1999-01-06 724.98 0019769 VELASQUEZ, MERIDA 1999-01-06 200.00 0019770 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK OF 1999-01-06 3,634.92 0019771 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 1999-01-06 650.00 0019772 VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. 1999-01-06 1,956.00 0019773 INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT 1999-01-06 83,953.65 0019774 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 1999-01-06 257.69 0019775 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE 1999-01-06 189.52 0019776 UNITED WAY OF INDIAN RIVER CTY 1999-01-06 1,345.80 0019777 NACO/SOUTHEAST 1999-01-06 5,340.91 0019778 KEY TRUST COMPANY 1999-01-06 596.21 0019779 OKEECHOBEE CO., PMTS DOMES REL 1999-01-06 167.25 0019780 DOUGLAS COUNTY CLERK OF COURT 1999-01-06 23.08 0255122 AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1999-01-07 630.00 0255123 AIRBORNE EXPRESS 1999-01-07 18.45 0255124 ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE 1999-01-07 361.50 0255125 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 1999-01-07 28.19 0255126 AT YOUR SERVICE 1999-01-07 1,911.20 0255127 ATCO TOOL SUPPLY 1999-01-07 16.60 0255128 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 1999-01-07 11.19 0255129 ALL POWER SERVICES, INC 1999-01-07 786.69 0255130 ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED 1999-01-07 29.95 0255131 ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING 1999-01-07 56.25 0255132 COMMONWEALTH TECH 1999-01-07 2,640.00 0255133 ABARE, EDWARD J III 1999-01-07 8.70 0255134 AMERICAN AIR FILTER 1999-01-07 2,441.28 0255135 A T & T 1999-01-07 135.00 0255136 A B C CUTTING CONTRACTORS, INC 1999-01-07 195.00 0255137 A & E HOME VIDEO 1999-01-07 24.90 0255138 ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1999-01-07 15.64 0255139 AUTO PARTS OF VERO. INC 1999-01-07 1,058.81 0255140 ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS 1999-01-07 317.51 0255141 ARCH PAGING 1999-01-07 423.92 0255142 AMERISYS, INC 1999-01-07 2,054.05 0255143 A T & T 1999-01-07 28.68 0255144 ALARIS MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC. 1999-01-07 415.73 0255145 ARAMSCO 1999-01-07 700.00 0255146 ARBA EQUIPMENT, INC. 1999-01-07 960.00" 0255147 ABINGDON PRESS 1999-01-07 393.17 0255148 AGSCIENCE, INC. 1999-01-07 567.49 0255149 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1999-01-07 2,948.88 0255150 BENSONS LOCK SERVICE 1999-01-07 5.00 0255151 BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC 1999-01-07 500.00 0255152 BRODERBUND SOFTWARE 1999-01-07 24.95 0255153 BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK 1999-01-07 193,590.33 0255154 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 1999-01-07 2,313.00 0255155 BARNETT BAIL BONDS 1999-01-07 497.00 0255156 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 1999-01-07 2,465.49 0255157 BRODART CO 1999-01-07 3,994.26 0255158 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 1999-01-07 22.32 0255159 BILLING SERVICES INC 1999-01-07 36.98 0255160 BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE 1999-01-07 200.00 0255161 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 1999-01-07 430.00 0255162 BARER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 1999-01-07 3,419.53 0255163 BELLSOUTH MOBILITY 1999-01-07 15.80 0255164 BEACHAM PUBLICATING CORP 1999-01-07 153.00 0255165 BROADCASTING AND CABLE 1999-01-07 192.55 0255166 BUTLER, RYAN L 1999-01-07 157.82 0255167 BMG 1999-01-07 112.48 0255168 BASELINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1999-01-07 55,321.27 0255169 BLACK DIAMOND 1999-01-07 73.50 0255170 BOUD, J. CURTIS, P.A. 1999-01-07 235.00 0255171 BRANDON CAPITAL CORPORATION 1999-01-07 500.00 0255172 BLANTON, ANDREW AND DONNA 1999-01-07 1,000.00 0255173 BELLSOUTH 1999-01-07 1,353.97 0255174 CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY 1999-01-07 1,102.29 0255175 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC 1999-01-07 149.50 0255176 CORBIN, SHIRLEY E 1999-01-07 80.50 0255177 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1999-01-07 40,164.55 0255178 CLINIC PHARMACY 1999-01-07 111.57 0255179 CAPP CUSTOM BUILDERS, INC 1999-01-07 500.00 0255180 COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS OF 1999-01-07 2,910.58 0255181 CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA 1999-01-07 66.24 0255182 COOGAN, MAUREEN 1999-01-07 387.28 JANUARY 19, 1999 0 • CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0255183 COASTAL ORNAMENTAL & 1999-01-07 850.00 0255184 CRITIC'S CHOICE VIDEO 1999-01-07 290.67 0255185 CLIFFORD, MIRE 1999-01-07 200.00 0255186 CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC 1999-01-07 117.18 0255187 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 1999-01-07 374.50 0255188 COPYCO, INC 1999-01-07 93.67 0255189 COLUMBIA HOUSE 1999-01-07 61.67 0255190 CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN 1999-01-07 3,989.10 0255191 CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING & 1999-01-07 482.65 0255192 DELTA SUPPLY CO 1999-01-07 993.55 0255193 FLORIDA DEPT OF MANAGEMENT 1999-01-07 3,804.59 0255194 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 1999-01-07 202.20 0255195 DOBY - SEACOAST SUPPLY 1999-01-07 103.86 0255196 DOCTOR'S CLINIC 1999-01-07 390.00 0255197 DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC 1999-01-07 230.00 0255198 DAVIDSON TITLES, INC 1999-01-07 39,318.40 0255199 DEMCO MEDIA 1999-01-07 275.45 0255200 DEXCOM, INC. 1999-01-07 192.90 0255201 EVANS, FLOYD 1999-01-07 12.50 0255202 EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES 1999-01-07 434.06 0255203 EXPRESS REEL GRINDING, INC 1999-01-07 400.00 0255204 EMERGENCY LINEN SUPPLY CO 1999-01-07 922.50 0255205 ECRERD DRUG CO 1999-01-07 24.24 0255206 EMERGENCY POWER SYSTEM, LTD 1999-01-07 2,000.00 0255207 EMORY UNIVERSITY 1999-01-07 10.00 0255208 FLORIDA BAR, THE 1999-01-07 12.00 0255209 FLORIDA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 1999-01-07 150.00 0255210 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1999-01-07 2,392.07 0255211 FRASER ENGINEERING & TESTING 1999-01-07 150.00 0255212 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW 1999-01-07 45.00 0255213 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF 1999-01-07 42.00 0255214 FENNIMORE, CHARLES 1999-01-07 165.00 0255215 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF 1999-01-07 75.00 0255216 FELLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999-01-07 25.00 0255217 FLORIDA EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 1999-01-07 175.00 •0255218 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT 1999-01-07 80.58 0255219 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH 1999-01-07 581.56 0255220 FLORIDA FORESTRY FOUNDATION 1999-01-07 20.00 0255221 FLORIDA DEPT OF HEALTH 1999-01-07 50.00 0255222 GALE GROUP, THE 1999-01-07 704.10 0255223 GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC 199%-01-07 143.80 0255224 GENERAL GMC, TRUCK 1999-01-07 190.05 0255225 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC 1999-01-07 9.00 0255226 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 1999-01-07 990.36 0255227 GREENE, ROBERT E 1999-01-07 1,856.77 0255228 GEORGIA RUBBER 1999-01-07 794.80 0255229 GOLD STAR OF THE TREASURE 1999-01-07 2,376.00 0255230 GRILL REFILL, INC 1999-01-07 88.00 0255231 HAMMOND, KATHARINE R 1999-01-07 2,337.66 0255232 HARRIS SANITATION, INC 1999-01-07 518.24 0255233 HARRISON COMPANY, THE 1999-01-07 169.50 0255234 HILL DONNELLY CORPORATION 1999-01-07 97.70 0255235 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES 1999-01-07 1,231.29 0255236 HOLIDAY BUILDERS, INC 1999-01-07 500.00 0255237 HELD, PATRICIA BARGO 1999-01-07 332.50 0255238 HACH COMPANY 1999-01-07 114.70 0255239 HAMMOND & SMITH, PA 1999-01-07 1,752.75 0255240 HARRIS SANITATION, INC 1999-01-07 48,137.85 0255241 HUSSAMY, OMAR MD 1999-01-07 76.00 0255242 HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 1999-01-07 15.00 0255243 HARTSFIELD, CELESTE L 1999-01-07 59.50 0255244 HANSEN, SUSAN 1999-01-07 58.00 0255245 HOLIDAY INN 1999-01-07 594.00 0255246 HAMPTON INN 1999-01-07 390.00 0255247 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-01-07 57,370.83 0255248 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-01-07 50.00 0255249 INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC 1999-01-07 890.00 0255250 INDIAN RIVER ACE HARDWARE 1999-01-07 48.18 0255251 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-01-07 44.00 0255252 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 1999-01-07 148.47 0255253 INDIAN RIVER MULCH 1999-01-07 3,600.00 0255254 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES 1999-01-07 37.45 0255255 INDIAN RIVER ANIMAL HOSPITAL 1999-01-07 15.00 0255256 ISIS PUBLISHING 1999-01-07 618.64 0255257 INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 1999-01-07 147.75 0255258 INSURANCE SERVICING & 1999-01-07 275.00 0255259 INTERNATIONAL LIGHTING CORP 1999-01-07 71.20 0255260 I.. IAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 1999-01-C7 34.37 0255261 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTHY 1999-01-07 4,500.00 0255262 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID 1999-01-07 62.01 JANUARY 19, 1999 -5-BOOK 0 FAGS '�s 1t CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0255263 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT 1999-01-07 31.44 0255264 INDIAN RIVER HAND 1999-01-07 829.00 0255265 JAMES PUBLISHING, INC 1999-01-07 39.98 0255266 JORGENSEN, PETER ESQ 1999-01-07 253.00 0255267 JUDICIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE 1999-01-07 350.00 0255268 JUDGE, JAMES A II 1999-01-07 178.39 0255269 J A A F 1999-01-07 25.00 0255270 J A A F 1999 WINTER CONFERENCE 1999-01-07 50.00 0255271 JEWETT ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC 1999-01-07 23.40 0255272 JAFFE, ROBERT F, ES 1999-01-07 50.00 0255273 JONES CHEMICALS, INC 1999-01-07 1,672.80 0255274 KEY, PATRICIA W 1999-01-07 1,552.50 0255275 KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY FT PIERCE 1999-01-07 1,126.65 0255276 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC 1999-01-07 2,009.07 0255277 LEWIS, RUTH A 1999-01-07 29.67 0255278 LEGAL DIRECTORIES PUBL CO 1999-01-07 164.36 0255279 L B SMITH, INC 1999-01-07 80.26 0255280 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 1999-01-07 3,492.20 0255281 LESCO, INC 1999-01-07 205.83 0255282 LIVE OAR LAWN SUPPLY INC 1999-01-07 8,241.30 0255283 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC 1999-01-07 130.29 0255284 LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC 1999-01-07 13,769.31 0255285 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 1999-01-07 188.00 0255286 LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING 1999-01-07 139.39 0255287 LANDSCAPE CONNECTION 1999-01-07 395.00 0255288 LARGE PRINT LIBRARY DISCOUNTER 1999-01-07 21.63 0255289 LOIS INC 1999-01-07 1,000.00 0255290 MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP 1999-01-07 142.81 0255291 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 1999-01-07 77.00 0255292 MCDONOUGH, WAYNE R ESQ 1999-01-07 510.25 0255293 INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 1999-01-07 14,505.91 0255294 MICKLER'S FLORIDIANA, INC 1999-01-07 77.80 0255295 MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC 1999-01-07 104.85 0255296 MOSS, KATHY 1999-01-07 360.00 0255297 MUNICIPAL SUPPLY & 1999-01-07 945.00 0255298 MARQUIS WHO'S WHO 1999-01-07 264.24 0255299 MORA, RALPH PHD 1999-01-07 500.00 0255300 MIAMI ELEAVTOR COMPANY 1999-01-07 2,074.10 0255301 MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC 1999-01-07 268.35 0255302 MIAMI AIRPORT HILTON & TOWERS 1999-01-07 180.00 0255303 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 1999-01-07 31.90 0255304 MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET 1999-01-07 152.24 0255305 MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC 1999-01-07 10.30 0255306 MARC INDUSTRIES 1999-01-07 437.88 0255307 M W I CORPORATION 1999-01-07 575.00 0255308 MGH CONSTRUCTION INC 1999-01-07 500.00 0255309 MERGLER, LENORA J 1999-01-07 115.50 0255310 MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY 1999-01-07 75.68 0255311 MEYER, BERNICE 1999-01-07 48.39 0255312 MIDLANTIC DATA SYSTEMS INC 1999-01-07 2,132.46 0255313 MILL -IT CORPORATION 1999-01-07 3,500.00 0255314 NOLTE, DAVID C 1999-01-07 184,658.32 0255315 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY 1999-01-07 225.76 0255316 NICOSIA, ROGER J DO 1999-01-07 1,500.00 0255317 NATIONAL AMBULANCE BUILDERS, 1999-01-07 210.42 0255318 NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE 1999-01-07 32,397.33 0255319 NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO 1999-01-07 23.70 0255320 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION COUNTY 1999-01-07 75.00 0255321 N A D A APPRAISAL GUIDES 1999-01-07 50.00 0255322 NEW YORK TIMES, THE 1999-01-07 494.00 0255323 NATIONAL PROPANE CORP 1999-01-07 178.08 0255324 NATIONAL MARKET REPORTS, INC 1999-01-07 350.00 0255325 NAPIER, WILLIAM MATT 1999-01-07 33.06 0255326 NEIL, HELEN 1999-01-07 48.09 0255327 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE 1999-01-07 505.95 0255328 OXMOOR HOUSE 1999-01-07 29.91 0255329 O'BRIEN, DAVID MD 1999-01-07 53.00 0255330 PETTY CASH 1999-01-07 98.65 0255331 PHILLIPS, LINDA R 1999-01-07 339.50 0255332 PHYSICIANS DESK REFERENCE 1999-01-07 81.90 0255333 POSTMASTER 1999-01-07 85.00 0255334 POSTMASTER 1999-01-07 132.00 0255335 PAGE, LIVINGSTON 1999-01-07 165.00 0255336 PRESS JOURNAL/STUART NEWS 1999-01-07 225.15 0255337 PRAKAIR DISTRIBUTION 1999-01-07 451.46 0255338 PROFESSIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT 1999-01-07 -185.50 0255339 PEGASUS TRAVEL 1999-01-07 =_148.00 0255340 PROMEDIX CORP 1999-01-07 224.00 0255341 PRICE, MATTHEW A. 1999-01-07 700.00 0255342 PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO 1999-01-07 121.22 0255343 PARTYSHOP 1999-01-07 51.94 0255344 QUALITY BOOKS, INC 1999-01-07 3,551.80 0255345 RADISSON PLAZA HOTEL 1999-01-07 267.00 0255346 RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC 1999-01-07 459.81 0255347 RUSSO PRINTING, INC 1999-01-07 140.03 JANUARY 19, 1999 _I CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0255348 RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC 1999-01-07 86.00 0255349 ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA 1999-01-07 71.70 0255350 REED ELSEVIER NEW PROVIDENCE 1999-01-07 350.00 0255351 RECORDED BOOKS 1999-01-07 298.40 0255352 R & G SOD FARMS 1999-01-07 60.00 0255353 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE 1999-01-07 76.01 0255354 RISSMAN, WEISBERG, BARRETT, 1999-01-07 442.37 0255355 RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF 1999-01-07 581.63 0255356 RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES 1999-01-07 18,616.99 0255357 RSR 1999-01-07 976.16 0255358 R C BOOS CONSTRUCTION 1999-01-07 1,000.00 0255359 RADIOLOGY GROUP, THE 1999-01-07 15.00 0255360 RADISSON HOTEL 1999-01-07 300.00 0255361 ROGERS, BRENDAN 1999-01-07 90.00 0255362 SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC 1999-01-07 62.44 0255363 SEBASTIAN, CITY OF 1999-01-07 150.00 0255364 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC 1999-01-07 782.67 0255365 SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE 1999-01-07 4,459.33 0255366 SMITH, BRUCE J ESQUIRE 1999-01-07 620.57 0255367 SOUTHERN CULVERT, DIV OF 1999-01-07 60.36 0255368 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING, 1999-01-07 607.46 0255369 SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1999-01-07 316.16 0255370 ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC 1999-01-07 669.10 0255371 SIMON & SCHUSTER 1999-01-07 1,892.41 0255372 SAFETY EQUIP COMPANY 1999-01-07 45.00 0255373 SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL 1999-01-07 5,631.52 0255374 SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC 1999-01-07 405.05 0255375 SELIG CHEMICAL IND 1999-01-07 303.91 0255376 SOLINET 1999-01-07 389.40 0255377 SUPERIOR PRINTING 1999-01-07 275.00 0255378 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF 1999-01-07 841.42 0255379 STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC 1999-01-07 1,375.14 0255380 SEBASTIAN, CITY OF 1999-01-07 4,912.49 0255381 SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999-01-07 25.00 0255382 SIMS, MATTHEW 1999-01-07 150.80 0255383 SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY EQUIP 1999-01-07 305.45 0255384 SOUTHEAST DESALTING ASSOC 1999-01-07 15.00 0255385 SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC 1999-01-07 214.59 0255386 STAMM MANUFACTURING 1999-01-07 554.00 0255387 SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO 1999-01-07 1,054.45 0255388 SWOPE RECONSTRUCTION 1999-01-07 1,757.10 0255389 SUNET DIRECT 1999-01-07 305.10 0255390 SIGN PRO 1999-01-07 306.93 0255391 SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF 1999-01-07 813.00 0255392 STAGE & SCREEN 1999-01-07 30.28 0255393 SHELL FLEET CARD 1999-01-07 12.72 0255394 TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP 1999-01-07 73.10 0255395 TNEMEC COMPANY, INC 1999-01-07 327.00 0255396 TRI -COUNTY CONCRETE PRODUCTS 1999-01-07 9,057.00 0255397 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 1999-01-07 35.00 0255398 SMITH, TERRY L 1999-01-07 34.80 0255399 TELECOMMUNICATIONS 1999-01-07 109.73 0255400 T C BILLING CORPORATION 1999-01-07 9,774.03 0255401 THERMOGAS COMPANY 1999-01-07 3.37 0255402 T A P SOD 1999-01-07 24,360.04 0255403 TAYLOR, AARON 1999-01-07 189.38 0255404 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1999-01-07 160.00 0255405 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP 1999-01-07 29,359.64 0255406 U S G A 1999-01-07 100.00 0255407 VELDE FORD, INC 1999-01-07 1,907.68 0255408 VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE 1999-01-07 43.00 0255409 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-01-07 383.30 0255410 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-01-07 23,997.67 0255411 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-01-07 9,175.00 0255412 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC 1999-01-07 3,162.67 0255413 VERO STARTER & GENERATOR 1999-01-07 300.00 0255414 VETROL DATA SYSTEMS, INC 1999-01-07 2,266.00 0255415 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-01-07 1,649.11 0255416 VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER 1999-01-07 35.00 0255417 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999-01-07 125.00 0255418 VEY, CARRIE 1999-01-07 196.50 0255419 VERO BEARING & BOLT 1999-01-07 222.05 0255420 VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER 1999-01-07 75.00 0255421 VERO BEACH POWERTRAIN 1999-01-07 56.55 0255422 VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA 1999-01-07 20.00 0255423 VERO W G KINGS, LTD 1999-01-07 500.00 0255424 VOOHRES, DON 1999-01-07 1,000.00 0255425 VICKERS, REGINALD 1999-01-07 165.00 0255426 VADALA, LOUIS 1999-01-07 497.00 0255427 WALSH, LYNN 1999-01-07 32.48 0255428 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CENTER 1999-01-07 1,992.75 JANUARY 19, 1999 -7- 900K a PAGE BOOK 108 PAGE 9 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0255429 WILLO PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC 1999-01-07 712.48 0255430 WINN DIXIE STORES, INC 1999-01-07 19.98 0255431 WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY 1999-01-07 29.82 0255432 W W GRAINGER, INC 1999-01-07 135.97 0255433 WIGINTON FIRE SPRINKLERS,INC 1999-01-07 457.00 0255434 WILLHOFF, PATSY 1999-01-07 104.00 0255435 WHEELER, GARY SHERIFF 1999-01-07 7,054.55 0255436 WHARTON-SMITH, INC 1999-01-07 276,872.16 0255437 WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC 1999-01-07 145.24 0255438 WALKER, KEITH 1999-01-07 120.00 0255439 WEISS RATINGS, INC 1999-01-07 368.95 0255440 WHITE, JEFF 1999-01-07 69.38 0255441 WEYRE, ROBERT 1999-01-07 500.00 0255442 XEROX CORPORATION 1999-01-07 1,410.00 0255443 YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION 1999-01-07 390.60 0255444 PERLICK, PETE 1999-01-07 35.47 0255445 WILES, ALEX 1999-01-07 24.81 0255446 CROOM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 1999-01-07 19.05 0255447 R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC 1999-01-07 28.39 0255448 GRIMM MANAGEMENT LTD PARTNERSP 1999-01-07 32.98 0255449 BOLTON, DR JOHN 1999-01-07 84.60 0255450 PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO, INC 1999-01-07 149.66 0255451 TERLIZZESE, PAUL T 1999-01-07 33.86 0255452 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 1999-01-07 45.55 0255453 MARINO, JOHN J 1999-01-07 35.63 0255454 CARDARELLI, RAY 1999-01-07 63.81 0255455 GREGORY, MARK 1999-01-07 45.00 0255456 LEAL, NELIO 1999-01-07 14.75 0255457 D ALBORA III, JOHN V 1999-01-07 39.01 0255458 TUCKER, JOHN J 1999-01-07 41.15 0255459 ORCHID ISLAND PROPERTIES, INC 1999-01-07 73.33 0255460 GHO VERO BEACH INC 1999-01-07 63.61 0255461 GIESSERT, MICHAEL & LISA 1999-01-07 30.51 0255462 UEBLER, GEORGE R & DAVID M 1999-01-07 183.84 0255463 AKEBO INTERNATIONAL 1999-01-07 113.02 0255464 PICKRODT, GUSTAVE•. 1999-01-07 74.05 0255465 MOSELEY, DEBRA L 1999-01-07 41.45 0255466 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 1999-01-07 92.67 0255467 FAXON, LINDA 1999-01-07 64.43 0255468 ST LUCIE DEVELOPMENT CORP 1999-01-07 22.64 0255469 LOUTOS, PETER 1999-01-07 41.51 0255470 CARMINATI, DANIEL B 1999-01-07 33.74 0255471 LORINO, BONG -SUN 1999-01-07 54.15 0255472 LOCRNER, CHARLES 1999-01-07 35.27 0255473 STRICKLAND, M KATIE 1999-01-07 19.37 0255474 WILKINSON, DEBORAH 1999-01-07 39.25 0255475 AMES, DOUGLAS 1999-01-07 37.89 0255476 MUNNINGS, WANDA 1999-01-07 32.97 0255477 HUNT, PATRICIA 1999-01-07 8.07 0255478 OUGHELTREE, STEPHEN W 1999-01-07 65.72 0255479 MERCADO, ELSA ROSIO 1999-01-07 59.29 0255480 MULLER, STACEY L 1999-01-07 33.46 0255481 SHIELDS, SHAWN 1999-01-07 63.68 0255482 CROW, ROBB D 1999-01-07 54.43 0255483 GROOM CONSTRUCTION CO 1999-01-07 50.64 0255484 PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION, INC 1999-01-07 59.62 0255485 STEWART, DAVID 1999-01-07 77.67 0255486 MONTAQUE, DELROY 1999-01-07 36.27 0255487 SUNTRUST BANKS - UTILITY DESK 1999-01-07 111.30 0255488 BAKAKIS, SPIROS 1999-01-07 42.96 0255489 RAMIREZ, MOISES 1999-01-07 51.06 0255490 LAING, GLADYS J 1999-01-07 80.12 0255491 HEDRICK, WENDY M 1999-01-07 87.44 0255492 GHO VERO BEACH INC 1999-01-07 117.54 0255493 DICIANO, JOSEPH 1999-01-07 23.26 0255494 SMITH, EDWARD G 1999-01-07 70.47 0255495 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 1999-01-07 42.35 0255496 SONES, JANET S 1999-01-07 65.03 0255497 CAMPBELL, ROBERT L 1999-01-07 35.18 0255498 DILLON, J KRIS 1999-01-07 32.17 0255499 TWISTERS 1999-01-07 34.46 0255500 DUGGER, DENISE 1999-01-07 9.46 0255501 JACKSON, BRIAN & SUSAN 1999-01-07 49.38 0255502 MONAHAN, FRANK J 1999-01-07 78.45 0255503 GRACES LANDING, LTD 1999-01-07 80.43 0255504 WYNN, JAMIE 1999-01-07 60.95 0255505 KRAFT, WENDY G 1999-01-07 66.60 1,727,067.34 JANUARY 19, 1999 • Z C. PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT -RE -4 m) COSTS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 8, 1999: TO: Board of County Commissioners b (J FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attomel DATE: January 8, 1999 SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors The Listed below are the vendors names and the amount of each for the week of January 4, 1999. court related costs. Nations Bank Record Research 11.05 63.00 Patricia B. Held Transcription Witness Reimbursement 133.74 Susan Dye Witness Reimbursement 101.80 Robert Morrison Transcription 539.00 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 98.00 Linda Copeland Transcription 59.50 Linda Copeland Linda Copeland Transcription 17.50 52.50 Linda Copeland Transcription 147.00 Lenora J. Mergier Transcription 182.50 Peggy Gollnick Transcription 129.50 Patricia W. Kay Transcription 35.00 Linda Copeland Transcription 563.50 Patricia W. Key Transcription Witness Reimbursement 9.00 William Daniel Court Interpreter 25.00 Floyd Evans Celeste L. Hartsfield Transcription 42.00 42.00 Peggy Goilnick Transcription 119.00 Lenora J. Mergler Transcription 28.00 Peggy Golinick Transcription 35.00 Patricia W. Key Transcription $2,443,59 Total NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. JANUARY 19, 1999 W • �y BOOK 0, pAq J r, 600K 108 WE 94 7.D. RESOLUTION 99-004 - SUPPORTING FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF KENNEDYGRoyESPROPERTY ASA BOFFER TO THE PELICAN ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE e Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 13, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: 2,z, Robert M. Keating, r CP Community Developmen for / FROM: Roland M. DeBlois CP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: January 13, 1999 RE: Request for County Resolution Supporting Federal Acquisition of Kennedy Groves Property as a Baser to the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 19, 1999. The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (PINWR), located on north Jungle Trail, was established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 as the first national wildlife refuge. Over the past several years, regional staff at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and local environmental groups have campaigned for federal finding to acquire a "buffer" along the refuge. The purpose of the buffer is to guard against potential adverse impacts associated with future development of neighboring lands. Indian River County has contributed to the PINWR buffer by acquiring the "Korangy Tract" and by participating in the acquisition of the "Kennedy Buffer" through the County environmental lands program (see attached map). County staff has recently learned that a nonprofit organization, the Conservation Fund, is assisting the FWS to secure additional land from Ken Kennedy and Kennedy Groves to add to the refuge buffer. The subject property consists of two properties, one of which is ±39 acres of citrus groves west of Jungle Trail (two tax parcels), contiguous to the previously acquired Kennedy Buffer. The other property (also owned by Kennedy Groves) is a ±47 acre tract located along Jungle Trail and the Indian River Lagoon just north of the Windsor development (see attached map). In contacting a representative of the Conservation Fund, county staff has learned that the subject Kennedy Groves properties are under contract for purchase, with closing contingent upon the FWS obtaining sufficient monies for the purchase as may be allocated by Congress through the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). County staff has been contacted by representatives of the Pelican Island Preservation Society (PIPS) and the Indian River Land Trust (IRLT) requesting that the County adopt a resolution supporting the allocation of federal LWCF monies by Congress for the PINWR buffer purchase. As such, attached is a proposed resolution for the Board's consideration. The proposed resolution supports federal acquisition of the subject Kennedy Groves properties, and does not commit county acquisition funding. The subject property is a part of the PINWR Buffer project that is currently ranked 5th on the County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee's (LAAC) acquisition list. The PINWR buffer project has been on the LAAC acquisition list since 1995. Support of the federal acquisition proposal would serve the County's environmental land acquisition objectives, yet require no addition expenditure of county bond fiords. When the County participated in finding of the previously acquired Kennedy Buffer, the County limited its contribution to the estimated value of environmentally sensitive wetlands that were acquired by FWS along with grove land. The County did not participate in the purchase of citrus grove, based on a recommendation from LAAC that citrus groves are not environmentally significant, and therefore do not qualify for county bond funding. JANUARY 19, 1999 Similar to the Kennedy Buffer purchase, the County has an opportunity to contribute fimding for purchase of the herein discussed Kennedy Groves properties, but only to the extent of mangrove fringe wetlands on the property along the Indian River Lagoon. If the County is to consider contributing as a cost -share partner i to the extent of the value of the shoreline wetlands, the appropriate procedure would be for LAAC to review the matter and make a recommendation to the Board. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached resolution in support of the allocation of federal Land and Water Conservation Funds by Congress for federal acquisition of the herein described Kennedy Groves properties as an additional buffer to the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff to coordinate with LAAC for LAAC to review and make recommendations on County finding participation relating to environmentally sensitive lands on the subject Kennedy Groves properties. Commissioner Stanbridge noted that the "glossy ibis" should be deleted from Paragraph. 2. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 99-004 supporting federal acquisition of Kennedy Groves Property bordering the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, with the deletion of the "glossy ibis". Resolution No. 99 -0 4 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUPPORTING FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF KENNEDY GROVES PROPERTY BORDERING THE PELICAN ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. WHEREAS, the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 as the first national wildlife refuge of the United States, is located in unincorporated Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was established as a preserve and breeding ground for native birds, and continues to serve as a nesting area for such birds as the brown pelican, common egret, snowy egret, reddish egret, great blue heron, little blue heron, tri -color heron, black -crowned night heron, white ibis, double -crested cormorant, anhinga, and oystercatcher, and WHEREAS, Florida's population growth and conversion of land for development continue to encroach on our natural systems; and WHEREAS, federal acquisition of the herein described three parcels, totaling approximately 86 acres of land bordering the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, would provide an important buffer to protect the Refuge from land development encroachment; and JANUARY 19, 1999 -1 l- Box m � J 800K 10 8 FAGS Resolution No. 99 - 0 4 WHEREAS, Indian River County's Land Acquisition Advisory Committee has identified the overall Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge Buffer project on its priority list of environmental land acquisitions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners hereby supports federal acquisition of the herein described property to serve as a buffer to the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, and urges Congress to allocate monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the purchase. Said property is legally described as: Tax Pared No. 0431-39-00000.0060-00001.0 Gov. Lot 6, Im the & 660 It of the L 673.86 it, &also including Gov. Lot 1 of See. 9, Twp 31 S., Rge 39 L & also less the portion desc. in OR Bk 1076 Pg 1945 & less that portion of said parcel dem in OR Bk 1111 Pgs 2153-2155 & Pgs 2970 & 2973 Tax Parcel No. 0431-39-00000-0060410002.0 & 660 ft of the L 673.86. Ft of Gov Lot 6, less portion desc. In OR Bk 1111 Pgs 2153 & 2970 Tax Pawl No. 10-31-39-00000-0090-00001.0 Lots 9 & 10 Less Rds (OR Bk 448 pp 771) Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption. THE RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner A d a m s the motion was seconded by Commissioner G i nn , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams A y e Conmussioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 19th day of January, 1999. BOARD OF UNTY COMMISSIONERS INXme !Maicoht, FLORIDA s . Chairman A Jeffrey . arton, Clerk C State of Florida - County of Indian River STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared KENNETH R. MACHT, andD I Q le i A r • T A e--$ as Chairman and Deputy Clerk, respectively, to me known to be the persons described herein and who executed the foregoing 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 Lq_ day of a,ft4 A.D., 1999. (01 APPROVED AS TO Notary Public , LEGAL SUFFICIENCY: Terrence P. O'Brien Assistant County Attorney JANUARY 19, 1999 • natvsrminrvstaxm�rr , r ray MELWhite > •� Notary Puute of Florida Cam ooNO. �S76882 i < ?orao�my a 0132000 , < taaas++au►av Fl, H,rrsw.wattmataaCA IiC�';M1CMA L�r.J'TJi1/J�:'7 01 40 r: ZE. MASS TRANSIT SERVICE PROVISION -A GREEmENT WITHINDIANRIVER COUNTY COUNCIL ONAGING, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 11, 1999: TO: James Chandler County Administrator p THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Jacob Riger 'TP, MPO Planner DATE: January 11, 1999 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AGREEMENT FOR MASS TRANSIT SERVICE PROVISION BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COUNCIL ON AGING, INC. It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 19, 1998. In July 1998, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) conducted a triennial review of Indian River County's federally funded transit program. This review, which is a requirement for the receipt of federal mass transit capital and operating assistance, was a cooperative effort between FTA, County, and Council on Aging (COA) staff. The review examined 21 separate areas of the County's transit program. Topics reviewed included the County's legal, technical, and financial capabilities in applying for and administering federal transit grant fimds; the COA's procedures regarding procurement, safety, handicapped accessibility, and drug and alcohol testing; and the County's oversight of the COA's Community Coach fixed route public transportation program. One FTA requirement arising from the triennial review was for the County and the COA to comprehensively formalize the responsibilities of each party.regarding the provision of public transportation services within the County. In previous years, the County and COA have executed a one page Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) when applying for FTA Section 5307 mass transit capital and operating assistance. In recognition of the expanding transit services offered by the Community Coach and of the growing complexity inherent in administering the County's transit program in accordance with federal regulations, FTA has required the County and the COA to adopt a formalized third party agreement as a triennial review condition. In cooperation with the COA and with FTA, staff has prepared the attached Agreement for Mass Transit Service Provision. The agreement specifies the responsibilities of the County and COA regarding grant application and administration, vehicle procurement and maintenance, drug and alcohol testing, public comment on fare and service changes, handicapped accessibility, and other issues. The agreement also provides for County oversight of the COA's transit activities to ensure compliance with federal regulations. This agreement has already been executed by the COA's Board of Directors and has received preliminary approval from FTA. Once executed by the Board of County Commissioners Chairman, the agreement will be in effect for a period of three years. Staffrecommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the attached Agreement for Mass Transit Service Provision between the County and the Council on Aging, Inc., make any necessary changes, and authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement. JANUARY 1.9, 1999 • -13- BOOK 108 PAGE 97 mot ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the Agreement for Mass Transit Service Provision with the Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 7. F. ML4CELLANEO US B UDGET AMENDMENT #ODS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 12, 1999: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: January 12, 1999 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 005 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. Youth Guidance has received a donation of $4,453.00 This contribution will be used to fund a temporary position for the department. 2. All road projects and optional sales tax projects not completed in the previous fiscal year are moved forward to the current year. The attached entry appropriates funding. 3. The Property Appraiser's budget for fiscal year 1998/99 was overstated. Attached is an entry which reduces the budget to the appropriate level. 4. An additional $16,000 is needed to fund the G.I.S. needs in the county for the 1998/99 fiscal year. We will fund this using a portion of the savings from the reduction of the Property Appraiser's budget in the General Fund. RECOWdENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County_ Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. JANUARY 19, 1999 • ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, `SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #005. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird �} OMB Director ((� BUDGET AMENDMENT: 005 DATE: _ January 12. 1999 LUMI ry ber Funds/Deparnnent/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease . REVENUES JANUARY 19, 1999 -15- BOOK MU r1 L J GENERAL FUND/ Other Contributions - Donations 001-000-366-090.00 $4,453 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Youth Guidance/ Temporary Employees 001-213-523-011.17 $4,453 $0 2. REVENUES ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ Cash Forward 101-000-389-040.00 $2,994,583 $0 EXPENSES ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District III/ Right of Way 101=153-541-066.12 $182,016 $0 ROAD 1WROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District III/ C.R.512 Widen. Seb. Elem. to U.S.1 101-153-541-067.71 $300,000 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District IV/ 53rd St. Kings Hwy. to U.S. 1 101-154-541-067.42 $200,000 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District IV/ 41st St.,45th St.,37th St. - U.S. 1 to I.R. Drive 101-154541-067.66 $270,000 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District V/ Old Dixie (3 Lane) 1st. TO SR 60 101-155-541-067.46 $140,000 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District V/ 43rd Ave. -26`" St. To 12th St. 101-155-541-067.47 $792,271 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District V/ 12th St. & 27th Ave. 101-155-541-067.56 $100,000 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District VI/ Old Dixie (3 Lane 1st St. SW to 16th St.) 101-156-541-067.46 $140,000 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District VU 4th StJ43rd Ave. Intersection 101-156-541-067.54 $50,000 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District VI/ 12th St. & 27th Ave. 101-156-541-067.56 $100,000 $0 ROAD IMPROVEMENT FEES FUND/ District VIII/ Kings Hwy 26' St. to Oslo Rd. 101-158-541-067.31 $720,296 $0 REVENUES SECONDARY ROAD TRUST FUND/ Cash Forward 109-000-389-040.00 $3,073,661 $0 EXPENSES SECONDARY ROAD TRUST FUND/ 41st St.,45th St., 37th St. -U.S. 1 to I.R. Blvd. 109-214541-067.66 $199,936 $0 SECONDARY ROAD TRUST FUND/ Roads And Bridges 109-214541-066.31 1 $950,000 $0 JANUARY 19, 1999 -15- BOOK MU r1 L J BOOK 108 ME100 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease SECONDARY ROAD TRUST FUND/ U.S. 1 & I.R. Blvd @ 4th St. 109-214-541-067.29 $966,725 $0 SECONDARY ROAD TRUST FUND/ CR 512 I-95 to Roseland Rd. 109-214-541-067.73 $300,000 $0 SECONDARY ROAD TRUST FUND/ 66th Ave.- ve:SR 60 to 5th St. SW SR 109-214-541-067.74 $657,000 $0 REVENUES OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Cash Forward 315-000-389-040.00 $9,482,636 $0 EXPENSES OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks/ West Wabasso Park 315-210-572-068.04 $4,066 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks/ Other Improve. - Playground Equip. 315-210-572-066.39 $4,295 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Road & Bridge/ Additional 800 MHz Radios 315-214-541-066.45 $18,683 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks! Gifford 315-210-572-068.03 $31,384 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Fire Services/ Land - Orchid Island 315-120-522-066.11 $115,000 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Landfill/ Gifford Monitoring -Other Contract. 315-217-534-033.49 $136,521 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks/ Round Island Oceanside 315-210-572-068.08 $145,208 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Road & Bridge/ Petition Paving Material 315-214-541-035.51 $145,533 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks/ Round Island 315-210-572-068.06 $175,678 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks/ Wabasso Causeway 315-210-572-068.09 $201,694 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Roads/ Sidewalks 315-214-541-06632 $254,930 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Other Buildings 315-131-519-066.29 $350,000 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks/ Donald Macdonald 315-210-572-068.07 $371,280 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Public Works/ Offshore Reef/ Transfer Out 315-243-537-099.21 $400,000 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks/ Const. In Progress -Fairgrounds 315-210-572-066.51 $468,346 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Parks/ South County 315-210-572-068.05 $616,610 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Public Works/ Other Bldgs -Fleet. Complex 315-243-519-066.29 $1,479,060 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Buildings 315-130-519-066.29 $1,909,839 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Roads and Bridges 315-214-541-066.31 $2,654,509 $0 REVENUES BEACH RESTORATION/Tmnsfer In 128-000-381-020.00 $400,000 $0 EXPENSES BEACH RESTORATTON/Principal Debt Service 128-144572-077.11 $400,000 $0 3. EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Cash Forward Expense 001-199-581-099.92 $66,888 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Property Appraiser - 001-500-586-099.06 $0 $66,888 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ Fire Services/ Cash Forward Expense - 114-120-522-099.92 ` $5,479 $0 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ Fire Services/ Transfer -Property Appraiser 114120-522-099.06 $0 $5,479 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ Advanced Life Support/ Cash Forward Expense 114253-522-099.92 $2,236 $0 JANUARY 19, 1999 -16- Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease me a.ru .)w4w •W,n EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ Advanced Life Support/ Transfer -Property Appraiser -114-253-522-099.06 $0 $2.236 PEMN—Fa: Onn4Mm LAND ACQUISITION BOND/ Cash Forward Expense 225-117-586-099.92 $1.288 - $0 1.0"229.1555 '147M .$2N1 LAND ACQUISITION BOND/ Transfer -Property Appraiser 221-117-586-099.06 $0 $1,288 r00.o7 72:57® 4. EXPENSES January 1999 GENERAL FUND/ Computer Services/ Other Contractual Services 001-241-513-033.49 $16,000 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Cash Forward Expense 001-199-581-099.92 $0 $16,000 7.G. APPROVAL OF OUT -OF -COUNTY TRA VEL FOR COMMISSIONERS TO ATTEND BRIEFING ON FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES - ORLANDO, FL ON FEBRUARY 17,1999 - US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IVAND CONFERENCE OF SOUTHERN COUNTIES ASSOCIA TION The Board reviewed the following: r1511ai..:POST OFFICE BOX 1429 PALATKA• FLORIDA 32178-1429 i' II I1 Prq`tif •W �:'�.1•, p , A•."• w :1.M:1.M n.•.lBodSQQ WATER Il,; .•, Irl u,.: me a.ru .)w4w •W,n Fal Eun:ufr.nl 1:1.1•:, Lm1.u, l:'FaANS P ---I-;, 7:'•1-•11•-- A41N"ft&wmF.&mel3294MB MANAGEMENT ;6Nv.,E,:ENrp-g was O19TRICT 414S imp inn •^S 9„� «,7 PEMN—Fa: Onn4Mm rXu1f,,. F7,1f0, 128111 i1r1, ,97 SS emu" 2177N NI1P - %W b7 or AM t[,,,11,' . FNn„ 12259 rrrlP,."..-X-a 1274 numvP,• F1m1„a20aS.S109 1.0"229.1555 '147M .$2N1 ,07991•.9,0 407.732.7100 TDO 407.537 5990 1 M0.9611597 loco -29S -nu 70D,07.752•atOt 'CD 14•+.S79oo r00.o7 72:57® LOCAL GOVERNMENT MONTHLY MAILER January 1999 Dear Local Government Partners: The Conference of Southern County Associations and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, are sponsoring a briefing on federal environmental issues primarily for local elected and appointed officials, state and federal elected officials, and local government senior staff. The conference, co -hosted by the 1 Florida Association of Counties, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, St. Johns River Water Management District, University of Central Florida Institute of Government, is scheduled for February 17, 1999, 8:30 am. to 3 p.m., in Orlando. Topics of discussion will include federal funding for water supply development, federal ahemative water supply development challenges, source water protection, storrnwater management (including NPDES Phase 11). Key speakers include Congresswoman Karen Thurman and John H. Hankinson, EPA \ Region IV Administrator. The registration cost of $30.00 includes a continental \ breakfast and box lunch. For more information on the event contact Margaret Spontak at 904324422 JANUARY 19, 1999 -17- BOOK 108 PAGE J BOOK 108 PAGE 102 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved out -of -county travel for Commissioners wishing to attend the briefing on federal environmental issues in Orlando, Florida, on February 17, 1999. 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 99-001 AMENDING CHAPTER 103, CHILDREN'S SERVICES NETWORK (CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 17, 1998: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, AssiCounty Attorney -1, DATE September 17,1998 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Children Savioet Network Ordinance and the Guide The Children Services Network Was established by Ordinance No. 97-17, May 13, 1997. At the same time a 'Guide" Was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners for the Network The first annual review of the Ordinance and Guide Was recendy conducted. It Was felt that the name should be changed to 'Children's Savices Advisory Com' to make it be more consistent With 1astPr's of �g y commissions and by the Board of County Commissioners. In addition, there Were several editorial changes Which are set in a strike out underline and bold type for additions format. These proposed changes to the Ordinance and Guide Were presented to the Network at its regular meeting of September 14,1998 and adopted unanimously. it is recommended that the attached ordinance and guide be adopted after an appropriate Public ham& A public hearing date of November 3,1998 is recommended JANUARY 19, 1999 -18- 0 0 Joyce Johnston -Carlson, staff director for Children's Services Network and Director of Human Services under which Children's Services falls, gave a brief explanation of the changes and noted that staff is given the responsibility of reviewing the guide and the ordinance every year. On Exhibit A, 2 of the ex officio seats have been changed. The District 15 Administrator for the Department of Children & Families has been changed to read "Assistant" Administrator for Indian River County. The other is the Law Enforcement seat where the County Sheriff was named. Because Sheriff Wheeler has had some problems with conflicts of interest, staff is recommending that the seat read "Law Enforcement" only, allowing some other representative to be named. Another major change is the name of the committee to "Children's Services Advisory Committee" in an attempt to bring the committee more in line with the other advisory committees and so that people reading articles about the committee will realize it is an advisory board only. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding this matter. Hulda Grobman, 855 Live Oak Lane, representing the Taxpayers' Association, read from the following: 121 TAXPAYERS' ASSOCIATION EST. 1937 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, INC. P. 0. Box 1751 • Vero Beach, FL 32961-1751 January 19, 1999 u u o To: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners From: Board of Directors, Indian River County Taxpayers' Association Re: Proposed changes in Ordinance concerning the Children's Service Network (CSN) After two years, tens of thousands of dollars, and thousands of person hours, we still don't have a baseline. We still don't know what services are available (i.e., who does what now) and the focus has been only on children, as though they exist in a vacuum, without careful consideration of family. 1. The present ordinance provides for a fixed milage rate, to finance CSN, starting a year hence (which means, in effect, the AUTOMATIC annual increases in the CSN budget as property appraisals increase). JANUARY 19, 1999 -19- BOOK DO pn _I 600K 108 FACE 104 * Recommendation: The Taxpayers" Board strongly disapproves of a milage for this purpose. Rather it recommends holding to next year's $500,000 limit as the model for successive years unless and until a change is definitively supported by facts, an appropriate needs assesment is available, and a one-time or regular annual change is clearly justified. 2. The present Ordnance is interpreted by the CSN Board to be services directly to children, despite the emphasis, by people now dealing with children's problems, that problems with children cannot be separated from problems with families and society. E.g. IRC Head of Children and Families: "C. & F. investigates 60 reports of child abuse every month ... Child abuse reflects what is wrong with the family." Chairman of the CSN Grants Subcommittee: "The problem is poverty and ignorance [in the family]." Juvenile Court Judge (on CSN Board) says Juvenile Court deals with problems of dependent children in a problem family. * Recommendation: (103.2016 Objectives) Change in Ordinance that would encourage a more accurate reflection of the broad problem rather than isolating service to the child. 3. At present 6 of the members of the CSN Board are specified, for example, "the Sheriff," "the School Superintendent". Not only are these not the persons in the agencies who are most familiar with children's problems, but their attendance, e.g. the School Superintendent, is anything but regular. (One proposal now before the Commission asks that the County Head of Children and Families , rather than the 4 -county District CEO, be the representative for Children and Families and that the Sheriff himself not necessarily be the representative.) We approve of this and this substitution should be general policy for all ex officio members. * B mmenda . : (103.201 Objectives) Membership on the CSN Board should permit substitutions of,gg=L4priate representative of each indicated office or institution as approved by the County Commission (or the CSN Board). *132Mmm0dation: A favored alternative we should like to have considered is a citizen board based on interested, socially minded citizens as the voting members, excluding elected and appointed public officials and public employees from voting on the Board. Hulda Grobman for the Indian River County Taxpayers' Assoeiation JANUARY 19, 1999 -20- • 0 Frank Coffey, 88 Cache Cay, noted that Section 103.26 stated that the Board shall provide an assigned millage of up to 0.125 to the committee. He discussed the total millage cap and felt that this cap should not be included in the ordinance. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ginn presented a number of changes and, after discussion, the following changes were approved by the Board: Exhibit A: 1. Page 1, add definition of "Child" as Item 2 under Objective, and change present number 2 to (3). 2.. Page 2, Line 13: Add "...voting members who must be residents of Indian River County as ..." 3. Page 4, Line 9: Change "the" to "any" and make sub -committee plural. 4. Page 4, Line 13: Take out "or who work in Indian River County". 5. Page 4, Line 23: Take out all of item a) and in its place, add "a) Potential appointees shall submit resumes to the Board of County Commissioners and the Board will make the selection". 6. Page 4, Line 28: Change to read "community needs assessment". 7. Page 5, Line 15: Add "with the express consent of the Board of County Commissioners". 8. Page 6, Line 37: Change to read "the Executive Staff Officer". 9. Page 6, Line 44: Change to read "the Executive Staff Officer". Guide 1. Page 1, Line 5: Take out "a" and leave in "the" primary. 2. Page 4, Line 13: Leave in "formal". 3. Page 5, Line 30: Leave in "comprehensive". 4. Page 5, Line 38: Take out all of "T". JANUARY 19, 1999 -21- BOOK 103 FAGS 0 &OK 108 pAu 106 5. Page 6, Line 16: Take out last sentence "These outcomes should be guided by the Year 2000 National Objectives". 6. Page 7, Line 4: Leave in "not available to" and delete "needed by". 7. Page 12, Line 9: Leave in "comprehensive". 8. Page 14, Line 36: Leave in "comprehensive". 9. Page 14, Line 37: Add "recognized" before "methodology of'. Chairman Macht felt there was nothing more important than producing responsible, healthy citizens and noted that it is widely believed that Indian River County has no crime, sickness or unmet needs while this is certainly not true. There are 34 non-profit organizations in the County, none of which are fully funded. Judge Kanarek, who is a member of the committee, regularly invites people to attend dependency hearings in his court but the Chairman reminded everyone to take some Kleenex because you will be appalled at the conditions in which some of these children live. All of our charitable organizations struggle to raise monies and do the best they can but he believed it is the responsibility of the County to assess these unmet needs as best we can. This ordinance and guide are maturing documents and the committee meets weekly to work on it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 99-001 amending Chapter 103, Commissions and Boards, to amend the Children's Services Network, with the suggested changes. JANUARY 19, 1999 40 0 • 9/ 16/98(ord\2ndema,d103)Ow ORDINANCE 9f -Ll AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 103 COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS TO AMEND THE CHILDREN'S SERVICES NETWORK. WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to promote healthy children in a healthy community in Indian River County; and WHEREAS, orderly administration dictates a unified system of planning and delivery; and . WHEREAS, experience has shown that the initial ordinance 97-17 designed to promote healthy children can be improved by certain amendments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that: SECTION 1 AMENDMENT Chapter 103 of Indian River County Code is amended as set forth in Exhibit "A'° of this ordinance. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, or any sentence, paragraph, phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. A certified copy of this ordinance, as enacted, shall be filed by the Clerk with the Office of the Secretary of State of the state of Florida within ten days after enactment, and this ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Secretary of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on thisl 9 dayof J a n u a r y ,199F! JANUARY 19, 1999 0 F -23- 666K I BSM 108 m This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 8th day of January, 1999, for a public hearing to be held on the 19th day of January, 1999, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner A d a m c , seconded by Commissioner Ginn , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 19 dayof January , 1999. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION Attest: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Jeffrey R Barton, Cle b /1.(GCQ— Effective date: This ordiUnce became effective upon filing with the Department of State which took place on day of '1999. JANUARY 19, 1999 ma2n Povt C% I Approved I Dale Budget De9t=. Fm—ax Mgr. • 1 EDIT A 2 3 4 Current Sections 103.01 -103.08 are hereby designated Part I of the chapter. 5 6 7 PART H Children's Services Advisory Cottee 8 9 Section 103.20, pig 10 11 The purpose of the Children's Services Advisory Committee is to promote healthy children in a 12 healthy community. The term "healthy" encompasses socioeconomic, physical, environmental, 13 educational and behavioral health. 14 15 Section 103.21 Obi 16 17 (1) The objective of the Children's Services Advisory Committee is to provide a unified 18 system of planning and delivery within which children's needs can be identified, targeted, 19 evaluated and addressed by the Children's Services Advisory Committee. 20 21 (2) Definition of Child. Any person who has not attained the age of eighteen (18) years, also 22 minor. 23 24 (3) This objective will be met by the Children's Services Advisory Committee through the 25 powers and functions of the Board of County Commissioners as follows: 26 27 a) Recommended to provide and maintain in the county services for children as the 28 Children's Services Advisory Committee determines are needed for the general well 29 being of the county. 30 31 b) Collect information and statistical data and conduct research helpful to the Children's 32 Services Advisory Committee and the County in deciding the needs of children in the 33 County. 34 35 c) Consult, collaborate, and coordinate with other agencies dedicated to the well being of 36 children to the end that duplication of services will be prevented. 37 38 d) Recommend the allocation of funds to agencies that provide services for the benefit of 39 children in Indian River County. 40 41 e) Recommend standards for measurable outcomes within the Request for Proposal and 42 monitor the agencies for actual performance on agreed upon standards. 43 44 f) Recommend to employ, pay and provide benefits for any part-time or full-time 45 position needed to execute the foregoing powers and functions. Revised: 1/28/99 JANUARY 19, 1999 -25- • BOOK 108 PAGE .. 1 2 3 4 Section 103.22 Appointment to the Children's Services Advisory Committee. 5 6 (1) The membership of the Children's Services Advisory Committee shall consist of 13 voting 7 members who must be residents of Indian River county as follows: 8 9 a) Six (6) ex -officio voting members. Those members shall be: 10 County Commissioner 11 Judge living in Indian River Designated by Chief Judge 12 Superintendent of Schools 13 Department of Children & Families, Assistant District Administrator for IRC 14 Department of Health — County Health Department Administrator 15 Law Enforcement officer 16 17 b) Five (5) -voting members from the community appointed by the Board of County 18 Commissioners, reflecting the geographical and social diversity of the community. 19 Each Commissioner shall appoint one member to represent his/her district. 20 21 c) Two (2) at -large members shall be appointed by the Board of County 22 Commissioners. 23 24 3) The seven district and at -large members shall have been residents of Indian River County for 25 at least 24 months prior to nomination. Such members shall be appointed for 4 -year terms, 26 except that the length of the terms of the initial appointees shall be adjusted to stagger the 27 terms. No at -large member shall serve for more than two consecutive 4 -year teams. 28 29 4) Members appointed as District members may be replaced during their term if the 30 Commissioner from the same District requests the Board of County Commissioners to 31 replace that District member. 32 33 5) No Designee of principals will be allowed for any member of the Children's Services 34 Advisory Committee 35 36 6) One County staff member, assigned by the County Administrator, acting as the Executive 37 Staff Officer to the Children's Services Advisory Committee, shall be a non-voting member. 38 39 7) Officers: Officers will include a Chair, appointed by the Board of County Commissioners, 40 Vice Chair, and standing Sub -Committee chairs. Officers excluding the Chair will be 41 elected by the majority vote of the Children's Services Advisory Committee members each 42 January and will assume the duties of their office on the regular meeting on the second 43 Monday of the next meeting each year. The term as an officer, other than a county 44 commissioner, will be for one year, but officers may succeed themselves. 45 Revised: 1/28/99 JANUARY 19, 1999 -26- 0 0 3 1 - 2 3 4 Section 103.23 Duties of the Children's Services Advisory Committee Members 5 6 1) Identify and assess the needs of the children in Indian River County and submit to the 7 Board of County Commissioners a written description of. 8 9 a) The activities, services, and opportunities available to Indian River County children. 10 11 b) The activities, services, and opportunities that need to be provided to Indian River 12 County's children. 13 14 c) The anticipated schedule for providing those activities, services, and opportunities. 15 16 d) The manner in which children will be served, including a description of collaboration 17 and partnerships that will be made with community organizations, state and local 18 educational agencies, federal agencies, public assistance agencies, the juvenile courts, 19 ' foster care agencies, and other applicable public and private agencies and 20 organizations. 21 22 e) The strategy that will be used for interagency coordination and collaboration to 23 maximize existing human and fiscal resources. 24 25 f) The special outreach efforts that will be undertaken to provide services to promote 26 healthy children. 27 28 2) Provide orientation to all new Children's Services Advisory Committee members, to allow 29 them to perform their duties and understand the Sunshine Law. 30 31 3) Based upon Board of County Commissioner's fiseal year, provide an annual written 32 report and presentation in January to the Board of County Commissioners. 33 34 4) Provide an updated short term and long term plan to the Board of County Commissioners 35 to include but not limited to: 36 37 a) Programs, services, and activities that meet the objectives of the Children's 38 Services Committee. 39 40 b) A detailed budget for activities, services, and programs recommended to receive 41 funding from the Board of County Commissioners. 42 43 44 45 Revised: 1/28/99 3 JANUARY 19, 1999 -27- • 60 108 �-�aE BOOK 108 FADE 112 4 1 2 3 4 5 Section 103.24 Sub -Committees: 6 7 1) The Children's Services Advisory Committee may establish the change of membership in or 8 termination of the existence of any sub -committees. Each committee shall be named and shall 9 have and may exercise such powers as delegated by the Children's Services Advisory 10 Committee through the Board of County Commissioners. Committees may be composed of 11 Children's Services Advisory Committee members and citizens who are Indian River County 12 residents. Only Children's Services Advisory Committee members shall serve as committee 13 chairs. A minimum of three people will serve on each committee. 14 15 2) There shall be standing sub -committees created by the Children's Services Advisory 16 Committee. The Children's Services Advisory Committee chair shall appoint the committee 17 chairs with the approval of the Children's Services Advisory Committee. Annually Standing 18 Sub -Committees will evaluate their effectiveness and make recommendations to the 19 Children's Services Advisory Committee. 20 21 a) Nominating Sub- ommittee: Potential appointees shall submit resumes to the Board 22 of County Commissioners and the Board will make the selection. 23 24 b) Community Needs Assess+nent and Planning� S 'o mittee: Identify and assess the un 25 needs of children of Indian River County through a needs assessment and asset 26 mapping; submit to the Board of County Commissioners through the Children's 27 Services Advisory Committee a written description of those needs. Provide and 28 update short term and long term plan to the Children's Services Advisory Committee 29 including, but not limited to: 30 31 i) Programs, services, and activities that meet the objectives of the Children's 32 Services Advisory Board. 33 34 ii) A detailed budget for activities, services, and programs recommended to 35 receive funding from the Board of County Commissioners. 36 37 c) Q= Review and ProgMM Sub_Committee: In coordination with the Executive Office 38 Director, review and revise requests for proposal (RFP) based on need determination 39 and set priorities. Submit to Children's Services Advisory Committee for approval. 40 Review and recommend letters of intent submitted by agencies requesting funding. 41 Through Executive Office Director, notify selected grant applicant of second step 42 process. Review final RFPs and make recommendations for funding to Children's 43 Services Advisory Committee, who will then recommend to the Board of County 44 Commissioners for funding. Receive, review and present to Children's Services 45 Advisory Committee members' quarterly (at a . minimum) reports from funded Revised: 1/28/99 4 JANUARY 19, 1999 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 agencies. Conduct program evaluations throughout the funding period, schedule and attend site visits to fimded program. d) Other Sub -Committees deemed necessary .to fulfill the duties of the Children's Services Advisory Committee may be established by the Children's Services Advisory Committee Chair, with the expressed consent of the Board of County Commissioners. 1) The Children's Services Advisory Committee will meet at least quarterly or as called by the Chair. a) All members are expected to attend all meetings. If a member's annual attendance drops below the 75% mark the Executive Office Director shall submit a report to the Board County of Commissioners for their consideration of possible removal from Children's Services Advisory Committee. b) Members of the Children's Services Advisory Committee shall serve without compensation. '2) The fiscal year of the Children's Services Advisory Committee will be the same as the Indian River County Board of Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners shall provide an assigned millage of up to 0.125 to the Children's Services Advisory Committee. 1) The application process will be in the foam of a Request for Proposal. Each completed application shall contain expected results stated in required measurable terms for review by the Children's Services Advisory Committee and a copy of the most recent financial audit. Governmental agencies are excluded from the financial audit requirement. 2) Prior to budget hearings, the Children's Services Advisory Committee shall submit a line item request, by program, to the Board of County Commissioners for funding consideration. This total request will be within the boundaries of the aggregate funding allocated for children's services by the Board of County Commissioners. Revised: 1/28/99 JANUARY 19, 1999 -29- �. 6 66% buthg pax 108 PnE X14 1 2 The Children's Services Advisory Committee, through the Board of County Commissioners, may 3 enter into agreements with approved agencies to facilitate the achievements of the Children's 4 Services Advisory Committee objective. 5 6 7 8 Section 103.29 Bookkme ing and Audit 9 10 Any agency funded through the process set forth in Part Il of this chapter shall be required to keep 11 adequate records reflecting the use of funds and services provided. These records shall be made 12 available to the Children's Services Advisory Committee or Board of County Commissioners 13 upon reasonable demand. The Executive Office Director shall, at a minimum; review said records 14 quarterly and prepare written reports for the Children's Services Advisory Committee. All 15 agencies must provide the Children's Services Advisory Committee with an audit based upon 16 standard accounting procedures. 17 18 19 _Section 10330 Function of Executive Staff Officer 20 21 The Executive Office of the County will provide all services needed to complete reports and 22 activities required to meet the objectives of the Children's Services Advisory Committee. These 23 activities will include, but are not limited to, secretarial support for the Children's Services 24 Advisory Committee meetings and be the official record repository for said records, keeping ot)ier 25 records, monitoring agencies receiving funds, writing appropriate grants, producing written 26 materials, reviewing applications for funding, reporting to the Children's Services Advisory 27 Committee, preparing annual budgets, writing and presenting annual reports. The office of the 28 Executive Staff Officer shall consist of a Director and adequate staff to perform all duties 29 assigned by the Children's Services Advisory Committee. 30 31 Section 10331 Procedures Handbook 32 33 The procedure handbook shall be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners by resolution, 34 which sets out the operating procedures of the Children's Services Advisory Committee. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Revised: 1/28/99 COPY OF ORDINANCE, EXHIBIT AND GUIDE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD JANUARY 19, 1999 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION - CONSIDERATION AND FORMAL SELECTION OF CATEGORIES (NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION - OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION) (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT - CRA CARE CENTERS ALFI PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 13, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D N HEAD CONCURRENCE: obert M. Keating, AIC Community Developmen or �: THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S *4 Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Peter J. Radke Economic Development Planner DATE: January 13, 1999 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND FORMAL SELECTION OF CATEGORIES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATIONS It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 19, 1999. In 1996, Indian River County was awarded a Neighborhood Revitalization Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). Funds from that grant were used to provide infrastructure improvements in both the Douglas School Subdivision and the unplatted Whitfield Subdivision. Those improvements included hooking up 84 single-family homes to the county water system, paving roads in both subdivisions, and making drainage improvements in both subdivisions In total, 151 lots benefitted from the road paving and drainage improvements. The closeout package for the Wabasso Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG has been submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. The DCA has 60 days to review the documents and forward its findings to Indian River County. Robert Johnson of CRA, the county's grant administrator for the Wabasso project, does not anticipate any problems with the closeout package. JANUARY 19, 1999 L r 600K 108 PA'GAA Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG Application On December 1, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners authorized public works and community development staff to begin the procedure to apply for Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG funds for portions of the Oslo Park Subdivision. The Board also authorized staff to initiate the process to select a consultant to prepare the CDBG application and administer the grant. Staff have initiated the consultant selection process and anticipate presenting a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in February. According to DCA, the next Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG application cycle submission deadline is June 30, 1999. Economic Development CDBG Application While Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG applications are subject to an annual application cycle, Economic Development CDBG application time frames are different. Instead of being limited to annual cycles, Economic Development CDBG applications may be submitted monthly. In most cases, Economic Development CDBG applications are usually related to private development projects. Recently, CRA Care Centers, Inc., a privately owned company, submitted an economic development proposal to the county. Both the budget department and the community development department have reviewed this economic development proposal. As part of the proposal presented by CRA Care Centers, the county would apply for an Economic Development CDBG and then lend the CDBG funds to CRA Care Centers so that CRA Care Centers could construct an assisted living facility (ALF) in the unincorporated area of the county. According to DCA, the next economic development CDBG application cycle begins on April 5, 1999. Under the CDBG program, there are two groups of grant categories. Three CDBG categories comprise the first group. These are: Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, and Neighborhood Revitalization. Indian River County may choose to apply for a grant in any one of the three categories in the first group to receive funding. If awarded a Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, or Neighborhood Revitalization grant, the county could not apply for another grant in any of those three categories until that grant was closed. Following is descriptibn of those three CDBG categories: ► Commercial Revitalization Various improvements may be funded in commercial areas. Eligible projects include parking facilities, drainage, street paving, sidewalks, lighting, recreation facilities, potable water services, and sanitary sewer services. This category is an extremely competitive category. Housing Rehabilitation Substandard housing occupied by income eligible households may be rehabilitated to meet code requirements. Both owner occupied and rental housing may be included. Recipients are eligible in the entire jurisdiction. Dilapidated housing may be demolished and cleared, and financing is provided to the displaced occupants for replacement housing. Neighborhood Revitalization This category is primarily for potable water and sanitary sewer installation or replacement (including hook-ups), street paving, and drainage improvements in low/moderate income neighborhoods. Funds may also be used to purchase and -develop property as sites for low/moderate income housing. Other public improvements to in£rastntcture are also eligible, but are seldom funded. The second group consists only of the Economic Development category. This grant category is independent of the other three categories. In the same fiscal year that Indian River County applies for a grant in a category from the first group, the county may also choose to apply for funds in the Economic Development category. Even if Indian River County has an open Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, or Neighborhood Revitalization grant, an economic development CDBG application can still be submitted to DCA for consideration. Following is a description of the Economic Development category: ► Economic Development Funds are available to local governments to provide necessary infrastructure or sites for new businesses or business expansions. Local governments may also lend funds directly to the JANUARY 19, 1999 -32- 0 0 business for capital expenses (land, building, equipment, site development). Funds from this grant category must be utilized to create jobs or retain existing jeopardized jobs, primarily for low/moderate income persons. Min Park Cnh ivision (bighhorheed Revi ali7 tion) Figure 1 displays a portion of Oslo Park subdivision. This area, which surrounds Thompson Elementary School, has many unpaved roads, drainage problems, and no sidewalks. After a preliminary review of the area, staff and the community leaders determined that this portion of Oslo Park may be an eligible area for neighborhood revitalization CDBG funds. Except for 18" Avenue SW, 20t" Avenue SW, I& Court SW, and 10 Street SW, none of the neighborhood roads in Oslo Park, which are shown in figure 1, are paved. In addition, all of the roads shown in figure 1 are publicly owned. Due to the proximity of the elementary school, those roads are used quite frequently, both by automobile traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. Based on review of aerials as well as site visits, it is estimated that approximately 200 single-family homes and 600 lots are located within the area shown in figure 1. Staff anticipates many of those households to be in the low -to -moderate income category. Given that there are more than 20,000 linear feet of unpaved roads in the proposed subject area, staff proposes to apply for the maximum $750,000 grant. In order to maximize the program impact score, the county will have to provide matching finds. One possible source for the matching funds would be the county's petition paving funds. JANUARY 19, 1999 -33- 6�K *417 mow ONO =ME AAAA =141104W MW �� �-. finMM - WC_ ® m _7 IBM low 3M M�7!1 IM. -3Z' - T IRn'. MM.M. �c� c: ��q i WIM 301 :M l+� �32 � low,. Lojoll Zan ZEN .> ISWI 7 WON MI`' -K3.3a Er IM 31 MA s� 9� WMF IN. ee MR 11 $� an . did, M1 , MSS Er no '�-- !. M7 ZZ KIM M w, R� OWE �a MIM M� H 47 : F7 7 � �� IFW Ii MM ® Li is El NMI M Ems® Except for 18" Avenue SW, 20t" Avenue SW, I& Court SW, and 10 Street SW, none of the neighborhood roads in Oslo Park, which are shown in figure 1, are paved. In addition, all of the roads shown in figure 1 are publicly owned. Due to the proximity of the elementary school, those roads are used quite frequently, both by automobile traffic as well as pedestrian traffic. Based on review of aerials as well as site visits, it is estimated that approximately 200 single-family homes and 600 lots are located within the area shown in figure 1. Staff anticipates many of those households to be in the low -to -moderate income category. Given that there are more than 20,000 linear feet of unpaved roads in the proposed subject area, staff proposes to apply for the maximum $750,000 grant. In order to maximize the program impact score, the county will have to provide matching finds. One possible source for the matching funds would be the county's petition paving funds. JANUARY 19, 1999 -33- 6�K *417 CRA Care Centers, Inc., a privately owned company, is pursuing a plan to develop an assisted living facility (ALF) at the site shown in figure 2. ALFs are licensed by the State of Florida, and are basically residential facilities which provide personal care for elderly residents. This ALF will provide small residential units and common areas (such as an activity room, living room, family dining room, beauty salon room for residents only, an outdoor patio and garden areas), three meals a day in a central dining room, housekeeping, laundry service, social recreational and educational activities, transportation, personal care and assistance with bathing, mobility, eating, dressing, and taking medication. Resident capacity of the ALF will be 70. Care levels available to residents will range from independent living to extended care living. This facility will also be licensed to provide limited nursing and mental health services. In addition, the proposed ALF will have a separate unit for care of persons with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia This portion of the building will have state of the art design to meet the unique needs of the residents, and will be secured with special locking systems, CRA Care Centers expects the proposed ALF to employ approximately 38 full-time equivalent jobs. These employment positions are shown in table 1. Table 1: Projected Full -Time Employment for ALF Position # of Full Time -Positions Annual S Administrator 1 $44,000 Adminisnation/Financial Assistant 1 $23,000 Registered Norse 3 $38,000 Social Director 1 $29,000 Receptionist 0.5 $17,500 Certified Nurse Assistant/Personal Care Aide 14.5 $16,200 Lead Certified Nurse Assistant 3 $18,000 Licensed Practical Nurse 4.5 $30,000 Chef 1 $28,000 Cook 1 $17,000 Assistant Cook 5 $15,120 Housekeeper 1.5 $15,120 Gmundsimaintenance 1 $17,000 Total Personnel 38 source: xoumeus riannmg ana uevetopment Services, Inc. A major component of the scoring system for economic development grants is the number of jobs "eing created by the project. A portion of the CDBG application calculates a ratio of the amount of JANUARY 19, 1999 -34- • CDBG CDBG funds being requested per job created. If that ratio exceeds $34,999/job, the project will be ineligible for CDBG funds. CRA Care Centers has projected a cost estimate for the ALF at $4,759,000. As part of their financing plan, CRA Care Centers proposes that Indian River County obtain a $750,000 Economic Development CDBG. That grant, if awarded, would then be lent to CRA Care Centers, as a second mortgage on the ALF, so that CRA Care Centers could receive a first mortgage on the facility. Other funding sources include $347,000 from CRA Care Centers and $3,712,000 from private lenders. Economic Development CDBG funds may be used for the following activities: • Acquisition of real property; • Acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of commercial and industrial buildings and structures; • Purchase of capitalized machinery and equipment with a useful life of at least five years; • Energy conservation improvements designed to encourage the efficient use of energy resources; • Public, commercial, or industrial real property or infrastructure improvements; • Activities to remove barriers which restrict access for the elderly or handicapped to publicly owned and privately owned buildings, facilities, and improvements; and JANUARY 19, 1999 -35- 0 BOOK NO PAGE IAV a MINEs'1��1 O e ee moo : �aee �r 1• J 21 ^Ir i1 1r [1 Ir f � 1'•, V 6-k CDBG CDBG funds being requested per job created. If that ratio exceeds $34,999/job, the project will be ineligible for CDBG funds. CRA Care Centers has projected a cost estimate for the ALF at $4,759,000. As part of their financing plan, CRA Care Centers proposes that Indian River County obtain a $750,000 Economic Development CDBG. That grant, if awarded, would then be lent to CRA Care Centers, as a second mortgage on the ALF, so that CRA Care Centers could receive a first mortgage on the facility. Other funding sources include $347,000 from CRA Care Centers and $3,712,000 from private lenders. Economic Development CDBG funds may be used for the following activities: • Acquisition of real property; • Acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of commercial and industrial buildings and structures; • Purchase of capitalized machinery and equipment with a useful life of at least five years; • Energy conservation improvements designed to encourage the efficient use of energy resources; • Public, commercial, or industrial real property or infrastructure improvements; • Activities to remove barriers which restrict access for the elderly or handicapped to publicly owned and privately owned buildings, facilities, and improvements; and JANUARY 19, 1999 -35- 0 BOOK NO PAGE IAV GOOK 108 FAGE 120 Activities designed to provide job training and placement and/or other employment support services on behalf of the participating party. Both the budget department and the community development department reviewed the CRA Care Centers proposal. The county's budget department reviewed the proposed project from a financial perspective, with emphasis on the financial background of CRA Care Centers. Attachment 1 is an inter -office memo which indicates the budget director's position regarding the project. Two letters are included as part of attachment 1. The first is a letter from the county's budget director to DCA. This letter lists the budget director's concerns regarding the proposed project and CRA Care Centers. DCA addressed those concerns in the second letter. Besides the budget depar ment's review, the county planning department also assessed the proposed project. Planning staff determined that the ALF's creation of 38 fiill-time jobs will benefit the county's economy. In addition, planning staff noted that the health service industry, in which ALFs are included according the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system, is part of the county's target industry list (Policy 2.6 of the Economic Development Element). That list reflects the current economic needs of Indian River County. If an Economic Development grant is awarded to Indian River County, a participating party agreement will be prepared by the county's attorney office. This agreement will outline the responsibilities of the county to the business and the business's responsibilities to the county. A sample of the type of responsibilities that will be required of the county from a participating party agreement includes monitoring all activities that involve CDBG funds to ensure that the Davis - Bacon wage requirements are met, confirming that the project has created the number of jobs indicated in the application, and tracking those jobs to ensure the positions are continued and filled by low/moderate income persons. These types of responsibilities require considerable knowledge of CDBG program rules, Davis -Bacon wage requirements, and various federal rules and regulations. A consultant that specializes in the CDBG program will have the necessary knowledge to administer an Economic Development grunt and guide the county through the process. According to the state's CDBG program rules, up to 8% of the CDBG funds can be utilized to corer the cost of application preparation and project administration. These fimctions could be done by a consultant. By using a consultant to prepare the application and administer the project, the county would get the benefit of the consultant's expertise with the program. Most consultants will prepare the application at no charge to the county, if the consultant is assured of administering the project if funded. If the application receives funding, the consultant would get a percentage of the project cost, ranging from 5% to 8%, for administering the project. If the project does not get funded, there would be no cost to the county for the consultant having prepared the application. As part of the CDBG program requirements, the Board of County Commissioners must establish a CDBG Citizen Advisory Task Force or activate the existing one. Attachment 2 is a copy of the membership list of the county's existing CDBG Citizens Advisory Task Force. According to DCA's CDBG rules, a public hearing to obtain citizen input is required prior to submitting any CDBG application. As structured, the hearing to be held at the January 19, 1999 Board meeting will meet that requirement for both the proposed Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG application and the proposed Economic Development CDBG application. With respect to the Neighborhood Revitalization application, the Board's only requirement is to confirm its decision of December 1, 1998 to apply for CDBG funds in that category during this application cycle. With respect to the Economic Development CDBG application, the Board has two options. These are: JANUARY 19, 1999 -36- _I 1.) To apply for an Economic Development CDBG as requested by CRA Care Centers and authorize staff to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant to prepare the application and administer the grant; or 2.) Not to apply for an Economic Development CDBG. Based on the analysis, staff supports applying for a Neighborhood Revitalization grant that will enable the county to pave roads and improve the drainage in portions of the Oslo Park Subdivision. In addition, staff supports applying for an Economic Development CDBG that will create full-time jobs in one of the county's target industries. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: ► Obtain public input during the public hearing regarding the county's overall community development needs; ► Confirm its intention to apply for a Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG; ► Select the Economic Development CDBG category and authorize staff to initiate the process to select a consultant to prepare an Economic Development CDBG application and administer the grant; and ► Activate the existing CDBG Advisory Task Force. ,DEPARTMENT ;. a STATE OF FLORIDA *FCOMMUN ITY AFFAIRS 'Helping Floridians create safe, vibrant, sustainable communities' "ter`""3 DEC -="41998 " LA� Mr. Joseph A. Baird OMB Director Citrus County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th StreetVero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Questions relating to CDBG Economic Development projects Dear Mr. Baird: The Department of Community Affairs has received your questions relating to the economic development category of the CDBG program. The following answers correspond numerically to your questions. 1. Audited financial statements are not required because of their high cost, but they are fully acceptable. However, if a corporation has prepared audited financial statements, we do expect those to be used, not a set of financial statements prepared solely for application purposes 2. The only standard "due diligence requirements that are incurred by the_. county before passing a CDBG grant on to a for-profit company in the form of a loan are listed below. The Department cannot assure the county that there might not be something else required, based on the specifics of a particular application. Any additional requirements would always be discussed with the county during the site visit. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http://www.state.fl.us/comaff/ FLORIDA XM Awa W Gael Stan Ceaemm FWW Offim 27% O.erwa "Wy . Svaa 212 WISO n Flprda 33e30-2.127 JANUARY 19, 1999 -37- GXM SWAav Awa dCw" sow Coweam F.0 off= 205 tam awn S"M S." tad 6a FWda M30-I1AI BOOK 1000 PAGE 21 GOOK 108 PAGE 122 a. Preparing a Participating Party Agreement that outlines the responsibilities of the county to the business and the business' responsibilities to the county. Some of these requirements are fairly standard and are established by the Department during the application review. Other requirements are established based on the uniqueness of the application; b. Preparing and recording the loan and collateral documents; C. Undertaking a Financial Underwriting Analysis as explained in the CDBG Rule and 24 C.F.R. 570; and . d. Conducting a loan dosing. 3. The county may use up to eight (8%) percent of the grant award for administrative costs that are required to effectively administer the grant. This may be used by the county to offset its own grant related costs, to hire a consultant, or for a combination of self -administration and consultant administration. 4. The county is not required to guarantee repayment of the CDBG funds should the assisted business go bankrupt and the loan or any part thereof never be repaid by the business. 5. Should the business fail, the county is expected to foreclose (if it is financially wise to do so), attempt to recover and secure any assets against which the county has a mortgage or lien, and make a good faith effort to use the assets to create additional jobs. The cost of such actions would be deducted from the resulting recovery. The Department does not expect a local government to expend more funds attempting recovery than recovery would provide. Nor would the Department expect a local government to spend a large sum to buy out a first mortgage to recover only a small second mortgage, or a second mortgage that had little if any real value. The few tunes that failures have occurred where a loan had been made, the Department and the local government have always been able to readily agree on a prudent course of action. To my certain knowledge over the past nine years, this has never been a contentious issue. Should you have further questions or desire additional technical assistance in this matter, please contact me at (850) 922-1892. Sin , Rids Stauts Planning Manager CC. Bob Keating, Community Development Director ,�er Radke, County Planner JANUARY 19, 1999 Community Development Director Bob Keating stated that there are 2 applications to be considered today: (1) Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG Application, primarily involving paving streets in the Oslo area and (2) Economic Development CDBG Application involving an economic development proposed to the County by CRA Care Centers, Inc. Staff is also recommending that the Board authorize obtaining a consultant. Staff believes that with another few applications, enough experience will have been garnered to enable staff to feel comfortable without a consultant. Commissioner Ginn questioned whether the consultant will be paid from grant funds, and Director Keating answered affirmatively. Commissioner Ginn then questioned whether the County could be held liable for repayment of the bond funds, and County Attorney Vitunac advised that the County has a written communication from the Department of Community Affairs advising that the County's only obligation is to foreclose on the project if it should become necessary. Mr. Baird was quite protective of the County's interests in his questions. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG Application. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. The Chairman then opened the public hearing regarding the Economic Development CDBG Application and asked if anyone wished to speak regarding the matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously confirmed its intention to apply for a Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG (Oslo Park Subdivision). JANUARY 19, 1999 -39- BOOK 108 F,1GE 123 r BOOK 10FAGS 124 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the application for an Economic Development CDBG as requested by CRA Care Centers (Assisted Living Facility [ALF]); authorized staff to initiate the process of selecting a consultant to prepare an Economic Development CDBG Application and administer the grant; and activated the existing CDBG Advisory Task Force; all as recommended by staff. COPIES OF APPLICATIONS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION 99-005 - TCI OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY, INC. CABLE SYSTEM OWNERSHIP CHANGE TO MEDIAONE ACQUISITIONS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS, INC. PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 16, 1998: Date: December 16, 1998 To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners Through: James E Chandler County Administrator From: Terry L. Smith, Telecommunications Manager ,tg— Department of General Services ' Subject: TCI Cable System Ownership Change BACKGROUND: JANUARY 19, 1999 -40- 0 0 One of the two local cable television operators in Indian River County, TO of Northern New Jersey, Inc., dba TO Cablevision of the Treasure Coast, has entered into an Asset Exchange Agreement with MediaOne of Illinois, Inc. The cable system in Indian River County is one of those that is scheduled for the transfer to MediaOne. The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is being asked to approve the transfer of the franchise. MediaOne is the third largest Cable Television Providers in the country with over 5,000,000 subscribers and over $25 billion in assets world-wide. The requirements our franchise imposes on the local CATV provider would not change. TO also has franchise agreements with the City of Vero Beach, Indian River Shores, and the Town of Orchid. Those governmental entities are also dealing with the request for approval of the transfer of their franchises. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the approval of the transfer of the CATV franchise and local system from TO to MediaOne and that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Resolution. Telecommunications Manager Terry Smith advised that TCI has entered into an exchange agreement with MediaOne and the Board is being asked to approve the transfer. Section 9-B of the County's current franchise agreement states that approval may not unreasonably be withheld. Commissioner Ginn questioned whether AT&T's purchase of TCI was part of the whole transaction. Jean Schulte of MediaOne stated that the deal between TCI and MediaOne was already in process when AT&T purchased TCI. JANUARY 19, 1999 -41- 600K 108 rnd BOOK 108 FAGE2- The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak on this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 99-005 approving the transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise from TCI of Northern New Jersey, Inc. to MediaOne Acquisitions of Northern Illinois, Inc. RESOLUTION NO. 99-05 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE WHEREAS, TCI OF NORTHERN NEW JERSEY, INC. ("Franchisee") is the duly authorized holder of a franchise, as amended to date, authorizing Franchisee to serve the County of Indian River, Florida ("the Franchise') and to operate and maintain a cable television system ("System'); and WHEREAS, MEDIAONE ACQUISITIONS OF NORTHERN ILLINOIS, INC. ("MediaOne'), Franchisee and certain affiliates of MediaOne and Franchisee have entered into an Asset Exchange Agreement dated October 9, 1998 (the "Agreement"), whereby Franchisee has agreed to transfer to MediaOne or another direct or indirect subsidiary of MediaOne Group, Inc. (a "MediaOne Affiliate") the assets of the System, including all right, title and interest of Franchisee in the Franchise, subject to any required approval of the local franchise authority with respect thereto (the transactions contemplated by the Agreement are referred to as the "Transactions"); and WHEREAS, MediaOne or a MediaOne Affiliate may, after the Transactions, assign or transfer the Franchise to another MediaOne Affiliate; and WHEREAS, to the extent the Franchise requires, MediaOne and Franchisee now seek approval of the Transactions and have filed an FCC Form 394 with the County of Indian River, Florida (the "Franchise Authority"); and WHEREAS, the Franchise Authority has investigated the qualifications of the transferees and finds them to be suitable transferees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FRANCHISE AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Franchise Authority hereby consents to and approves the Transactions, to the extent that such consent is required by the terms of the Franchise or applicable law. Section 2. MediaOne, or such MediaOne Affiliate, hereby accepts the obligations of Franchisee under the Franchise, subject to applicable law, which accrue from and after the date of consummation of the Transactions. Section 3. The Franchise Authority confirms that (a) the Franchise was properly granted or transferred to Franchisee, (b) the Franchise is currently infirll force and effect and will expire on May 28, 2010, subject to options in the Franchise, if any, to extend such tern, (c) the Franchise supersedes all other agreements between the parties, (d) the Franchise represents the entire understanding of the parties and Franchisee has no obligations to. the Franchise Authority other than those specifically stated in the Franchise, and (e) Franchisee is materially in compliance with the provisions of the Franchise and there exists no fact or circumstance known to the Franchise Authority which constitutes or which, with the passage of time or the giving of notice or both, would constitute a material default or breach under the Franchise or would allow the Franchise Authority to cancel or terminate the rights thereunder. JANUARY 19, 1999 -42- • 0 • Section 4. MediaOne or MediaOne Affiliate may transfer the Franchise or control related thereto to any MediaOne Affiliate upon notice to Franchise Authority. Section 5. The Franchise Authority hereby consents to and approves the assignment, mortgage, pledge, or other encumbrance, if any, of the Franchise, the System, or assets relating thereto, as collateral for a loan. Section 6. The Franchise Authority releases Franchisee, effective upon the closing date of the Transactions, from all obligations and liabilities under the Franchise that accrue on and after such closing date; provided that, effective upon such closing date, MediaOne or MediaOne Affiliate shall be responsible for any obligations and liabilities under the Franchise that accrue on and after such closing date of the Transactions. Section 7. This Resolution shall have the force of a continuing agreement with Franchisee and MediaOne, and Franchise Authority shall not amend or otherwise alter this Resolution without the consent of Franchisee and MediaOne. Section 8. This Resolution shall be deemed effective upon the closing of the Transactions. Approval of this transfer is contingent upon receipt of items specified in the Frandi se, such as certificates of ; nsmainne and a perfa marme bad, within 30 days of the transaction closing between AnT/2CI and MediaOne. The Resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ginn, and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Caroline D. Ginn Ruth Stanbridge r -- Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _J_2_day of may, 1999. By: nnet R, acht, Chairman ATTEST: Clerk •ss**s•#srssss• I, the undersigned, being the duly appointed, qualified and acting Clerk of the County of Indian River, Florida, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _ is a true, correct and accurate copy as duly and lawfully passed and adopted by the governing body of the County of Indian River, Florida, on the _ day of .199 JANUARY 19, 1999 Clerk • -43- BOOK 108 PAGE A127 600K 108 PAGE 128 9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BEACH PRESERVATION PLAN - ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND COST ALLOCATION PLAN - APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 11, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., r Public Works Director 1 FROM: Jeffrey R. Tabar / Coastal Engineer !J SUBJECT: Beach Preservation Plan: Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan (Phase 1) DATE: January 11, 1999 P DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS County staff, with a team of consultants, has been working on an economic analysis for the County's Beach Preservation Plan (BPP). The economic analysis includes determining the nature and extent of benefits expected to accrue from the BPP and allocating the project costs to their proper recipients. This analysis will be used to develop a local program to fund and implement the BPP. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan is presented herein and examines the overall economic viability of the BPP. This report quantifies the benefits to be received by individual groups over the 30 -year project horizon. The implementation of the BPP will provide two distinct types of benefits as follows: • Storm protection benefit to the coastal property. • Recreational benefit to the total community. These benefit categories were used to allocate the project cost to various groups and identify appropriate sources of funding. This report was presented to the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee on January 6, 1999 during a special called meeting. Several items of discussion were brought forth by the committee during the meeting. 1) Maximizing the State contribution to 100% - 75% for Sectors 1 & 2, and; 2) -Completing a winter recreational survey to verify the results of the summer - fall 1998 survey. On a motion by Mike Vanatta,_and seconded by Gini Mann, the Committee voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend that the County Commission approve the Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan (Phase 1) of the Beach Preservation Plan, and authorize the Consultants to move on to Phase 2. JANUARY 19, 1999 As described in the professional services agreement, Phase 1 includes determining the project benefits, identifying possible funding sources and completing an economic analysis. Phase 2 would include the preparation of the final funding formulae and financing plan, and completing all necessary legal and implementation procedures to enact the program. RSCObIId MATMUS AND FUNDING The Beach & Shores Preservation Advisory Committee recommends approval of the Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan (Phase 1) and to proceed with Phase 2 to complete the necessary implementation procedures to enact the program. (A) - PRESENTATION OF THE PLAN BYAPPLIED TECHNOL OG Y AND MANAGEMENT, INC Coastal Engineer Jeff Tabar introduced Camille Gianatasio, the Financial Consultant; Karyn Erickson of Applied Technology; Dr. Tom Curtis, Economist; and Attorney George Nickerson of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. Karyn Erickson, Applied Technology and Management, Inc., gave a brief presentation of the Plan and noted that the costs predicted do not include environmental mitigation, while the recreational benefits accrue to the entire community and the storm protection and land loss benefits accrue solely to oceanfront property owners: Indian River County has approximately 22 miles of barrier island beaches from Sebastian Inlet south to Round Island Park. Eight (8) miles are listed as critically ti eroded. While 20 percent of Florida's 1,350 miles represent erosional beach areas, almost 40 percent of Indian River County is critically eroded. The causes of this erosion vary from downdrift impacts of the Sebastian Inlet to localized physical features resulting in chronic erosional trends to large-scale storm events which trigger major losses of sand. Four (4) project areas have been identified for beach nourishment as described in the Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan (BPP). Sector 1 and 2 (Ambersand Beach), Sector 3 (Wabasso Beach), Sector 5 (Vero Beach) and Sector 7 (South County Beach). Highway A1A parallels the entire beach with access to the barrier island via CR 510 as Sector 3 on the north beach and via SR 60 and SR 656 at Sector 5 beach area for the central and south beaches. Figure 1 provides a descriptive map for the eight (8) beach sectors identified in the BPP. JANUARY 19, 1999 -45- BOOK 108 PAGE N r GOOK 108 PAGE 130 1 Ninety percent of Indian River County's population lives within ten (10) miles of the coast. Both tourists and the increased residential population place great demand on the beach resources. Not only are the beaches the number one tourist destination in IndiarLRiver County, but County residential users comprise an average of 46 percent of all beach users. These 22 miles of Atlantic oceanfront beaches are a major economic asset to Indian River County. Property values in the County continue to rise at a rate greater than the overall inflation rate. Tourism continues to be the major industry in the County. Therefore, Indian River County has a vested interest in the preservation of this valuable natural resource. Figure 1 A EM it Beach Sector Location Map Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan JANUARY 19, 1999 -46- Continued erosion has limited the availability of quality beaches and has contributed to the increased cost of shore protection. Additionally, an unprecedented number of seawalls have been constructed over the past three (3) years, further degrading the aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. Earlier attempts to artificially protect upland structures included rock revetments and sand filled tubes. Additionally, major habitable structures have been condemned and lost to erosion over the past ten (10) years. Without adequate large-scale shore protection mechanisms in place, the number of seawalls is expected to increase. Prudent development decisions along the remaining undeveloped beachfront can help in beach preservation. However, most oceanfront property has already been developed and these valuable structures cannot readily be moved landward to provide for new beachfront. A comprehensive beach management plan is an economically preferable approach to restoration of the County's beach. The following economic analysis and cost allocation provides some alternatives for financing such a plan. 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this analysis is to examine the overall economic viability of beach nourishment along five (5) sectors of Indian River County shoreline, as described in the County's adopted BPP to determine the benefits attributed to those individual beneficiary groups who are expected to realize them over the design life of the identified projects. The work product described herein compiles new economic data and information, analyzes project -related benefits to identified beneficiaries and evaluates alternative funding sources and cost allocation methods to fund the costs of the County's comprehensive beach nourishment program. 1.2 BENEFIT CATEGORIES 1. A land use category of residential property as opposed to commercial property. 2. A location category. Oceanfront properties generally located east of AIA, and properties extending west. 3. A second location category which is concerned with the beach sector in which a property is located. 4. A distinction is made between private property and public property (roads, water and sewage systems, and public buildings). 5. Consideration is given to whether or not a property is protected by an erosion control structure. JANUARY 19, 1999 0 -47- 666K pn PACE 132 6. Consideration is given to the relative location of major habitable structures to the mean high water line. 7. A distinction is made between day tourists, overnight tourists (hotel/motel), overnight tourists (no rental), County residents and island residents. Categories 1 through 6 are used in allocating storm protection benefits and are exclusively storm protection and erosion benefit allocators, and category 7 is used exclusively in allocating recreational benefits. Table 2 Indian River County Beach Preservation Projects Sector FDEP Monument Project Type and Sand Volume Recommendation 1 lii 2 T-16 feeder beach - 700,000 cubic yards (R-4 + 400 ft n. through T-17) 3 R-44 beach restoration — 380,000 cubic yards (R-37+290 ft s. through T45 + 100 ft n.) 5 R-84 beach restoration — 540,000 cubic yards (R-74 through R-86) 7 R-104 beach restoration and structures — 330,000 cubic yards (T-100 + 95 ft n. through R-107 + 105 ft s.) Five (5)-, 15- and 30 -year return interval storm events were simulated. As an example, the 15 -year storm eroded approximately 26 cubic yards per front foot of the lower beach, berm and dune segments of the beach at Sector 7 (R-104), while the 30 -year event caused a unit loss of approximately 32 cubic yards per foot. A 15 -year design level storm (6.67 percent probability of recurrence in any given year) was determined to provide the optimum project volumetric requirements. As stated previously, in order to account for the future cost of storm protection, a two (2) percent inflation factor is used and a five (5) percent interest rate is used to reduce costs back to net present worth. In effect, the real discount rate is, therefore, three (3) percent. For armored properties the costs for annual maintenance and repair of structural damage to the seawall over a 30 -year project horizon is included in the computation of project benefits. An estimate of land values for the purpose of calculating dollar value of land lost to erosion was based on square footage land values obtained from the Indian River County Property Assessor's office. The total appraised value of properties xi Indian River County (1998 values) is $ $8,072,475,977, of which 35.7 percent or $2,,70,409,036 represents the barrier island properties. - JANUARY 19, 1999 -48- • 0 f,g �ndi'a'�iareGqu�t��ln ° �,�e�i� m�r"$►'��� � •�of "'�': �n r sl >5'J tt-,r J 7 ' Land Value/Square Sector Property Cata o Foot 1 Governmental $3.48 2 Governmental $5.07 Single Family Residential $11.59 3 Governmental $4.29 Single Family Residential $11.46 Multi -Family Residential $19.48 Time Share $29.90 5 Governmental $9.35 Single Family Residential $10.81 Multi -Family Residential $20.16 Commercial $18.33 Time Share $29.90 7 Single Family Residential $9.91 2.3 TOTAL STORM PROTECTION BENEFITS The storm protection benefits of the proposed beach restoration projects were calculated over a 30 -year project horizon and reduced to net present value. In order to reduce the annual value to net present values, we utilized a "corrected" interest rate. At the present time, the typical interest rate is five (5) percent. If this five (5) percent rate is used as the discount factor, it would leave out the impact of future inflation. Therefore, the inflation rate must be subtracted from the bonds interest rate. Though the inflation rate has fluctuated over time, the average rate of inflation for the past two (2) years has been (2) two percent. Table 4 presents the results of the storm protection benefits analysis by beach sector for beach restoration improvement projects along Indian River County. On the basis of these calculations, the net present value of the storm protection benefit over a 30 -year project horizon calculated for the proposed beach restoration projects are estimated at $27,444,286 attributed solely to land loss prevention, new seawall construction, and cost savings for seawall maintenance. JANUARY 19, 1999 -49- BOOK 108 WE 01 15 99 15:115 ,r�o rw u�o s+ae., sant s G�aIS+nLLt. H l7�.1FN17 (sin 37"M su vs.ores DATE: TO: FROM: RE: V1 35: 3T5 1199.5 APPLIED TEs H JAN 15 1999' S,Ar January 15, 1999 Commissioner Caroline Ginn Indian River County Commission 800K 108 PAGE134 Ow ��o�aqu .uwi.�ror�!•i3•`� � a ;. Clsnsrru�,.�mrf 'd flow 000 MEMORANDUM Karyn Erickson, P.E., Vice -President 49e Applied Technology and Management, Inc. Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan Report Indian River County Beach Preservation Plan Example Assessments to Oceanfront Property Owners �tin:ra+a•."s.• fid• -�'- nna ~mi"• )icm. ,L • � BL -_. •• • ter. �' �. r r This memo is in response to a request from County staff that we provide examples of potential assessments to property owners who front the beach areas planned for beach nourishment. We would like to emphasize that the project cost allocations to different revenue sources, as discussed in Section 6 of the above referenced Plan, is a conceptual framework for a financing plan. Phase 2 will formulate the final financing plan, develop the debt service program and the plan's implementation schedule. Attached is a table that summarizes potential assessments to oceanfront property owners for mach of the four areas planned for beach nourishment. The beach sectors were evaluated separately due to different times of construction and distinct/separate areas of sand placement. Within each of the beach sectors identified in the BPP, there are primarily five types of land uses (single family residential, condominium residential, time share, hotel and government). For each of these land use types, we selected properties that have similar beach frontage to estimate the assessment to individual owners. cc: Jeff Tabar, County Coastal Engineer RECEIVED Joseph Baird, Director of Management and Budget JAN 18 1999 — CLERK TO THE BOARD Environmental & Coastal Eneineers, Scientists & Mascaeement Consultants JANUARY 19, 1999 -50- C. • • Example Tentative Assessments to Oceanfront Property Owners --- ----- ,--- -Single ------- FamNr Reslden0al CondomlMum --• • -- —Time 8har�7 Hotel --- - - - — --- — Goverrwaent- - -- - Storm Storm Sloan Storm Protection Protection Protection Protection Fronts Percent d Tentative Front a Percent of Tentative 1 Fron Percent of Tentative Fronts a Percent of Tentative SECTOR Feet Benefit Asseasmeid Benefit Assessment Benefit Aasessoront Feet Benefit Assessment 1 and 2 Share _1_10— _1.1194_ _. M149_ None _ None _ ! — _ _None Now _ 0.49%_ $8,3_13 _1.10 1and 2Share - - 110_ 1.11•/.$33.484-- NOM mom _ _- tow Nab_ ----- —.— ----- _- ---- - 47fi --- 4.0476 _ _$,420_ 3 110_- 1.58'/.___--:15,026 1,700 _ _39.89°h_5379,354 _ 11T 1.38'/.. :13,124 _ S 100 1 1.0794 68,848 480 5.88'b :45,895 300 2.94% $2375S J 2,080 ; 12.05% $97:384 - - -- ----- -. -_.- I. --- -- -� t--------`..- - - -- - - - ---_ ... _ , _ 7 .__-- 122 ---1.83% —$80.774— None NOW None _ - - None .- --Non° _ � None - _ . _._NOM- --Norm None 114 T 1_42%$47.158 — - ----- 114 1.1296 7195 • • 900K 108 PAGE x.'38 7 Dr. Tom Curtis, economist, reviewed the recreational benefits: 3.0 RECREATIONAL BENEFITS This section provides an analysis of recreational benefits for the proposed beach nourishment projects in Sectors 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. Recreational benefits are difficult to calculate. Constructed beachfront is provided to users free of charge; thus, there is no market test or valuation of the recreational benefits derived. Estimates of recreation benefits are sensitive to the number count of tourists and resident users and the imputed value they place upon a day of beach usage. Techniques for estimating recreational benefits have improved greatly over the last 30 years. In the absence of beach nourishment, erosion would eventually destroy much of the value of the beaches in Indian River County and recreational benefits would be substantially reduced. The pre -project beaches in Indian River have already experienced significant erosion. Under these conditions the benefits attributable to the project are a substantial portion of the total benefits derived from a continuously maintained beach. For example, Sector 7 has suffered so much erosion that it is hardly used by the public. There is also a serious lack of public parking in this beach area. An improved beach is a semi-public good and recreational benefits are distributed to all users at a zero or near zero price. Since no one pays, there is no market test of the value users place on a daily visit to the beach and no direct means of deriving a demand curve. To determine the recreational benefits associated with the projects identified in the BPP, a beach survey was conducted to ascertain the characteristics of beach users on the Indian River County's beaches. The survey was conducted on various dates between August 13 and October 11, 1998. The survey interviewed 287 adults age 16 and older. In the survey, the interviewers selected one (1) adult to interview from each group of beach users. Interviews were conducted from morning until late afternoon on three (3) selected areas of beach on the beach. The Recreational Beach User Survey results and the survey questions are presented in Appendix A. Average Value of a Day on the Beach Since the beaches of Indian River County are semi-public goods, distributed to all users at zero or near zero price, it is necessary to estimate users average willingness to pay to use the beach. A key question asked the beach user, "If JANUARY 19, 1999 -52- you could put a dollar value on a day at the beach, what would it be worth to you?" The answer given is an estimate of the beach user's average valuation of the beach. Some claimed that they would pay nothing for the use of the beach, while others said they would pay "whatever was necessary." The amount beach visitors would be willing to pay for a day's beach use is summarized in Table 5 based on the Beach User Survey Results (presented in Appendix A). Table 5 is interpreted as follows: On average the value place by respondents on a day at the beach was $11.71. The 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated mean value of $11.71 is plus or minus $1.03. Table 6 Table 5 FSectors Count d 2 Avera a Value of a Day at the Beach by Sector 56,395 Sector 5 147,805 Sector Sector 3 Sector 5 Sector 7 All 1 and 2 Mean Value $13.00 $11.73 $11.24 $0.00 $11.71 95 Percent Confidence Interval Width 3.19 1.38 1.70 0.00 1.03 Lower Limit $9.81 $10.35 $9.54 $0.00 $10.69 Upper Limit $16.19 $13.12 $12.94 $0.00 $12.74 Table 5 is interpreted as follows: On average the value place by respondents on a day at the beach was $11.71. The 95 percent confidence interval for the estimated mean value of $11.71 is plus or minus $1.03. Table 6 ndian River Beach Counts FSectors Count d 2 18,763 56,395 Sector 5 147,805 Sector 7 0 Total 222,963 SnIl"ba, Indies and Moss 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey ana tyros Lifeguards estimate the number of beach users during the day and report these estimates at the end of the day for each lifeguard station. To some extend beach count estimates are judgement calls, however for the purpose of this study the total beach count is 222,963 people per year. Table 7 summarizes the percentage of beach users found in the survey by classification. A beach user was classified as County resident living on the Barrier Island (County Island) if the user responded that he/she lived on the Island in Indian River County. A respondent was classified as County Mainland if the respondent indicated a residence in Indian River County on the mainland. Individuals who responded that they lived out of Indian River County, but who did not indicate that they were spending at least one (1) night in the County were classified as Day Tourists. Respondents who lived outside of Indian River County and were spending the night, but not in a rental condo or motel were classified as Non Paying Tburists. Respondents indicating that they were not County residents and were spending the night in a motel, hotel, or rental condo (paying rent) were classified as Paying Tourists. JANUARY 19, 1999 -53- Bim( FMf BOOK x.08 FAGS 138 �....--y I-- uuo w wununjy Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey Applying the total beach use estimates to the percentage use by classification in the previous table yields an estimated number of beach days by classification and beach sector. This estimate is shown in Table 8 below. Table 7 User Classification By Sector Beach Classification Sectors Sector 3 Sector 5 Sector 7 All All 1 and 2 1 and 2 County(Island) 7.69% 5.09% 7.92% 0.00% 6.40% County(Main) 28.21% 40.05% 42.24% 0.00% 39.73% Tourist (Day) 21.79% 12.50% 18.48% 0.00% 15.62% Tourist (Non Pay) 14.10% 13.43% 16.50% 0.00% 14.64% Tourist (Pay) 28.21% 28.94% 14.85% 0.00% 23.62% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% �....--y I-- uuo w wununjy Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey Applying the total beach use estimates to the percentage use by classification in the previous table yields an estimated number of beach days by classification and beach sector. This estimate is shown in Table 8 below. .a.� 141"y I IWL cuu uua w wunamg Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey 3.4 TOTAL RECREATIONAL BENEFITS Overall, the total recreational value of Indian River beaches to an individual is estimated as the average value of a day at the beach multiplied by the numlier of days spent on average at the beach. JANUARY 19, 1999 -54- Table 8 Estimated Beach Dap Beach Classification Sectors Sector 3 Sector 5 Sector 7 All 1 and 2 Beach Counts 18,763 56,395 147,805 0 222,963 County(Island) 1,443 2,872 11,707 0 14,261 County(Main) 5,292 22,584 62,439 0 88,582 Tourist (Day) 4,089 7,049 27,317 0 34,829 Tourist (Non Pay) 2,646 7,572 24,390 0 32,635 Tourist (Pa) 1 5,292 16,318 21,951 0 52,655 .a.� 141"y I IWL cuu uua w wunamg Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey 3.4 TOTAL RECREATIONAL BENEFITS Overall, the total recreational value of Indian River beaches to an individual is estimated as the average value of a day at the beach multiplied by the numlier of days spent on average at the beach. JANUARY 19, 1999 -54- 0 Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey However, the additional recreational benefit of the project depends upon the assumptions regarding the impact of beach nourishment. In this report we make the assumption that the beach will continue to erode and disappear, so the nourishment project "saves" the beach, then the additional recreational value of the project can be construed to be the total value of the beach. Recreational Value Over the Life of the Project The nourishment projects within Indian River beaches are computed over a 30 year project horizon. Each year, for 30 years, the project generates an estimated $2,567,4181 in recreational benefits. Obviously, if the annual benefit is multiplied by 30 years a value of $77,022,528 results. But, because we are looking at future income flows, and one (1) dollar thirty years from now is not worth one (1) dollar today, it is necessaiy to reduce or discount these future flows back to the present. At a three (3) percent real rate of interest, the present value of recreational benefits over 30 years is $50,322,518. ' This number is an example of rounding. The actual number is $2,567,417.61, which when multiplied by 30 yields $77,022,528.30 the 30 -year total benefit. The $2,567,418 is reported to the nearest dollar, as are all the values in this report. The $2,567,417.61 value was used in the calculation. This is just an example of why some of the numbers may not appear to add in this report. -- JANUARY 19, 1999 11 -55- BOOK 108 FAGE 13 Table 9 Annual Recreational Beach Benefits Value of a Beach Day Beach Sectors Sector 3 Sector 5 Sector All 1 and 2 7 County(Island) $18,763 $33,699 $131,625 $0.00 $184,087 County(Main) $68,798 $264,998 $702,002 $0.00 $1,035,797 Tourist (Day) $53,162 $82,716 $307,126 $0.00 $443,004 Tourist (Non Pay) $34,399 $88,843 $274,220 $0.00 $397,462 Tourist (Pay) $68,798 $191,472 $246,798 $0.00 $507,068 Total 1$243,919 $661,728 $1,661,770 $0.00 $2,567,418 Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey However, the additional recreational benefit of the project depends upon the assumptions regarding the impact of beach nourishment. In this report we make the assumption that the beach will continue to erode and disappear, so the nourishment project "saves" the beach, then the additional recreational value of the project can be construed to be the total value of the beach. Recreational Value Over the Life of the Project The nourishment projects within Indian River beaches are computed over a 30 year project horizon. Each year, for 30 years, the project generates an estimated $2,567,4181 in recreational benefits. Obviously, if the annual benefit is multiplied by 30 years a value of $77,022,528 results. But, because we are looking at future income flows, and one (1) dollar thirty years from now is not worth one (1) dollar today, it is necessaiy to reduce or discount these future flows back to the present. At a three (3) percent real rate of interest, the present value of recreational benefits over 30 years is $50,322,518. ' This number is an example of rounding. The actual number is $2,567,417.61, which when multiplied by 30 yields $77,022,528.30 the 30 -year total benefit. The $2,567,418 is reported to the nearest dollar, as are all the values in this report. The $2,567,417.61 value was used in the calculation. This is just an example of why some of the numbers may not appear to add in this report. -- JANUARY 19, 1999 11 -55- BOOK 108 FAGE 13 BOOK W8 FACE ,14 Table 10 showsythe annual recreation benefits, the total 30 -year recreation benefit, and the present value of the stream of annual benefits over the life of the project. This information is broken out by sector and is also presented for all the sectors. �y -. c uuo w I uulull lu Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey JANUARY 19, 1999 -56- Table 10 Present Value of Annual Beach Recreational Benefits Sectors 1 and 2 Annual Present Percent Benefit 30 Yr. Total Value PV County(Island) $18,763 $562,890 $367,763 7.69% County(Main) $68,798 $2,063,930 $1,348,465 28.21% Tourist (Day) $53,162 $1,594,855 $1,041,995 21.79% Tourist (Non Pay) $34,399 $1,031,965 $674,232 14.10% Tourist (Pay) $68,798 $2,063,930 $1,348,465 28.21% Total $243,919 $7,317,570 $4,780,920 100.00% Sector 3 Annual Present Percent Benefit 30 Yr. Total Value PV County(Island) $33,699 $1,010,974 $660,518 5.09% County(Main) $264,998 $7,949,931 $5,194,072 40.05% Tourist (Day) $82,716 $2,481,481 $1,621,271 12.50% Tourist (Non Pay) $88,843 $2,665,295 $1,741,365 13.43% Tourist (Pay) $191,472 $5,744,170 $3,752,942 28.94% Total $661,728 $19,851,851 $12,970,168 100.00% Sector 5 Annual Present Percent Benefit 30 Yr. Total Value PV County(Island) $131,625 $3,948,761 $2,579,915 7.92% County(Main) $702,002 $21,060,058 $13,759,548 42.24% Tourist (Day) $307,126 $9,213,776 $6,019,802 18.48% Tourist (Non Pay) $274,220 $8,226,585 $5,374,823 16.50% Tourist (Pa) $246,798 $7,403,927 $4,837,341 14.85% Total $1;661,770 $49,853,107 $32,571,4301 100.00% All Sectors Annual Present Percent Benefit 30 Yr. Total Value PV County(Island) $184,087 $5,522,625 $3,608,196 7.17% County(Main) $1,035,797 $31,073,920 $20,302,085 40.34% Tourist (Day) $443,004 $13,290,112 $8,683,069 17.25% Tourist (Non Pay) $397,462 $11,923,845 $7,790,421 15.48% Tourist (Pa) $507,068 $15,212,027 $9,938,748 19.75% Total $2,567,418 $77,022,528 $50,322,518 100.00% �y -. c uuo w I uulull lu Source: 1998 Indian River County Beach Users Survey JANUARY 19, 1999 -56- Attorney George Nickerson, of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., reviewed some of the methods of paying for the project: 4.0 PROJECT COSTS 4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The BPP shore protection project initiatives are intended to provide protection to the barrier island shoreline from moderate storm damage, and to mitigate the historical adverse effects of the inlet on the downdrift oceanfront properties. The planning initiatives identified in the BPP revealed sand placement activities in all or part of five (5) of the eight (8) planning sectors which encompass the County's 22 -mile shoreline. A secondary goal which will be derived from providing storm damage protection and reinstatement of sand bypassing along the Indian River County shoreline is recreational enhancement of the beach. The principal means of maintaining the island's beaches which is economically and environmentally feasible is beach restoration and subsequent renourishment. Beach restoration involves identifying a suitable source of borrow sand, typically found offshore of the project shoreline, and transferring that sand to the shoreline to create an additional beach width and height at an elevation suitable to protect the upland property and infrastructure from a moderate to severe storm event. Material pumped to shore from conventional dredging equipment is placed and graded above the waterline at construction, with a seaward slope of the fill established by earthmoving equipment to tie into, or 'toe' in to the pre -construction beach at some elevation below the practical limits of equipment movement. Those segments of the artificially created beach above the slope break, or berm, are graded to a final elevation and occasionally planted with dune vegetation at the landward limits of the new berm. Upon completion-pf the fill project, the shoreline is then subjected to a period of adjustment as waves and currents work the artificial perturbation in the shoreline (when compared with pre -construction conditions) into a quasi -stable, or "equilibrium° configuration. Given that the shoreline restoration alone does not eliminate the erosion problem which predicated the activity, the beach will continue to erode until a maintenance event, or °renourishment" of the shoreline occurs. The targeted level of storm protection for all beach restoration projects on the Island should enable any individually considered shoreline restoration segment to incur damages from a 15 year return interval storm at any time between the initial restoration (first time sand is placed on the shoreline) and subsequent renourishments (regular maintenance interval of sand placement to restore the shoreline to its initial restoration position). JANUARY 19, 1999 -57- 606K 08 PAGE L Am 108 hut -,W I An eight (8) -year renourishment interval is sought for project cost effectiveness, maximum funding participation by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (for those projects which are eligible for state support), and realistic sand placement volumes as advance nourishment. A fifteen -year design level storm (6.67 percent probability of recurrence in any given year) was determined to provide the optimum project volumetric requirements. It is assumed that sand requirements for each identified shoreline sector targeted for restoration is available and of suitable quality so as to minimize the overfill requirements. That is, the sand must be compatible, 'or nearly so, with the existing or 'native' sand on the pre -project shoreline. Final sand volume requirements for each shoreline designated for restoration will be determined by many design factors, among which sand compatibility will be critical. The total sand vplume recommended to initially restore the shoreline sectors envisioned to receive sand is approximately 1.89 million cubic yards. The borrow area(s) for this sand will be identified by Indian River County in a study to be initiated in December 1998, with field work to commence in Spring 1999. Once borrow area(s) locations relative to sectors planned for sand placement are determined, the critical design factors including pumping distances, sand quality and quantity, and nearshore hardbottom characterizations will allow project estimates to be refined. The beachfill projects are assumed to require approximately 1.95 million cubic yards of sand placed along a total of approximately 41,000 feet (7.8 miles) of the Indian River County Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Exact construction berm elevations and widths will be dependent upon sand quality and shoreline conditions at the time of preliminary design. Unit beachfill volumes at this juncture appear to range between approximately 40 to 53 cubic yards per front foot of shoreline. The above values were determined following analysis of existing conditions and modification of project boundaries (and the requisite beachfill volumes) from those sectors identified in the BPP. In contrast to the beachfill parameters cited above (as presented in the BPP Update), the total estimated shoreline length requiring beachfill was 36,000 feet (6.8 miles), with 1.51 million cubic yards placed in unit sectors varying from ten (10) to 80 cubic yards of sand per front foot. Uniformed sand unit prices are assumed for the purpose of plan development and costing purposes for each "project sector" at $8 per cubic yard in place. These unit costs were derived by Indian River County and were reduced to $7 per cubic yard for the anticipated projects in Sectors 1, 2 and 3 to account for a probable single mobilization of dredging and beachfill equipment to construct all three (3) sector improvements sequentially. Essentially the mobilization fee is assumed to be approximately $1,000,000 and thus the unit sand placement is estimated at $6 per cubic yard. Mobilization of dredging equipment and work crews will be dependent upon sand source proximity to each of the sector beachfill sites, the dredge plant type necessary to properly access and excavate sand from the borrow area(s) and transport it to shore, the proximity of such equipment and crews to the project site at the time of project bidding, and whether one or more projects are anticipated to be bid sequentially. JANUARY J•9, 1999 -58- • 0 I 0 CD PM 00 4 a z M Table 11 - Project Design Features for the lhdian River,County Beach PreservatioWPjan Projects Sector i— - ---` — Project Description Project Start Project End Recommended Project Length Estimated Estimated Sand – 15 Yr Design Level ���a O1 CL — -- – .-► O' Cr (feet) Lem Placement Projject - Required i/olume 8 Recommended Sand Placement 5 Yr Des'gn Level Project (cubic yards) OlD -Required ((DD ( D C k G Q! y a N y N p CL 01 O .. O O .r N N Ranouriah volume olume(5 yr Renourish 1 I Feeder Beach R-4 (-40(Ijfeet) T-11 (-50 feet) 7,482 7,000 560,000 sv O- 3 =r � N N 1 c3 O d r0 M C 3 N I N' ® rn ut a, 349,409 400,000 2 fl Feeder Beach T-11 (-50 feet) T-17 5,790 6,000 240,000 270,393 300,000 3 Beach Restoration R-37(+290 feet) T-45(+100 feet) 7,892 7,000 280,000 378,816 380,000 6b Beach Restoration R-74 (+6W feet) R-86 11,684 91000 360,000 2 $40,619 6401080 T-100 (-95 feet) R-107 (+105 feet) 8,221 7,000 70,000 7b Restoration 8 Structures L W1000 330,484 - – Totals 41,069 38,0001,610,0W 1,539,237 11950,000 330,484 NOTES: 1. Project start and end dimensions are based on property boundaries for the economic analysis 2. For project dimensions: + denotes a distance to the south, - denotes a distance to the north 3. Shoreline Change rates were obtained from the BPPU 4. Sector 3 excludes Orchid Island Subdivision • 0 OR M= a, 3 O ���a O1 CL .-► O' Cr OlD ((DD ( D C k G Q! y a N y N p CL 01 O .. O O .r N N O O c � N N W �O',, j Q. � N N - sv O- 3 =r � N N -4 n c3 O d r0 M C 3 N I N' ® rn ut a, • 0 BOOK 108 FACE 144 5,0 ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES 5.1 INTRODUCTION This section of the report provides a review and analysis of potential funding sources for the proposed beach restoration and subsequent renourishment over eight (8) -year intervals. The BPP prepared by the County in 1998, identified projects for sand replenishment to provide protection to properties along the barrier island shoreline from erosion and to partially mitigate the inlet's adverse effects on the downdrift oceanfront beaches. The proposed projects include sand placement activities in all or part of five (5) of the eight (8) planning sectors which encompass the County's 22 -mile shoreline. A secondary goal resulting from providing storm damage protection and sand replenishment to the Indian River County shoreline is recreational enhancement of the beach. These objectives are important in the analysis of potential funding sources as well as the distribution of project benefits described in subsequent sections of this report. The Fiscal Year 1998-99 proposed budget for the Beach Restoration Fund is $418,000, an increase of $28,500 from last fiscal year. The majority of the revenue is derived from tourist development taxes imposed by the County in accordance with section 125.0104, Florida Statutes. The tourist development tax is levied at three (3) percent and generates approximately $300,000 for each cent or almost $1.0 milliQ,n per year. Pursuant to section 125.0104, Florida Statutes and a joint resolution between the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County adopted in 1993, the expenditure of the tourist development tax revenue can fund projects necessary to protect and preserve the County beaches with up to 50 percent of the revenues derived from the tourist development tax available to be pledged to secure revenue bonds issued by the County for this purpose. 5.2 TOURIST DEVELOPMENT TAXES Counties are authorized to levy five (5) separate tourist development taxes on transient rentals pursuant to section 125.0104, Florida Statutes. Tax rates vary by County depending on a County's eligibility to levy particular taxes; however, the absolute maximum rate is six (6) percent. Generally, the revenues derived from the tourist development tax may be used for capital construction of tourist related facilities, tourist promotion and beach and shoreline maintenance. The authorized uses vary by County according to the particular levy. As discussed previously, Indian River County imposes a tourist development tax of three (3) percent, which generates approximately $300,000 for each cent or almost $1.0 million per year. Although only imposing the tax at the three (3) percent rate, the County has the authority to impose a maximum rate of four (4) percent of the tourist development tax, with the additional one (1) percent available to finance a professional sports franchise facility. However, the revenues derived from the additional one (1) percent are restricted in use and cannot be used for beach improvement projects. JANUARY 19, 1999 -60- • 0 • • The County's current limit of the expenditure of 50 percent of the tourist development tax revenues to fund beach improvement projects is provided by statute. Therefore, no additional percentage of the tourist development tax revenue will be available to fund the proposed beach nourishment project. - However, the current 50 percent revenue contribution can be applied to the costs of the recreational benefits allocated to the overnight tourists described in subsequent sections of the report. 5.3 THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE SURTAX The Infrastructure Surtax is limited in rate to one-half (%) or one (1) percent. The infrastructure surtax revenue may be used for the purposes enumerated in section 212.055(2), Florida Statutes such as to finance, plan, and construct infrastructure. Additionally, surtax revenues may be used to acquire land for public recreation or conservation or protection of natural resources and to finance the closure of County -owned or municipally -owned solid waste landfills that are already closed or required to close by the order of the Department of Environmental Protection. Commencing July 1, 1998, fifteen percent of surtax revenues may be expended on economic development activities under certain circumstances. See § 212.055(2)(d)(3), Fla. Stat. Indian River County currently imposes the local government infrastructure surtax at a rate of one (1) percent, pursuant to a referendum approved in 1989, for a period of 15 years. The distribution of the revenues is determined by the Local Government Half -Cent Sales Tax Formula which provides approximately $6.5 million for Indian {liver County government on an annual basis. A majority of the revenue from the local government infrastructure surtax is funding public works' projects in the Fiscal Year 1998-99 proposed budget. However, there is no statutory restriction from using the infrastructure surtax revenues to fund beach improvement projects and . all or any portion of future infrastructure surtax revenue might be applied to the costs of the recreational benefits allocated to the County residents described in subsequent sections of the report. 5.4 STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM FUNDS The criteria for state "BECP" participation in the funding of beach restoration projects depends primarily on the public beach access conditions within the project area and the location and purpose of the beach nourishment and, or sand bypassing project. At present, the rules for determining state funding require that eligibility for funding must provide for a public access with at least 100 parking spaces within a one-half (%) mile radius of the access; thus, for a beach to be considered 100 percent accessible there must be one (1) public access with 100 parking spaces, located every one (1) mile. If parking is provided at a distance further than one-half (%) mile, public transportation must be provided, and the transportation service must operate at a minimum of two (2) times per day. JANUARY 19, 1999 -61- BOOK 108 PAGE 145 GOOK 108 FADE 146 FDEP determines project cost sharing in part based on formula values of beach frontage which is deemed publicly accessible." For example, a "Primary Beach Access Site" is defined by the state as having a minimum of 100 public parking spaces and restroom facilities on-site. Such a facility is assigned the actual frontage occupied by the parcel plus 2,640 feet of additional shoreline in each shore parallel direction. Parcels with less than 100 parking spaces per mile are determined on a prorated basis according to the mileage equivalent of the parcel being considered. Table 17 provides a summary of all state, county and city owned government property that fronts on the Atlantic Ocean and which is proposed to be included in the beach nourishment program. y QF fpLLfh" i Pa O . E.y JANUARY 19, 1999 U N :: -62- IM s I 4 Table 18 Summary of Total Estimated Protect Benefits by Beach Sector Bead $10,986,640 1&2 $6,205,720 $4,780,920 56.5% 43.5% $19,209,228 3 $6,243,281 $12,965,947 32.5% 67.5% $40,079,192 6 $7,516,528 $32,562,664 18.8% 81.2% $7,478,757 7 $7,478,757 *N/A 100.0% $77,753,817 $27,444,286 $50,309,531 *Data is not available JANUARY 19, 1999 -63- L Figure 7 Project Cost Allocation to Storm Protection and Recreational Beneficiary Groups for Sectors 1&2 Beach Sector 1&2 Arnbersand Beach Total Project Costs $5,390,000 Fektki Benefits '(43.50K)"" $661,700 (Non -Rentals) $330,700 Day Tourists (9-511/0) $511,100 County Redden 12.30%) (Non -Island) $661,700 County Residents (Island) $180 0 Storm Protection Beii,efits (56.5%)* rie eQ =S�ur�� $3,044,000 r Government Land $1,!04 iuir Access and " (19.3%) TDT ,675 I F- __ JH State (37.2%) -F Private ftoperty $2,002,823 County Property UO 0 /.4' 32 C7. rn CO Figure 8 Project Cost Allocation to Storm Protection and Recreational Beneficiary Groups for Sector 3 ►C u�" Beach Sector 3 Wabasso Beach r-+ Total Project Costs $2,926,000 Reereatton"' Benefits (6'�, $1,975,000 � 'SfOrm )�tOtalflon Revenue Sources ' $951 • • Overnight Tourists (19.5%) TDT Public Access ' , (2.0°0) (Rentals) $571,600 �� $59,100 ••. 4y°1q�IR .[•(,n.vOfM+t+9. riuN+"[h*PaW1plCNtlVM/'.='�K°Y, Overnight Tourists fAWM{{T�PFVWQ .. Land (a�") (Non -Rentals) $265,300 Govenunent $0 State a^vaY;I.Pi's.,ne^n�uu*re,••,aeo-.. , er'�`o�S.,Y (8.4%) (30.5"/°j Day Tourists $246,900 Private Properly $891,600 County _ County Residents W A (27.09/6) (Non -Island) $791,100 a TPrivate County Residents (Island) (3.4%) $100,500 Property - - • • • Figure 9 y Project Cost Allocation to Storm Protection and Recreational Beneficiary Groups for Sector 5 d ;.Wi >a•B,ti', aa:?.;. .,.: c., ...sr bP.' v r.t'x '—` Beach Sector 5 Vero Beach Totftdosts' $4,307,000 Recreation Benefits (81:2"/oj `� Storni Protection RenefiW(t8:8°To�' $3,499,000 Revenue Sources � $808,000 rn 1 yyp�s,... a-?Av+re:•.•.r'�.n 'ova..�r.Y.�....ygx•vg.� 7(Rentals) vernight Tourists (12.1%) '" �"�� 290 $519,700 TDT Public Access $124,000 Overnight Tourists w '(13.4%) 0.3%) (Non -Rentals) $577,400 "' "�"'� Government Land $14,600 State Day Tourists "(1j* - 5.0%) Private Pro (M I $646,700 „ r PAY $668,900 County County Residents (34.3%) a (Non -Island) $1,478,200 Private 1 County Residents (Island) $277,200 Proper 0 -77 a CO Figure 10 Project Cost Allocation to Storm Protection and Recreational Beneficiary Groups for Sector Beach Sector 7 South County Beach r Total Project Costs $3,321,000 Recreation Benefits (0.0 Revenue Sources w 7 r��g& sts (Rentals) (00/ 0) $0 r IDTJ r'O`v;Mght*f4bun'sts '-(00%) (Non -Rentals) r17- State Day Tourists (00%) $0 Coldnty Residents M/.) County (Non -Island) $0 I rrivate County Residents (Island) (00"0) so Property IWA4*A UkT, i r Storni PiOfiid6ii Be iefifi'(100%) $3,321,000 Public Access $0 vt Go .1,11nerit Land Private Property (1000% $3,321,000 0 C7 GOOK 108 PAGE 152 Ms. Erickson added that the State of Florida has a grant program, the Beach Control Trust Fund. The main qualification for this grant is public access to the beaches. Commissioner Adams noted that the Plan contains nothing specific on project design as this is an economic analysis only. She asked Mr. Tabar to explain the phases. Mr. Tabar explained that Phase One projects the benefits, discusses the funding sources, contains the economic analysis and studies the feasibility of the project. Phase Two will contain the specific design, costs, and legal procedures. Phase One was prepared and presented to the Beach & Shore Preservation Advisory Committee who recommended approval. Chairman Macht opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak regarding this matter. The Chairman also requested that remarks be kept as brief as possible. (B) -PUBLIC INPUT Ruth 1.Livingston, 1576 Smugglers Cove, presented the following to the Board: 19 January, 1999 GOOB MORNING I AM RUTH LIVINGSTON, 1576 SMUGGLERS COVE, OCEAN FRONT FOR 24 YEARS. ALSO OCEANFRONT PROPERTY OWNER FOR 36 YEARS IN MIDDLESEX BEACH, DE. I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE ALL CONCERNED FOR BRINGING THE PLAN- ING FOR NOURISHING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BEACHES CLOSER TO FRUITION THAN EVER BEFORE. HOWEVER, THERE ARE AREAS OF CONCERN: FUNDING AND TIMING FUNDING: THE BEACH PRESERVATION COMITTEE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEIR ESTIMATED COSTS PER CUBIC F00 T ARE HIGH. IT WOULD BE INAPPRO- PRIATE TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY UNTIL REALISTIC COSTS ARE DETERMINED. TIMING: ACTUAL NOURISHMENT IS STILLSOME TIME INTHE FUTURE. WHILE SOME PROPERTIES ARE CURRENTLY IN EXTREMIS. THESE CRITICAL AREAS SHOULD BE PROVIDED IMMEDIATE RELIEF. PUSHING SAND OR DUMPING SAND WHERE SAND IS NOT AVAILABLE SHOULD BE PER- MITTED NOW WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS PAYING THEIR OWN WAY. OUR EXPERIENCE INDCATES A COST OF ABOUT $2.00 PER FOWT FOR SCRAPING AND PLANTING.EXPERIENCE OVER A PERIOD FROM JANUARY 19, 1999 -68- 1960 TO 1998 HAS BEEN THREE RENOURISHMENTS OR AN AVERAGE OF ONE EVERY 13 YEARS. INTERVALS VARY DEPENDING ON STORM INTENSITY. THE THIRTEEN YEAR AVERAGE WAS POSSIBLE DUE TO INTERMEDIATE SCRAPINGS AND PLANTINGS. I WOULD LIKE TO READ A SHORT LETTER FROM MY BROTHER OUTLING HIS EXPERIENCE FOLLOWING THE "STORM OF THE CENTURY" IN 1962 WHICH WIPED OUT ALMOST ALL BEACH FRONT FROM HATTERAS TO NEW ENGLAND AND RESULTED IN THE FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM. (LETTER ATTACHED) IN SUMMARY: DO NOT IMPOSE ASSESSMENTS AT LEAST UNTIL BETTER DATA IS AVAILABLE. CONDUCT WELL ADVERTIZED WORKSHOPS WITH PUBLIC INPUT. 19HRMIT IMMEDIATE RELIEF VIA SAND SCRAPING OR DUMPING AND PLANTING. I LAW OFFICES JOHN E. BAKER Surra Sao 4801 MA%AcKusFM AvENuE N.W. WAS M4CTON, D.C. 20016 202/362-8022 THURSDAY - a.m. Dear Ruth & Doc: Called but you are out - will call again before mailing. These books are mostly pictoral. The Great Atlantic Storm copy does ex- plain the circumstances of the storm in the beginning. In this edition our first house is on the pages with the top corner cut off. Pictured is the third floor about a block SW of where it was - we gave it to some newly married kids who trailered it to Selbyville and made a rambler out of it. To orient you and your place, look on page 44 of The Storm of The Century - the house I have circled is on the beach about the center of Middlesex and made it through the storm - barely. So much for history. Some of the pictures show sand being dozed back immediately after the storm - the most obvious and expeditious way to restore dune protection. They bring it up from below the waterline at low tide. Our area where we are now was completely flat - all dunes gone. They reestablished an elevation with large earth movers and pans and then we all started with snow (sand) fencing at our own expense. Over the years we have buried about five levels (many rows deep) until we have about 16' in height and 50 - 100' in depth - east/west. We also planted a lot of grass and fertilized the hell out of it. Obviously you can't bring in a hell of a lot of heavy equipment cause there are houses in the way. Would seem to me that bull dozing sand from the ocean; fencing to hold and catch more sand and planting with indigenous grasses is the best way to go. (Just talked to you on the phone.) No sense repeating myself. I forgot one obvious question - who owns the dune? Would be a factor:when it comes to how you treat and allocate costs incurred, possible losses, etc. JANUARY 19, 1999 -69- booK D'S PAA53 I BOOK 108 PAGE 154 Bottom line is that it involves a lot of self-help and as you have found out, the guy across the highway doesn't much care. I hate to say it, but if there are any distress sales it's probably a good time to buy - people forget in @ hurry Keep in touch. I, C � Michael Hardie, 2136 South Porpoise Point, in Sector 7, felt this is a fine study, dealing with the facts. However, he did not agree with the assessments to the beachfront property owners. He believed that the erosion affects the entire County and that any sand put on the beaches will be distributed all along the coast. Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, President of North Beach Civic Association which includes properties from Indian River Shores to Sebastian Inlet and from the river to the ocean, congratulated staff on an outstanding job and thanked Commissioner Adams who got the Plan to the point it is today. He reviewed the following: ao�'��� enure l�ssaer�t�� r: z: , .vc. ... .....: M.3; . +.s..._ ars 1) SEBASTIAN INLET......... a) Sand Transfer System is a must for continued success of program. b) Specified cost participation in program by Inlet Commission is necessary. e) Erik Olsen's 1998 report indicates that up to twenty miles of TRC beach front is scoured by the Wet jetties. 2) BEACH SURVEY........ a) Weeps of August 18,1998 & October 10,1998 surveys do not reflect legitimaste beach usage. This survey is severely flawed and should be redone. 3) STORM PROTECTION ASSESSMENTS....... a) Assessments should be consistent with all beach front property, not just "hot spats" since all beach front property will gain storm protection and sand from this program. b) Not sufficient credit given for Recreational benefits (flawed survey). c) Sand moves consistently in a north to south downdriR. Where does Storm Protection end and start up again? Who else should be assessed for the benefits? 4) BEACH FRONT PROPERTY OWNERS......... a) Barrier Island presently pays 35.70/9 of all the Ad Valorum taxes in Indian River County b) Beachfront property owners presently pay 161/6 of these taxes. c) Beachfront property owners account for about 1% ofthe IRC population. This plan is politically favorable, but grossly unfair. JANUARY 19, 1999 5) TOO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS...... a) Flawed sur'veyl b) Starting date? c) Completion date? d) Act W cost? o) Wet participation? c) State participation? d) Federal participation? ( Habitat Reconstruction Funds) e) Homeowners Participation? CONCLUSION. a) The program MUST have a sand transfer system at the Sebastian Inlet to be successful. Without it the program will be a failure and a waste of taxpayers money. b) Sind it is an acknowledged fact that our County's beach erosion has been caused all or in part by the jetties at the Sebastian Inlet, their Taxing District should be made to pay it's fair share of the cost to replace the sand. c) Surveys should be done again to get a February -April figure that will give a more accurate read of beach usage than August and October offer. The possible inaccuracy of the present survey directly dWs the allowance for Recreational Benefits. d) The suggestion of singling out certain areas of our beach and assessing these property owners for beach replenishment is questionable at best. The missing sand from then crtically eroded beach sections is already accreting to the south of them and will continue to do so after the new sand is pumped onshore. The entire coastline will enjoy storm protection from the program. If the final decision is to make the beach front property owners, who pay a lions share of the County's taxes now, pay more, it should that be assessed equally for the entire coastline. e) The Consultant's present figures have beach front property owners in Section #1 and #2 paying $15,035.00 for a 100 foot beach front lot. Section #3 would pay $11,I25.00 for a 100 foot beach front lot. Section #5 would pay $5,583.00 for a Vero Beach, 100 foot beach front lot. Section #7 would pay $28,049.00 for their 100 foot beach front lot. Windsor, John's Island, Indian River Shores, etc. would receive 'the downdriR sand, but would not be assessed. We suliport Commissioner Fran Adam sand replenishment program. This is a badly; ceded project for Indian River County. However, we find problems with the fun&g formula the Consultants have created for it. It is an unfair and unequal solution to a political problem. An integral part of this plan must be a sand transfer system nt the Sebastian 2hdct to continue to replenish our beaches. The alternative to ongoing beach replenishment is to face the same erosion problems all over again in two or three years This program MUST be successful. There will be no second chances. JANUARY 19, 1999 "71" BOOK 108 PAGE 155 BOOK 108 �AvE Rodney C. Williams, 1801 Barefoot Place, agreed with Mr. Glynn's remarks. Bill Johnson, 1155 Winding Oaks Circle, representing the Civic Association of Indian River County, noted that his Board of Directors strongly supports Commissioner Adams in her efforts and feels this is a needed project, economically and recreationally. His Association agrees with the basic premise but has questions on the formula used in figuring the assessments. He believed that Sebastian Inlet Taxing District should be made to pay a portion of the cost and that an additional survey of beach goers should be taken in March. He believed that all beachfront property owners should be assessed and that various income sources should be prioritized for the benefit of the people. The Civic Association suggests a number of workshops for the public to discuss the questions raised here today. Dr. Tom Longworth, 1521 Orchid Drive, Chairman of the Sea Oaks Beach Committee, noted that his association has 2,889 feet of beachfront property. In 1997 they installed a dune line protection fence which is an experimental project. The DEP requires them to submit quarterly reports and to monitor the turtle activity. These activities have a cost of approximately $10,000 per year. They believe that beach nourishment is the way to go and offers the best hope of protecting the properties. They, however, also believe the cause of the erosion to be the Sebastian Inlet jetties and feel that if the Inlet problem is not corrected, this project will be a waste. They believe that all County residents will benefit and all should participate in the payment for the Plan. Tim McCord stated that he owns a lot at Ambersand Beach and hopes to build there one day. He is already paying taxes for the Inlet District and does not believe he would receive any benefit from the project. He advised that his mother lives on the Gulf coast and is getting 70 yards of beach in front of her house, free of charge. Bob Bruce, 12396 North AIA, believed a lawsuit should be filed against the Sebastian Inlet as they are mostly responsible for the damage. He felt that the County and its residents should pursue legal action against the Inlet and believed that Brevard County could also be enlisted to support the action. JANUARY 19, 1999 -72- Francis M. Coffey, 88 Cache Cay Drive, felt the County needs an appropriate Beach Preservation Plan. He also commented on the PEP reef and its costs and hoped that the taxpayers will benefit from that experiment. He noted that Applied Technology's Phase I draft was received by staff in early December, but a copy was not given to the Beach & Shore Preservation Committee. On December 14', the second draft was received by staff and on December 15`h, the Board authorized proceeding with Phase II. On January 51, the Board approved replacements for the Committee. He believed the Board should have a workshop to cover all the information before March 15'. He strongly recommended that the County Administrator meet with the Beach & Shore Committee, the County Attorney, the Budget Director, Public Works Director, the Coastal Engineer, Property Appraiser, Tax Collector and the Board to develop a logical and comprehensive implementation plan. Carl Pease, Vero Beach Mayor, 1436 32°d Avenue, asked where the sand will come from, and Ms. Erickson responded that they would use sand from the Indian River shoals, as the sand offshore is too fine. Mayor Pease noted that he is not against pumping sand but is against the assessment without having a voice in it. He believed a vote of the people is necessary and that the Sebastian Inlet is the biggest problem. Penny Chandler, Chamber of Commerce, recognized the importance of the County beaches and noted that the Chamber supports the basic concept. She also believed the beaches have a tremendous value to the State and the Federal governments and believed that any and all state and federal funding should be pursued. She congratulated staff for a terrific job. William Miller, 106 Ocean Way, has lived in Sector 7 for 10 years and enjoyed every minute of it. Sea Grove has 156 homes and almost 1 mile of beach. However, the individual property owners cannot pay the full tab. Most people think everyone on the beach has deep pockets, but they are not as deep as some people think. He believed that a number of homeowners will be forced to sell their property, reducing the overall property values. JANUARY 19, 1999 -73- BOOK 108 PAGE 1 1... BOOK 108 FACE 158 George Gross, 1230 39' Avenue, stated that he is a member of the Beach & Shore Committee but is speaking strictly for himself. He emphasized that this is only a draft plan and it would be premature to talk about "approving" it or drawing any final conclusions. His vote to approve the plan simply means a concurrence to allow the planning to proceed. Bill Frates, 246 Ocean Way, believed the program is needed but the question is, who pays for it? He felt that asking the beachfront property owners to pay the highest cost is arbitrary and unfair and did not believe an assessment would be upheld by a court. He also felt that the arbitrary definitions of the sectors was unfair. 2 houses from him is Sector 5 and he is not losing any sand and not asking for replacement of the beach. He noted that he would be assessed $7500 per year and 2 houses from him would only pay $1,000 per year. He did not believe the cost is proportional to the benefit. Kurt Wallach, 256 Ocean Way, emphasized that this is a public beach and the majority of the users do not come from the property owners in the area. He believed that any repairs would benefit the public. He felt it was interesting that 1% of the residents of the County are beachfront property owners who pay 16% of the taxes in the County. He used an example of a property owner fronting a highway in need of repair and stated that it would never occur to anyone to assess the property owners in that case. He believed there would certainly be litigation over assessments to the beachfront property owners. Glenn W. Legwen, 5900 5`' Strut SW, read from the following prepared notes: Glenn Legwen's Acaddemix Nursery Academy 5900 5th St. SW Vero Beach, Florida 32968 `407'78-791 RECEIVED January 19, 1999 JAN 19 1999 CLERK TO THE BOARD Board of County Commissioners and Jim Chandler County Administrator, The following questions are taken from information derived from the Beach Preservation Plan Update (BPP) and the Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan (EACA) prepared by Applied Technology and Management. From the BPP Update INTRODUCTION; Page 1, Paragraph 1 - Statement: The coastline is constantly changing due to the influences from the wind, waves, tides, current, and other processes. Large quantities of sand move along the shore in response to the process. Response: In his book Design With Nature Ian McHarg, former Dean of the School of Environmental Design, University of Pennsylvania states the Littoral Drift is responsible for the movement of sand along our beaches. Question: Mr. Tabor, would you characterize this as a true statement? JANUARY 19, 1999 Wait for answer... Same paragraph: Statement: The resulting effects are shoreline erosion, accretion or stability depending on the rates at which sand is supplied to or removed from the beaches. Question: Would Mr. Tabor (or the members from ATM) be willing to state for the record that the normal flow of sand has been interrupted or slowed considerably by the jetty at the Sebastian Inlet? INTRODUCTION; Page 1, Paragraph 3 - Statement: The county's coastline is a valuable resource in terms of storm protection. Question: Can Mr. Tabor define in simple terns how the coastline provides us with this storm protection? Wait for answer.... Response: In the sixties when I was a student in the School of Environmental Design, Mr. McHarg's book was required reading for one of my courses. McHarg discusses how the entire barrier islands are formed and how the dunes provide protection to the mainland from storm surges not just the beaches. A copy how this process works is included in my article "How Seawalls; Revetments; Jetties; Et. Al. Accelerate the Loss of Beach Sand on Indian River County Beaches." Question: Has Mr. Tabor ever read this book? Have the members of ATM read this book? Question: If we are going to permit homes to be built and to tax these homes on the barrier island shouldn't the homeowners be warned by the county in writing of the dangers they face by building their homes in this location? Wait for answer... INTRODUCTION; Page 1, Paragraph 5 - Statement: Historical trends have shown that areas of the county are loosing 1 and 5 feet of shoreline per year. The 1970's had several storms that removed large quantities of sand and caused the collapse of several structures. Question: If this statement is correct why does the report contradict itself on page 9, Paragraph 1? The northern most Sector of the county from Sebastian Inlet to Ambersand Beach experienced an overall shoreline advance of 2.3 feet per year. Wait for answer... Statement: In the ATM Report (ES -1); Page 1, Paragraph 2 it states: The BPP determined that the county's coastline is experiencing an annual erosion rate of 187,218 cubic yards per year. During 1997 the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District (SIM) completed a feeder beach project which placed 200,000 cubic feet of sand on the coastline. Question: What was the SIM doing in previous years? In the 1970's when the BPP states we were having several storms such as the one in 1984 that washed considerable amount of sand away from the beach. Was the SIM placing comparable amounts of sand on the beach then? How much sand is the SIM going to place on the feeder beach in 1998 and 1999? Wait for answer... Statement: I could not find anything mentioned in either the BPP Update report or the EACA Plan about the Sebastian Inlet and what effect it is having and has had in the past thirty years on our county's beaches. Question: Can Mr Tabor (or any member of the ATM group) supply us with this information? Is this a topic that has been deliberately overlooked? Wait for answer... Statement: The city of Coco Beach was having similar erosion problems on their beaches. Their erosion problem was found to be caused by the inlet at Cape Canavaral. The inlet is there because the federal government requires it to be there. Coco Beach had no other alternative but to take the federal to court. I understand Coco Beach has won their lawsuit against the federal government and the government will have to correct the problems that have been caused by the Canaveral inlet. JANUARY 19, 1999 -75- BOOK 108 PAGE159 59 Question: Why aren't we considering taking the same kind of action against the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District and the state of Florida? I have additional questions I would like to ask but in the interest of time I will wait until we get some written response back to my questions. -- How Seawalls; Revetments; Jetties; Et. Al. RECEIVED Accelerate the Loss of Beach Sand on Indian River County Beaches. JAN 19 1999 An essay by Glenn Legwen, Landscape Architect, CLERK Tp on how the construction of seawalls and other sand retaining methods used by THE BOARD developers/homeowners in Indian River County will cause accelerated loss of beach sand. We begin by accepting the fact that a beach is similar to a living entity. Beaches typically grow larger during the summer and smaller during the winter. The primary dune expands and contracts in accordance with the seasons (See enclosed sketches). Nature maintains the dynamic equilibrium of the beaches through unceasing trade-offs of four factors: material, energy, shape of the beach, and sea level. The size and effectiveness of this primary dune is controlled by these four factors. Whenever man interferes with any of them it alters the natural equilibrium. The Littoral Drift helps provides a constant supply of new sand to continuously build the dune lines. The Littoral Drift is defined by Dr. Ian Mc. Harg in his book Design With Nature as: "Waves usually approach the beach from an angle, the water tuns over the sand and recedes at right angles to the shore. As a result the sand carried by the receding wave is transported downdrift of it origin'. There are the five stages that Dr. Ian McHarg uses to define the rise of a barrier island. Under normal conditions, a sandbar is created by large waves breaking offshore (Stage 1). Dune formation begins at the thicket line with deposition of windblown sand (Stage 2). Secondary dune formation begins as the dune -grass community is established (Stage 3). The dune -grass community advances seaward to the high - tide line. Primary dune formation begins (Stage 4). The primary dune is established and the secondary dune is stabilized (Stage 5).' It is in this manner that barrier islands are formed. Barrier islands provides protection to the inland community and it is the first barrier of defense against violent storms. North Hutchinson Island is a barrier island. During the summer months off shore breezes pick up sand and carry it inland over the primary dune line where Uniola paniculata (Sea Oats) filter out the sand like humpback whale's baleen extracts krill from sea water. The primary dune line on undisturbed east coast beach areas have been known to rise as much as seventeen feet in one summer! During the winter months the winds shifts blowing off the land instead of the sea. The process of dune building slows considerably and in some cases reverses itself. Giving up as much sand to one storm, as it has taken the summer months to accumulate. Without this reserve supply of sand from the Littoral Drift and the primary dune Vero's beaches will continue to erode. Man in his haste to be close to the oceans, has built his structures on top of the stabilized secondary dune and in some cases on top of the primary dune itself. The primary dune is by no means a stable platform on which to build and he becomes concerned when a severe nor'easter (storm) remove five, ten, fifteen feet of his existing beach. Exposing the footings of his structure's foundation to the raging ocean waves. A knee jerk reaction typically follows this untimely incident. And the unhappy homeowner is begging the municipal authorities to grant him/her an emergency injunction to prevent any further sand from being washed away. This emergency injunction usually takes the form of a protective barrier. A concrete sea wall, a rock jetty, a parapet or some other man made structure. This is only a temporary solution and the walls longevity is based on the degree of severity of the following years storm. Without the ability to rise and fall with the changing seasons, the primary dune's function to mute or suppress the wave action from violent storms, ceases to exist. In its conspicuous absence, ie. when sea walls or other structures are installed, the reserve sand of the primary dune is unavailable to slow the brutal, eroding force of water. The most breathtaking force I have observed in nature is the continuous and adamant force a wall of water has when it strikes an object. One of the numerous hurricanes that moved into the Gulf of Mexico struck the Eastern Shore of Alabama during the eighties. A fifteen foot wall of ' Design With Nature, Ian L McHarg Natural History Press/ Library of Congress Card # 76-77344; Copyright 1969 7 pg. Design With Nature, Ibid water, a storm surge, bowled ashore destroying everything in its path. It struck a five story building breaking it off its foundation as though it were a match stick (killing thirty five individuals in the process) and proceeded inland another two miles before its incredible power subsided. A seawall (also known as a retaining wall) by its very nature is a static object. It depends on sand to remain in front of it as well as in back of it. The loss of sand in front of the wall will cause it to overturn. Whenever a property owner is permitted to build a seawall, either by emergency means or otherwise, the downdrift property owners must do likewise to preserve their property. Without a continuous sea wall the. downdrift beach properties will begins to erode (ecrete) more rapidly (see illustration on Groin). A seawall stops the normal flow of sand that is held in abeyance by the primary dune. As the waves strike the seawall and return to the sea, they carry with it the vital sand that helps hold the seawall perpendicular to the shore line. Without a resupply of sand in front of the seawall the pressure from the sand behind the seawall becomes such that the wall topples over into the ocean. Broken areas in the seawall will accelerate erosion as sand escapes through the openings in the wall. Additional sand escapes around the unprotected ends of the seawall. JANUARY 19, 1999 In the early seventies the city of Virginia Beach, Virginia was relatively undeveloped. My wife and I rented a home two blocks from the ocean. While I was studying electronics, courtesy of the Unites States Navy, my wife would be sunbath herself on the beach. A main highway ran parallel to the beach, between it and the ocean was a parking lot, a small seawall, and one hundred and fifty feet of sand. To reach this sandy strip, one needed to make a slight jump(less than a foot) from the seawall down to the sand. There had been some sand loss on the beach and the municipality was consulting with an engineering firm to restore it to some previous condition. A year an a half later when we left Virginia Beach a barge was dredging sand from a small inlet south of Virginia Beach and pumping it back up on to the beach. The engineering firms estimated the length of time the sand pumping barge would have to remain in place was approximately three months. I returned to visit Ed, a shipmate friend of mine still living in the Tidewater area We visited my old apartment and walked over to the same beach where my wife had spent the afternoons sunbathing eleven years earlier. I was shocked! The slight one foot jump down to the beach had become an eight or ten foot drop. There were three barges visibly dredging sand and wooden stairs lead down to the beach (similar to the ones we have on Vero's beaches). The current cost of beach renourishment is astronomical. Cape May, New Jersey in the late sixties used taxes from the property tax base as a source of funds to protect beaches affected their community. "...a shoreline engineer considers a jetty or seawall a success if it endures fifteen. twenty, or thirty years, its predicted design life. Also, to Villianos [U.S. Army Corps Engineer] and other engineers, a seawall that last fifteen years and protects the property behind it is a success whether or not it destroys the beach in front of it. Cape May's jetties successfully protected the harbor inlet, although the town spent itself into poverty trying futilely to hold its beaches and tourists and to defend it property tax base against the ocean.' The placement of any seawalls on Vero's beach can only accelerate the rate of erosion taking place. In my opinion it is a violation of the rights of all taxpayers to place any man made structures on public beaches that will accelerate or cause excessive erosion. To do so is a violation of the public trust. The beaches are the property of every American citizen not a restrictive few. Over the past thirty years, I have read numerous newspaper reports about how some "particular" method of beach preservation was different from all the previous one tried before. Invariably the elected public representatives kowtow to the vocal and often affluent minority who want their beaches fixed. I ask everyone to go and look at Vero Beach's $3,000,000 million PEP reef (Fran's Folly) and ask yourself the following questions: Can you see any improvement to the beach? Can you see a swimming Hazard waiting to happen? Who will pay for the removal of the concrete structures if they fail to provide the relief they were predicted to provide? What does SOS (Save Our Shores) and other have to say about the PEP reef? It is something for you the taxpayer to consider while the Indian River County Commissioners are pondering what to do. -- 3 pg. 191; The Beaches Are Moving; Kaufman/Plikey; Duke University Press; Fifth paperback printing 1993 18A THE PALM BEACH POST SATURDAY, JANUARY 16, 1999 Get hot about warmin g 'f senators can get their minds off Monica long enough to do some work, they could try to deal with a ar more serious kind of heat Scientists confirmed this week what everyone already knew: Last .year was the warmest on record. NASA said the average global tem- perature was .34 degree above the previous record yearof 1995, whilethe National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the temperature vas 12 degrees above the average for 'he last 119 years. The Earth has been betting warmer for 500 years, but the trend has accelerated with the rise of 'industries that bum fossil fuels and release so-called "greenhouse gases," notably carbon dioxide. Such gases trap the Earth's heat At the same time, increased log. ging worldwide has reduced the number of trees, which absorb carbon dioxide. One Alaskan glacier has re `tireated 8 miles over the past 16 years, and ground that used to be frozen all year is melting. Montana's Glacier .X2itional Park, which had more than 1 0 glaciers in 1850, now has about 50. ifl of them will disappear within the next 40 years at present trends, ac cording to National Parks magazine. • Those trends, if not corrected, will -result in global temperatures 2 to 6 degrees higher by 2100. That would raise sea levels by 3 feel, putting a lot of Palm Beach County under water. JANUARY 19, 1999 With new reports shmng that temperatures continue to rise, the Senate should ratify the Kyoto treaty. There will be other effects no one can predict Some areas will become drier, others wetter. Either outcome will be traumatic for people and nature. A 1997 conference in Kyoto, Japan, Produced the first modest steps to- ward controlling greenhouse gases As part of that agreement, the United States is to reduce emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Since then, momentum has all but stalled. It took President Clinton 11 months to get around to signing the agreement, and the administration still wants to meet its goals by planting trees in other countries and paying other govern. ments to reduce their emissions. Nevertheless, Kyoto is a begin. ning. The next step is Senate ratifica- tion, which would make the goals binding. Opponents will argue that there isn't enough evidence — which is false — and that developing nations are not doing enough — which is true, but not a good reason for the United States to do nothing. The problem is bad enough without more emissions from gasbags who won't face reality. -77- gook It FACE 0 0 4 m -rt4 WjjJv\ MS+UVe -- o _* DeSIC M c N6 vj ©1949 I.hicitistructed wind carries sand inimid ii STAGE d I Pioneer pl.• t commirtunittes invade the bay side of the bar Wind deposits sand at thicket Unit. Dune grass spreads along north�south line As send accumulates on the dune, , windremoves sand In Thicket and woodland plants invade the rising front of the dune. ba&dh ne mind under the protection of this rowinis mcandant dune. The established drte-grass corrununitV initiates primary Thicket and woodland communities advance north and dune formation Ift Music conditions allow duria-Wass communities to 0.— sou behind the secondary dune. ;11 Z-5 -' spread seaward, t1t - , 41 V. -fit& Fitmar; A liot. - .. , . The secondary dune is stabilized. Dura Van is replaced W plants not rectuirint; sand deposition. Salt spray is reduced by the primary dune and ground level rises Xeric thickets replace dune grass Woodland is established behind the stabilized duo mA SrAcTw 5 The pvi4j&v4 June 1,5 es4a6hs6eil a.,jiwe seonjav,)ciune is sh16dimecl A lk LA.kx- *4 DEPOSITION AND EROSION FROM GROINS EROSION ANO TRANSPORT C=) ILI S�n� View - 13-e a e In I/S}w;+Lt- Less / OF IDpoa ct., C, WL ' vlofovvA o�il�et' 1141 le VNI VtCjtt�ter �U ' ; ' ' _ } !� r Qj � Q c� vIV (I!l J 7' a 2 r• � 1 „P -a v ` pvt w, q v l do Ne. r A�Se�4 vats �Sex(f toleva�t� gvaSses 4u, e- Vlo FICO GAA cc P 14 ' CIwt.98 I 1p S� a wu �I tsvev� u e d 5 6ti w,'e t� co 0 0 Nvio WLI T�le el5kir o o14-s10AOLC a 'A Va vies �vowt tleav 46 year, n is 4f4e- PvtwAaV(l c tae I i" a hcl `I•L,e 5uAod i's vesiave-ll 44we Ju(Ae rh `I� V- Se'aa oaf S wk;Ct., Ca f cln %e Sa v! A ann cl 4 epos i 4- : ctt iik e if ir bQSe Se warl( C-tleh� �Cjtuern, Lav�clsc«�,e avckc�•eL+, �co�..s���1A�. � a +0 Qx f(Q % t iv, pic4uve I L L tr Sttli-S o[ PlkCiVnC\ Sect walls ;h froN� OF- (Mes P'�speV j }o haii savl� Pvosioin . 1 CwL98 "e ccLtA be coh�C4ej oL - hic plQce off- i I c;v 1 (' t ! � F3`1 p a � , tetra t �ve s 't:7vu�aVc� � � Nn�e CCL bvSIMeSS-Acaddemix %vSevl Acac�eou.''] cw�d vemovivtcl `fAe pvjw,al1� SeC*tAJ0ty 1 4uvt�l busIhess �lauvs. (a(( �$ -'a-x°11 d��e 'lime %e ehb cunt �Iow of s"4 is �1agl}�e�.:Caus��q evcsio>^ iv +Qke place move •�nr:ll., . • .0 BOOK 108 FAGE 164 Coastal Engineer Tabar stated that he would be happy to meet with Mr. Legwen and go over the entire report in an effort to answer his questions. Jim Dodds, 2135 South Porpoise Point, read a letter from the South Beach Property Owners Association: South Beach Property Owners Association PO Box 3093 Vero Beach, FL 32964-3093 January 17,1999 JANUARY 19, 1999 We need Mr. Tabor's plan reversed We need this critical area renourished right now in order to save these precious beaches. It is not in anyone's best interest to ask individual home owners to pay perhaps $75,000 to $100,000 to install a sea wall and then four years hence ask that same owner to pay a very large tax bill for beach renourishment which in all probability won't work. We strongly suggest that no matter how the whole plan is worked out, beach renourishment should start as soon as possible on 7B. -80- _I RECEIVED Board of County Commissioners Administration Budding JAN 1 9 1999 1840 25th Street MEMBER Vero Beach, Florida 32960 CLERK TO THE BOARD ASSOCIATIONS Dear Commissioners: Anglers Cove Atlantis The South Beach Property Owners Association has been following the beach Castaway Cove I Castaway Cove 11 erosion problem in our county for some time. At our meeting of January 12, Castaway Cove N 1999, we had an excellent presentation by Jeff Tabor, our county coastal Castaway Cove IV engineer, of the county beach erosiodrenourisbina t project. As you might Castaway Cove V surmise this subject is very near and dear to the hearts of our member property Castaway Cove V1 owners. Dunes Floral d—n- Beach Everyone is in agreement that we have a very huge problem on hand. Everyone Gracewood agrees that the twenty-two miles of beach in the county is our county jewel. Little Harbour Without the beaches we are just another small county in Florida. Everyone Moorings agrees that we have been discussing this project for ten years or more with Ocean Ridge constant excuses for an additional delay while we have another survey. Everyone Oceanside agrees that it is time for the Commission to move forward and get started Oyster Bay Pelican Point The plan which Mr. Tabor presented is excellent but unacceptable to the River Ridge membership of the South Beach Property Owners Association for the following Saint Edward's School reason. We need a plan adopted to ; *unitize tl= areas in st*—mis- Sandpointe East Sandpointe West Seagrove East The existing plan of work is stretched out over five years, with work starting at Seagrove West the North end of the county and working South to our area in 2003. We have in Seaside our area, Zone 7B, which W. Tabor has designated as a critical area for beach Sea Turtle Lane renourishment. At this very moment we have perhaps a mile and a half of ocean Shore/ands East front property disappearing. We now have several sea walls, and we have several Shorelands West requests for permission to build additional sea walls. If we wait until 2003 to Smugglers Cove renourish these beaches, we may well have one and a half miles of sea walls. At Surfside Terrace that point, we will not need beach renourishment as the sand will wash away as it Treasure Cove . runs up against the armament.. JANUARY 19, 1999 We need Mr. Tabor's plan reversed We need this critical area renourished right now in order to save these precious beaches. It is not in anyone's best interest to ask individual home owners to pay perhaps $75,000 to $100,000 to install a sea wall and then four years hence ask that same owner to pay a very large tax bill for beach renourishment which in all probability won't work. We strongly suggest that no matter how the whole plan is worked out, beach renourishment should start as soon as possible on 7B. -80- _I South Beach Property Owners Association PO Box 3093 Vero Beach, FL 32964-3093 It would be impossible to discuss this subject without including the matter of financing the project. First of all, the question seems to be whether the commission is putting enough emphasis on financial backing from the U.S. Government and from the State Government. Apparently, there is money evadable from both sources. We suspect it goes to the beaches with the biggest MEMBER problem and we should certainly be one of the better candidates. Attached is an ASSOC/AT/ONS article regarding a $28 million dollar renourishment project in Panama City, Anglers Cove Florida, where they are actively pumping sand. Atlantis The beaches are a natural asset to Indian River County. As such Castaway Cove IY attract Castaway Cove 1/ thousands of visitors. These visitors spend lots of money which creates jobs. Castaway Cove /// Thus, no matter whete you live in the county, you find people benefiting from the Castaway Cove /V beaches. Further, ifthe beaches continue to erode in the South County, the Castaway Cove V property values will have a major decline which directly affects the county Castaway Cove V/ revenue. Naturally, all of this leads to the fact that the cost of saving the county Dunes beaches should e a county financial plan rather than a beach front plan. A recent Flora/ton Beach study suggests that if Resolution 98 is utilized, a 100 foot oceanfront lot would Gracewood be subject to assessment of $66,000 payable over the first five years. That is Little Harbour ridiculous. Moorings Ocean Ridge The passing of Resolution 98 was unfortunate. As W Nolte said, it sets a Oceanside dangerous precedent. Although it may be the easy way out for the commission, Oyster Bay it is madly equitable Pelican Point River Ridge In conclusion: We need action in Section 7B, we need it now, and we need its Saint Edward's School cost to be distributed in a fair and equitable basis. Sandpointe East Sandpointe West Seagrove East Sincerely, Seagrove West Seaside Sea Turtle Lane Shore/ands East <� Shorelands West Smugglers Cove Herbert Cnandage Surfside Terrace President, SBPOA Treasure Cove . Ralph Sexton, a beachfront property owner, commended the consultants for a fair and equitable plan. He also congratulated Commissioner Adams for her leadership and wisdom in getting the Plan underway. He believed that those who will benefit the most should pay the most and that the Plan is fair and equitable. He urged the Board to adopt the Plan and move on to Phase II. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard with regard to this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Adams commented that the Committee's job was to bring forward a Plan to have something to deal with. The next phase is to determine how much the Plan will cost and which segments of the population will benefit and in what percentages. She emphasized that those who have a direct benefit will have some assessment. The Committee, staff and the consultants are ready to work with the public to get their input. JANUARY 19, 1999 -81- BOOK, 108 PAGE x.65 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, that the Board approve the Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan (Phase 1) as presented by Applied Technology and Management, Inc.; direct staff to work with the consultants to investigate having the County provide 50% of the storm protection benefit; and authorize staff to proceed with Phase 2. Commissioner Tippin supported the motion but believed the allocation of costs needs to be more equitable. Commissioner Ginn pointed out that the assessments would be paid for the first 8 -year period and there would then be additional assessments for the second and third 8 -year periods. She felt a broader view was needed when dealing with the forces of nature. She presented some photographs of public beaches over a period of years in an effort to heighten the public's awareness of the extent of the loss of these beaches. She believed the County must maximize the use of state and federal dollars, as well as portions of the optional sales tax, recognizing the value of the beaches to all County residents. She was against the special assessment. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion passed by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Ginn opposed). COPY OF PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - COUNTY REGULATIONS RELATING TO PRIVATE ROADWAYS USED AS FRONTAGE FOR LOT SPLITS - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION (MICHAEL 09HAIRE REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO SPLIT A PARCEL - JACK KROVOCHECK OBJECTION) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 13, 1999: JANUARY 19, 1999 -82- 40 0 • TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D1,V1WN1 HEAD CONCURRENCE: r iJ Obert M. Keating, AICP Community Developmen i FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: January 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Request for Clarification of County Regulations Relating to Private Roadways Used as Frontage for Lot Splits It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 19, 1999. In 1994, the Board of County Commissioners approved changes to the county's subdivision ordinance. Those changes allowed certain private roadways to constitute road frontage for lot (parcel) splits. Thus, under certain circumstances, the changes allow a property owner to create an additional parcel that fronts upon an unplatted, private roadway. Under these provisions, several private roadways have been approved for lot split frontage purposes, and several lots have been created. In August 1998, property owner Michael O'Haire applied for approval to split a parcel by using an unpaved private roadway as frontage for the new parcel. The subject property is located at 575 SR A-1 A, immediately north of the Sunset Point Subdivision. Mr. O'Haire's application, if approved, would allow creation of a third lot on the subject site which now contains two parcels that have existed for many years. Staff reviewed the application and sent out a discrepancy letter in August 1998. Recently, Mr. O'Haire responded to staff s comments. His response satisfies staff s concerns but shows that the private roadway in question has shifted from its previous (historical) alignment, although its general location is the same. Mr. Jack Krovocheck, owner of the property south of the subject site and the developer of Sunset Pointe subdivision, contends that the re -alignment renders Mr. O'Haire's application tmapprovable. Mr. Krovocheck contends that the private roadway criteria do not allow re -aligned roads to qualify as frontage for proposed lot splits (see attachment #4). The private roadway criteria that the applicant must satisfy allow "grand -fathering -in" old roadways but do not directly address whether or not a private roadway can be shifted and still be "grand- fathered -in". Because the Board's intent on this issue was not discussed at the time of the subdivision ordinance change, planning staff and the county attorney's office have determined that the Board needs to clarify this aspect of the regulation. The subdivision ordinance provisions in question are from LDR section 913.06(1)(c)2. (see attachment #1). These provisions apply only to lot splits. Lot splits are limited to one split of any parcel that existed prior to July 23, 1983, subject to zoning size, dimensional and frontage standards. The provisions were put into the ordinance by the Board in 1994 to allow lot splits to occur off of unplatted, "historical" private roadways that meet the following criteria: "a. The physical roadway located within the easements(s) existed prior to the county's road frontage requirement (December 8,1973); and b. The physical roadway has a width meeting county local road standards (twenty (20) feet for single-family development)." In addition to these criteria, an administrative approval application must be filed (as has been done by Mr. O'Haire), and a person or entity must commit to maintaining the private roadway. Staff has determined that Mr. O'Haire's application meets the criteria, except that it is unclear whether or not criterion a. allows roadway re -alignment, and if so to what degree. JANUARY 19, 1999 -83- Boar PAG467 r BOOK x.08 PAGE 16 1 To date, five approvals have been granted using the referenced LDR provisions. Those approvals relate to the following roadways: 1. "Hedden Place" (south side of SR 60, across from the Indian River Mall entrance): serves 19 parcels. 2. "Flora Lane" (south side of SR 60, 62"' Place): serves 22 parcels. 3. "Bel-Aycres Road" (south side of 86 Street, across from Glendale Elementary): serves 7 parcels. 4. "Gracewood Lane Extension" (east end of platted Gracewood lane): serves 2 parcels. 5. 61' Court (south side of 4P Street): serves 7 parcels. All but "Bel-Aycres Road" are unwed roads that could have shifted to some degree over the years from previous alignments. With the O'Ha= application, however, a noticeable shift has occurred which raises the question of how criterion a. (above) should be applied. Criterion a, is intended to "grand -father -in" private roadways that existed prior to the date that the county first enacted a road frontage requirement. That date was December 8, 1973. The policy question is whether or not the physical roadway being "grand -fathered -in" can be aligned differently from its December 8, 1973 alignment, and if so to what degree. It is reasonable to assume that most unpaved roadways shift alignment over the years, and to allow customary shifting. Such has been the county's experience even with regularly graded unpaved roads. Some roadway shifting can be beneficial for reasons of traffic safety or circulation or preservation of trees or environmentally sensitive lands. It is also reasonable to require that a physical roadway that is to be "grand -fathered -in" originate from and be in the same general location as the historical roadway. The subject roadway has the same beginning point at SR A -1-A and the same ending point at the O'Haire residence as it did in 1975 (see attachment #2). In staffs opinion, the subject roadway has been noticeably shifted, but originates from the historical physical roadway and is located in the same general location on the overall site. The Board has alteratives in clarifying LDR Section 913.06(c)2. The clarification could require that, at the time of administrative approval, the subject physical roadway being "grand -fathered -in" be: Located exactly in its December 8, 1973 alignment. Located in close approximation ( f 3 feet for straight roads, f 10 feet for curved roads) from its December 8, 1973 alignment. Originate from and be generally located in its December 8, 1973 alignment. Alternative #1 would prove difficult to determine and would appear to be practically impossible to satisfy based upon past experience of minor shifting of unpaved roadways. Alternative #2 could reasonably allow for "minor" shifts over time that appear to customarily occur on regularly graded roadways, such as graded county roads. Neither alternative #1 nor #2 would allow for more "purposeful" re -alignments for safety or preservation purposes. Alterative #3 would allow a significant degree of re -alignment and flexibility but would not allow creation of an entirely different roadway in a new location. Whichever alternative the Board chooses, staff will initiate changes to LDR section 913.06 to codify the policy. Staff recommends that the Board clarify its intent regarding LDR Section 913.06(c)2 by: Approving alternative #3, above; and 2. Directing staff to initiate an LDR amendment to codify the clarification. JANUARY 19, 1999 r, C" co -------- 20000' — 'BI OCN 'A' OF RIVER RIDGE ESTATES' SUBDIVISION PLAT BOOu 8. PG. 80 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FL. FOUND 1/2' DIA. REBAR LESS EAST NO IDENTIFICATION 15.00 0.14' NORTH & 0.12'30-PB N599, PG. 1910 98.89' z89'55'38'E ------ 91.49' N 89.54'01' IN ISOWNio . 988. PG. 398 POINT OF OEGRESS 200.00' o. %OT 3 OF RIVER RIDGE f 'LOT 2 OF RIVER RIDGE I 'LOT 1 OF RIVER RIDGE 9 ESTATES' SUBDIVISION 1 ESTATES' SUBDIVISION I ESTATES' SUBDIVISION \ Pp I O� \ G% YQ 1 � O I Y T i YA \ N ozi IO' WIDE PEDESTRIAN V INGRESS 8: EGRESS IWiII 15' UIIUTY EASEMENT PE Iq PLAT _EASEMENT — — — I 69'54'01" W .69' PROPOSED 10' UTILITY EASEMENT 228 34' (PLAT) — 332.14' ..,�2oar - — —,— — — 1 ZZ y£RiiIiENY r 19J k_ J/—/y y NORTH LINE :Y.{ s• h y J GOVERN •••� h'•t-,pC�i,`�3v INGRESS & POINT or BEGINNINGN o y� yti PARCEL ce" a0T1 R PARC Eg1[8$' •.aaE�tT•.. • 1� ` LS `FJ, �`�. 44.823.79 sq.1t• �� ib�ti3:7sr;1.,,� 9a 1.03 acre ....Sti%"''Wn •c........-._ \ , 250.10' ZONEAES SUNSET POINT SUBDIVISION' PLAT BOOR 14. PAGE 20A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA N N P 8 — -- J,.; —— L 332.30' S89 -55'38'E 414.50' PROPOSED 10' UTILITY EASEMENT — 20 F INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT APPARENT DRIVEIVAY LOCATION (19 75 AERIAL) • 0 r- BOOK 108 FAA70 Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the matter for the Board and stated that the two parties involved in the matter were present and would like to speak. Michael O'Haire, 575 Highway AIA, explained the he had built his home and the road in 1968 and has lived there ever since. He believed that the road is pretty much where it has always been, but had never had it surveyed until the time of this application. His son now wants to build a home on the property and he had informed Mr. Krovocheck that a home would be built. He felt that the bottom line is that the County and the public have no interest in the location of his road. The road is only 1/4 mile long and cannot have varied by much as this was originally pasture land for horses. There are no other houses on the east bank of the river. Possibly when the pasture was eliminated, the alignment of the road may have changed somewhat and it was moved after Hurricane David, because of a dead banyan tree. Mr. Krovocheck put a water meter on the side of the property and also keeps sprinklers going, watering the road. Mr. Krovocheck has also already split his property. Jack Krovocheck, 565 Highway AIA, owns the property abutting O'Haire's on the south side. His concern was how Mr. O'Haire's development would impact his property. Mr. O'Haire is asking for liberal interpretation of the regulations to avoid adding any type of infrastructure. 5 years ago, Mr. Krovocheck subdivided his property and was required to put in infrastructure and protection to the Indian River from pollutants, obtain the necessary permits and pay of cost of $50,000 per lot. Mr. O'Haire's project will not have any of those expenses if the Board allows this liberal interpretation and he believed it would be an unfair advantage for Mr. O'Haire and would devalue Mr. Krovocheck's property. He asked the Board to prevent any adverse effect to his property and believed that Mr. O'Haire's property does not meet the criteria for the split. He believed the road has been relocated by Mr. O'Haire without the proper permits. Mr. Krovocheck then asked the Board to hear his engineer, Todd Smith. Todd Smith, P.E., 440 11'h Lane SW, believed that exceptions to the regulations should be treated very carefully. He felt that staff is asking for a liberal interpretation while a lot split does away with the Board's control. He requested that the Board approve the 2nd alternative and direct staff to revisit the ordinance if they believe it should be rewritten. JANUARY 19, 1999 -86- i 0 Commissioner Ginn asked staff to look at the ordinance for possible revisions but believed that Mr. O'Haire should be able to develop his property as he wishes. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously clarified its intent regarding LDR Section 913.06(c)2 by requiring that, at the time of administrative approval, the subject physical roadway being "grandfathered -in" originate from and be generally located in its December 8, 1973 alignment and directed staff to initiate an LDR amendment to codify the clarification, as recommended by staff. 9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - FALSE ALARMS - LAW ENFORCEMENT Deleted. 11.B.1. APPROVAL OF FISCAL YEAR 1999 STATE AND LOCAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENT (SLA) - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS - DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 12, 1999: TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Douglas Wright, Director Department of Emergency Services FROM: Nathan McCollum, Emergency Management Coordinator Department of Emergency Services DATE: January 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Approval of FY 99 State & Local Assistance Agreement Annually, the Department of Community Affairs/Division of Emergency Management administers the State & Local Assistance Agreements (SLA) with each Florida county following authorization provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. These funds are used to enhance and improve emergency management, mitigation, planning, response and recovery for Indian River County. This agreement has been supported by Indian River County for many years as it allows for federal funding to support local Emergency Management programs. JANUARY 19, 1999 -87- BOOK 108 PAGE 1,71 BOOK 108 PAGE 1 d The SLA agreement is a matching grant and the County has met the matching funds requirement in the 001-208 (Emergency Management) account without any additional match. This grant provides funds for training, equipment and travel recommended by the Florida Division of Emergency Management. The attached agreement awards Indian River County a total of $32,456.00 for FY 99. RECOIVEWENDATION: In order to continue providing a strong Emergency Management Division program in Indian River County, staff recommends approval of the FY 99 SLA Agreement and funds to be allocated as follows: 1. Allocate $9,725.00 to account number 001-208-525-039.02 for recommended training and meetings. 2. Allocate $2,500.00 to account number 001-208-525-039.99 for registrations and conference attendance. 3. Balance of SLA Agreement funds ($20,231.00) to be retained in a contingency account for future FY 98/99 Emergency Management Division program enhancements as approved by the Board. Staff further recommends appointment of Emergency Services Director Douglas Wright as the contract manager for this agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the Agreement with the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs, Agreement #99EM-9X- 10-40-10-03 1; appointed Emergency Services Director Doug Wright as the contract manager for the Agreement; and approved the allocation of funds set forth in the Memorandum; all as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.B.2. RENEWAL OF 9-1-1 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER ANNUAL UPS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT - MGE UPS SYSTEMS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 11, 1999: JANUARY 19, 1999 -88- 9 0 TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Doug Wright, Director Emergency Services DATE: January 11, 1999 SUBJECT: Renewal of 9-1-1 Communications Center Annual UPS Maintenance Agreement with MGE UPS Systems The maintenance agreement for the UPS system at the 9-1-1 Communications Center has been in effect with the referenced company since 1990 and is renewed on an annual basis. The agreement is necessary to provide maintenance of the batteries and other components of the UPS system to preclude a failure of the 9-1-1 equipment at the Communications Center. The current maintenance agreement expires on February 26, 1999. MGE UPS Systems is the sole manufacturer of the UPS equipment used at the 9-1-1 Communications Center and since the technology is proprietary, maintenance must be performed by MG$ Field Engineers. The agreement will cost $8,240 or an increase of $394 over the prior year's expense of $7,846 and will provide the same level of service. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends the Board authorize renewal of the UPS maintenance agreement with MGE UPS Systems in the amount of$8,240 to be paid from funds allocated for this purpose in the current fiscal year 9-1-1 surcharge (133) budget. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the renewal of the UPS maintenance agreement with MGE UPS Systems in the amount of $8,240, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD JANUARY 19, 1999 C, PACE V rq 900K x.08 PAGE 174 11.G. RESOLUTION 99-006 - WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) GRANT The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 6, 1999: TO: James Chandler County Administrator ^ THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director Terry B. Thompson, P. . , Capital Projects Manag FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E. Project Engineer SUBJECT: Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements Project Resolution for Florida Department of Transportation Grant DATE: January 6, 1999 WabCswyImprov.agn\reso1utionp2 This project is being designed by Brad Smith Associates, who are preparing an application for the Florida Department of Transportation's Highway Beautification Grant. The application requires a resolution from the County, authorizing staff to apply for funding and to enter into memorandums of agreement, in the event of any award. The preliminary construction cost estimate for the project is $527,066.66. The Florida Department of Transportation may grant up to $176,780.91, to pay for the landscaping portion of the project. Fifty percent of the remaining cost is being sought from the Florida Inland Navigation District to assist in paying for the other elements. The balance of $175,142.88 will be required from the County in matching funds or in-kind services. Florida Department of Transportation recently granted funds for the Wabasso Causeway Beautification Project and have indicated that they would be receptive to this application for additional funding to further beautify the park areas. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution and authorize the Chairman to execute the resolution. Funding will be from account #315-210-572-068.09. JANUARY 19, 1999 90. 0 0 ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 99-006 authorizing county staff to submit a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Highway Beautification Grant Application, and in the event of a grant award to enter into a Highway Beautification Grant Memorandum of Agreement and to enter into a Highway Landscaping Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement. RESOLUTION 99 06 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING COUNTY STAFF TO SUBMIT A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (FDOT) HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION GRANT APPLICATION, AND IN THE EVENT OF A GRANT AWARD TO ENTER INTO A HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION GRANT MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT AND TO ENTER INTO A HIGHWAY LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County is interested in carrying out the following described project for the enjoyment of the citizenry of Indian River County, and the State of Florida: Project Title: Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements Total Estimated Cost: $527,066.66 Brief Description of Project: Shoreline stabilization, restroom building with water and sewer services, reshaping of parking areas, stormwater management, and landscaping along the shoreline. WHEREAS, it is desirable that certain roadside areas within Florida Department of Transportation rights-of-way be maintained and attractively landscaped. WHEREAS, Wabasso Causeway Park lies completely within the boundaries of SR 510. WHEREAS, Florida Department of Transportation's financial assistance is required for this project. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners that County staff are hereby authorized to apply for funding under the Florida Department of Transportation Highway Beautification Grant Program, in the amount of the actual cost of the landscaping for Wabasso Causeway Park. JANUARY 19, 1999 -91- BOOK BOOK DS PAGE x.76 AND, be it further resolved that Co-,:.nty staff are authorized in the event of a grant award, to enter into both a Highway Beautification Grant Memorandum of Agreement and a Highway Landscaping Maintenance Memorandum of Agreement between the County and the State of Florida Department of Transportation. AND; that County staff are hereby authorized to release certified copies of this Resolution for inclusion into the Grant Application to submitted on behalf of the County to the Department of Transportation. This Resolution was moved for and seconded by Commissioner Adams, vote: adoption by Commissioner Ginn and adopted by the following Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman Aye Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Aye This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly and legally adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at a legal meeting held on this January 1999. ATTEST: Jeffery K. Barton Cl�k o•f Court (� i `I.} JANUARY 19, 1999 • 19 day of GRANT NAME: Wabassos Causeway Park GRANT# AMOUNT OF GRANT: S 176,780.91 DEPARTMENT RECEIVING GRANT: Public Works CONTACT PERSON: G. Sean McGuire PHONE NUMBER: 407-567-8000 ext. 510 1. How long is the grant for? Not specified Starting Date: uice execution 2. Does the grant require you to fund this function after the grant is over? —LYes No 3. Does the grant require a match? x Yes No If yes. does the grant allow the match to be in In Kind Sevices? _j_Yes No 4. Percentage of match to grant 50 oda 5. Grant match amount required S 175,142.88 6. Where are the matching funds coming from (i.e In kind Services, Reserve for Contingency)? Local Option Sales Tax Revenue 7. Does the grant cover capital costs or start-up costs? ---j_Yes No If no, how much do you think will be needed in capital costs or start up costs? (Attach a detail listing of costs) S 8. Arc you adding any additional positions utilizing the grant funds? Yes __K_No If yes, please list. (If additional space is needed, please attach a schedule.) Acct. Description Position Position Position Position Position 011.12 Regular Salaries 011.13 Other Salaries & Wages (PT) 012.11 Social Security 012.12. Rctircment-Contributions 012.13 Insurance -Life & Health 012.14 Worker's Com enation 012.17 S/Sec. Medicare Matching TOTAL 9. What is the total cost of each position including benefits, capital, start-up, auto expense, travel and operating? Salary and Benefits Operating Costs Capital Total Costs 10. What is the estimated cost of the grant to the county over five years? $ 175,142.88 First Year Grant Amount $ 176,780.91 Other Match Costs Not Covered Match Total $ 175,142.87 175,142.88 527,066.66 Second Year $ S Request from FIND 0 Third Year $ Fourth Year $ $ Signature of Preparer. }� ' Date: JANUARY 19, 1999 -93- BOOK BOOK 108 PAGE 178 11.H.1. COUNTRYSIDE NORTH AND HOLIDAY VILLAGE MANUFACTURED HOME COMMUNITIES (GERALD ELLENBERG - ELL -CAP SAN SOUQ - MHC LENDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - PAYOFF UTILITY LIENS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 13, 1999: DATE: JANUARY 13,1999 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS. P. . &4 DIRECTOR OF UTTLI PREPARED JEFFREY R. SMM C.P.A. AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECT R OF SERVICES BY: ART J. REISFELD ACCOUNTING CAL SUPERVISOR SUBJECT: PAYOFF OF UTILITY LIENS ON COUNTRYSIDE NORTH AND HOLIDAY VILLAGE MANUFACTURED HOME CONMJNIITES BACKGROUND On June 5, 1985, the Board Of County Commissioners approved Resolution #85-61, which established a water and wastewater franchise for Realcor-Vero Beach Associates, a Florida General Partnership which owned a manufactured home community at that time called Village Green Phase 4 (west). This franchise was amended by agreement on January 21, 1992. Subsequently on October 17, 1995, the County authorized certain amendments to the two agreements and the transfer of the franchise to the new owners, ELL -CAP dba/Countryside North Manufactured Home Community. Additional amendments to the franchise were approved by the Board Of County Commissioners in November 7, 1995 governing the provision of water and wastewater services for the park. On August 23, 1993 the Department of Utility Services filed a claim of lien on the property alleging that the property owners were responsible for certain sewer base facility charges as a result of alleged failure to tie into the unified Indian River County Wastewater Disposal System. On July 1, 1996 the outstanding balance on the claim of lien for the 648 ERU'S including accrued interest and penalties amounted to $448,980.37. Because the County and ELL -CAP desired to resolve their differences, the Board of County Commissioners approved an agreement authorizing the County to execute a release of lien and all claims pertaining to the 648 ERU's in return for a cash payment of $150,000.00 from ELL -CAP on or before September 30, 1996. The agreement further entitled ELL -CAP to a $150,00.00 credit to be used to offset future water impact fees or connection fees associated with the connection of the park's water system to the unified Indian River County Water System. As of this date no Payments have been received from ELL -CAP on this agreement. JANUARY 19, 1999 Simultaneous to the transactions with ELL -CAP on Countryside North on April 10, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved an agreement with ELL -CAP to finance the purchase of 136 sewer ERU's for Holiday Village Manufactured Home Community at a total cost of $192,712.00 plus interest at 9.75% per annum. ELL - CAP made one payment under the agreement on February 26, 1993, consisting of $8,481.24 of principal and $35,416.73 of accrued interest. No other payments under this agreement have been received. ANALYSIS On January 5, 1999, staff met with the prospective new buyers of both Holiday Village and Countryside North, Manufactured Home Communities, Inc. As of that time the outstanding balance on the agreement with Countryside North was $177,329.00 with $34.93 per diem interest. The outstanding balance on Holiday Village was $372,759.52 with $49.21 per diem interest. The buyers offered a flat $220,000.00 as a payoff of Holiday Village and full payment on Countryside North of $177,329.00 plus per diem interest until paid off. Currently the owners of Holiday Village, ELL -CAP are in receivership. The offer of $220,000.00 .will recover the remaining principal of $184,230.76 plus interest of $35,769.24. The current outstanding balance of $372,759.52 is comprised of $184,230.76 principal, $77,415.84 of penalties and accrued interest of $111,112.92. The accrued interest and penalties represent revenue that is unrecognized and heretofore uncollectable. Staff believes that the time value of money combined with the prospects of receiving less than full value of our principal in a receivership situation, justifies accepting their offer of cash. An additional mitigating factor was their willingness to pay off in full the Countryside North receivable. RECON903NDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Assignment of Claim of Lien, Assignment of Impact Fee Lien Agreement and Allonge to Note and accept $220,000.00 in full payment of Holiday Village and $177,329.00 plus $34.93 per diem interest for Countryside North. County Attorney Vitunac noted that the people who paid off the liens ensured that there will be no action against the homeowners. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the Assignment of Claim of Lien, Assignment of Impact Fee Lien Agreement and Allonge to Note and accepted $220,000 in full payment of Holiday Village and $177,329 plus $34.93 per diem interest for Countryside North; as recommended by staff. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD JANUARY 19, 1999 600K �,�� FAGE179 -95- BOOK 108 FACE 180 11.H.2. ABANDONED NORTH BEACH WATER SUPPLY WELL NO.2 - SJRWMD - PAYMENT FOR COUNTY'S SHARE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 8, 1999: DATE: JANUARY 8,1999 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P \ N DIRECTOR OF UTIL.,SF�VICES PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E. AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: PAYMENT FOR COUNTY'S SHARE OF ABANDONING NORTH BEACH WATER SUPPLY WELL NO.2 BACKGROUND On January 20, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) to share in the cost of plugging three utility supply wells at the North Beach R.O. Plant (see attached agenda item and minutes). Encasement of Well No. 2 is now complete. SJRWMD is requesting the County to share in final payment to the contractor, in accordance with the terms of the agreement (see attached invoice dated January 4, 1999). This will complete the County's obligation of the contract, since SJRWMD has acquired the other two supply wells for monitoring (see attached agenda items and minutes of the August 25, 1998 meeting for details of the monitoring agreement with SJRWMD). ANALYSIS The original well plugging agreement allocated $9,000.00 of SJRWMD finding with a County expense of $27,000.00 for a total finding of $36,000.00 to plug three of the County's abandoned water supply wells for fiscal year 1997-1998. The County's share (75%) of the $23,351.00 total cost to plug Well No. 2 is $17,513.25 (see attached invoice from SJRWMD). RECONA1ENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Boau1 of County Commissioners approve the attached invoice from St. Johns River Water Management District in the amount of $17,513.25, and authorize the Chairman to execute same, as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the invoice from St. Johns River Water Management District in the amount of $17,513.25 and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended by staff. COPY OF INVOICE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD JANUARY 19, 1999 11.H.3. BARBER STREET TRADE AGREEMENT - FINAL PAY REQUEST PROJECT CDS/CCS672 - WILLIAM SCHULKE NELSON HYATT) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 5, 1999: DATE: JANUARY 5,1999 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADM MTRATOR j FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E�-\`\� 1 �I DIRECTOR OF UT1IM SFRCES PREPARED VAL.LIAM F. , P.E. AND STAFFED ENGINEER CAPITAL ENGINEER BY: SUBJECT: BARBER STREET TRADE AGREEMENT FINAL PAY REQUEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. CDS/CCS672 BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On May 19, 1998, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved the aforementioned developers agreement. (Please reference the attached Agenda Item, Minutes and Agreement). Construction is complete and accepted by both DEP and Indian River County. The County is now prepared to make final payment to the developer "William Schulke." The original Developer's Agreement cost was $17,959.35, the final construction cost was $17,609.00, (see attached July 6 correspondence). Payment has been made with the exception of the 10% retainage to the developer. RECONbflR DATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve final payment to the developer in the amount of $1,760.90, as outlined above. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved final payment to the developer, William Schulke, in the amount of $1,760.90, as recommended by staff. JANUARY 199 1999 -97- BOOR 108 BOOK 108 PAGE 182 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:54 p.m. ATTEST: 000 000 J. k--Rdrton, Clerk e Minutes Approved:9 9 q JANUARY 19, 1999