HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/11/19990 MINUTES ATTACHED 0
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, MAY 11, 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 am. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Kenneth R Macht
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
11.C. Food Service Concession License
13.3. Vice Chairman Adams - Personal Comment
DELETION: 7.G. Out -of -County Travel for Chairman Macht to Attend NACO Conference
in St. Louis, Mo.
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of April 27,1999
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: (1) IRC District School Bd. Financial
& Compliance Audit Report No. 13444 for FY
Ended 06/30/98 (2) Report of Convictions,
April, 1999 (3) Office of St. Attorney, 19'h
Judicial Circuit, Operational Audit Report for the
Period from 01/01/98 thru 12/31/98 (4) Ofc. of
Public Defender, 19'h Judicial Circuit, for the
period from 01/01/98 thru 12/31/98
B. Proclamation Designating May 9-15, 1999 as
National Police Week and May 14, 1999 as Indian
River County Police Memorial Day
C. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated April 29, 1999) 2-15
D. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver
for Lot 16, Block 14, Vero Lakes Estates, Unit 2
(memorandum dated May 3, 1999) 16-19
BOOK 0 `.k p
BOOK FriUt.%
7. CONSENT AGENDA kont'd )• BACKUPPAGES
E. Out -of -County Travel for Comm. Ruth Stanbridge
to Attend Hurricane Conference in Tampa, FL on
June 9, 1999
(memorandum dated May 5, 1999) 20-22
F. Out -of -County Travel for Commissioners to
Attend FAC Conference in Orlando, June 23-25, `99 23-25
G. Out -of -County Travel for Comm. Macht to Attend
NACO Conference in St. Louis, Mo., July 16-20, `99 26-27
H. Florida Inland Navigation District Grant Application
(letter dated May 4, 1999) 28-34
I. Appointment to Treasure Coast Sports Commission
(memorandum dated May 5, 1999) 35
J. St. Edward's School Conservation Easement
(memorandum dated May 3, 1999) 36-42
K. Oak Island Contract for Construction of Required
Improvements - Request for a 90 -Day Extension to
Complete Landscaping Work
(memorandum dated April 30, 1999) 43-46
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Request to Amend Chapter 953, Fairshare Roadway
Improvements Ordinance, of the Land Development
Regulations
(memorandum dated May 4, 1999) 47-144
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
Notice of Re -Scheduling Public Hearing to
June 22, 1999 Instead of May 18th:
A Resolution of IRC, FL. Adopting Rates,
Fees and Charges for the Dept. of Utility
Services, Pursuant to the Authority of
Ordinance No. 91-1
(memorandum dated May 4, 1999) 145-152
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None -
11. DEPARTMENTAL WIATTERS
A. Community Development
Approval of Management Plan for the Jungle
Trail Conservation Area (Cairns and Irwin Tracts)
for Transmittal to the State
(memorandum dated May 4, 1999) 153-163
B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
E. Commissioner John W. Tippin
BOOK . WE IZ0 7
J
BACKUP
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd ):
PAGES
B.
Emergency Services
None
C.
General Services
None
D.
Leisure Services
None -
E.
Office of Management and Budget
None
F.
Personnel
None
G.
Public Works
Award of Bid #9056 - McCully Marine Services
Artificial Reef Project
(memorandum dated May 4, 1999)
164214
H.
Utilities
Floravon Shores Subdivision Petition Water
Service (I 10' Place)
(memorandum dated May 3, 1999)
215-230
I.
Human Services
None
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A.
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
E. Commissioner John W. Tippin
BOOK . WE IZ0 7
J
BOOK FAGt
BACKUP
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS PAGES
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
None
C. Environmental Control Board
None --
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at 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
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF MAY 119 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
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................ 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................
2
7.A.
Reports ..................................................
2
7.13.
Proclamation - National Police Week May 9-15, 1999 and Indian River
County Police Memorial Day May 14, 1999 ......................
2
7.C.
Approval of Warrants .......................................
3
7.D.
Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver - Lot 16, Block 14, Vero Lake
Estates, Unit 2 (Ameron Homes, Inc.) ..........................
15
7.E.
Out -of -County Travel - Commissioner Stanbridge to Attend Hurricane
Conference in Tampa .......................................
16
7.F.
Out -of -County Travel for Commissioners to Attend FAC Conference in
7.G.
Orlando.................................................
Out -of -County Travel for Commissioner Macht to Attend NACO
16
Conference in St. Louis, Mo. July 16-20 ........................
17
7.H.
Resolution 99-042 - Florida Inland Navigation District Grant Application
for Equipment for Sheriff's Office Marine Unit ...................
17
7.I.
Commissioner Tippin Appointed Board's Representative to Treasure Coast
7.1.
Sports Commission ........................................
St. Edward's School Conservation Easement .....................
20
20
7.K.
Oak Island Contract for Construction of Required Improvements - 90 -Day
Extension to Complete Landscaping Work ......................
23
9.A. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 99-014 AMENDING CHAPTER 953,
FAIRSHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE)
ORDINANCE - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS .............. 24
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING TO
CONSIDER NEW RATES, FEES AND CHARGES FOR DEPARTMENT OF
UTILITY SERVICES - JUNE 221, 1999 .............................. 55
1 LA. JUNGLE TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN - FINAL DRAFT FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO LAMAC (CAIRNS AND IRWIN TRACTS) ......... 55
1
BOOK x.09 Fsr.
BOOK pt1Gr,„ )lo
11.C. DISCUSSION CONCERNING TERMINATION OF FOOD SERVICE
CONCESSION LICENSE - TROGDON (ORIGINALLY BARKER) ....... 60
11.G. BID #9056 - ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT - McCULLY MARINE SERVICES,
INC.......................................................... 61
11.11. PETITION WATER SERVICES - FLORAVON SHORES (110TH PLACE) .. 63
13.13. VICE CHAIRMAN FRAN ADAMS - COMMENT ON PERSONAL MATTER
............................................................. 65
2
0 0
May 11, 1999
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25 I Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, May 11, 1999. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice
Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn; Ruth Stanbridge; and John W. Tippin. Also present were
James E. Chandler, County Administrator, Charles P. Vitunac, CountyAttorney; and Patricia
Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Commissioner Ginn delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chairman Macht led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Macht announced the addition of item 11.C., Discussion on Termination
of Food Service Concession License.
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of item 13.B., Personal Comment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added the above
items to the agenda.
(CLERK'S NOTE: Later, the Board deleted item 7.G. from the
agenda at the request of Chairman. Macht.)
MAY 119 1999
1
r
BOOK 19 FAGS
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of April 27, 1999. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approvedthe
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 27, 1999, as written
and distributed.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Macht requested that item 7.G. be separated for discussion.
7.A. Reports
The following report has been received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk
to the Board:
(1) Indian River County District School Board Financial & Compliance Audit
Report No. 13444 for FY ended 6/30/98
(2) Report of Convictions, April 1999
(3) Office of State Attorney, 19* Judicial Circuit, Operational Audit Report for
Calendar Year 1998
(4) Office of Public Defender, 19" Judicial Circuit Operational Audit Report for
Calendar Year 1998
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
Z.B. Proclamation - National Police Week May 9-15, 1999 and
Indian River County Police Memorial Day May 14, 1999
MAY 119 1999
2
'& v'- -
PROCLAMATION
DESIMWMC; MAY 9 - MAY 13, 1999
As IWIGNAL POLICE WEEK AND
MAY 14, 1999 AS SNDIAN RItIER
COMM POLICE MEMORIAL DAY
WHEREAS, the annual observance of National Police Week is May 9 through
May 15, 1999 and our county -wide law enforcement agencies are having their
third observance of "Indian River County Police Memorial Day" hosted by the
•Indian River County Sheriff's Office on May 14, 1999 at the Indian River
County Courthouse; and
WHEREAS, the law enforcement officers are our guardians of life and
property, defenders of the individual right to be free men and women,
warriors in the war against crime and dedicated to the preservation of life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County desires to honor the valor, service and
dedication of its own police officers; and
WHEREAS, it is known that every two days an American police officer will
be killed in the line of duty somewhere in the United States, 136 officers
will be seriously assaulted in the performance of their duties, and our
community joins with other cities, towns and counties to honor all peace
officers everywhere:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of May 9 through May 15, 1999
be designated as National Police Week and that May 14, 1999 be proclaimed
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY POLICE MEMORIAL DAY
and the Board calls upon all the citizens of this community to honor and show
sincere appreciation for police officers by deed, remark and attitude. The
Board further asks our citizens to make every effort to express their thanks
to our men and women who make it possible for us to leave our homes and
family in safety each day and to return to our homes knowing they are
protected by men and women willing to sacrifice their lives if necessary, to
guard our loved ones, our property and our government against all who would
violate the law.
Adopted this 11 day of May, 1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
neth R. Macht, �airman
7. C. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 29, 1999:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS
DATE: APRIL 29, 1999
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN X FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
MAY 119 1999
3
BaOKFAct
BOOK QA,'� 4
r, PCU � ,
r
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of
County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for
the time period of April 23 to April 29, 1999.
Attachment:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Grin, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the list
of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period April
23-29, 1999, as requested.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0019943
HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE
1999-04-21
.00
VOID
0019946
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769
1999-04-23
4,084.32
0019947
KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
1999-04-28
138.50
0019948
BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF THE
1999-04-28
963.04
0019949
ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF THE
1999-04-28
135.20
0019950
ST LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF THE
1999-04-28
724.98
0019951
RICHLAND COUNTY CLERK OF THE
1999-04-28
150.00
0019952
VELASQUEZ, MERIDA
1999-04-28
200.00
0019953
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK OF
1999-04-28
5,387.97
0019954
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
1999-04-28
206.94
0019955
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
1999-04-28
300.00
0019956
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
1999-04-28
1,992.00
0019957
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
1999-04-28
84,126.52
0019958
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
1999-04-28
257.69
0019959
NACO/SOUTHEAST
1999-04-28
5,787.90
0019960
SALEM TRUST COMPANY
1999-04-28
596.21
0019961
OKEECHOBEE CO., PMTS DOMES REL
1999-04-28
167.25
0019962
WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS
1999-04-28
23.08
0245353
MCKINNEY, LEE
1998-07-02
.00
VOID
0245361
GULFSTREAM BUILDING
1998-07-02
.00
VOID
0245976
TACO BELL #3971
1998-07-16
.00
VOID
0245982
S B M RENTALS INC
1998-07-16
.00
VOID
0246004
BERGAMINO JR, JOSEPH
1998-07-16
.00
VOID
0246025
PERRY, FRANK L
1998-07-16
.00
VOID
0246756
L & L BUILDERS
1998-07-30
.00
VOID
0246767
DODSON, THOMAS OR CAROLE
1998-07-30
.00
VOID
0246778
MC CLINTON, TONYA
1998-07-30
.00
VOID
0246783
0 NEAL, DOROTHY
1998-07-30
.00
VOID
0246794
SPEARS, PRISCILLA
1998-07-30
.00
VOID
0246806
SNIPES, CHIQUITA
1998-07-30
.00
VOID
0247196
ECONO LODGE
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247335
STANLEY, JOHN & DELORES
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247375
WAL MART
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247377
BRANDON CAPITAL CORP
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247393
BELL, CLAUDETTE
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247430
MORGAN, YOLANDA
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247448
DOOLING, JAMES
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247454
MOSLEY, LILLIE M JENKINS
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247462
SACKVILLE, WALTER
1998-08-13
.00
VOID
0247509
BROWN, DONALD JR
1998-08-20
.00
VOID
MAY 119 1999
4
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
0247611 HAEFNER,LAURA A SINGLE PERSON
0247789 WINN DIXIE STORE
0247858 HALL, JEWELS AND CITY OF VERO
0248159 WAL-MART STORES, INC
0248186 BARTON, MARK
0248247 WIGHT, DEBORAH
0248249 MALINOS, SUSAN L
0248258 ALLEN, KRISTEN D
0248263 ROBERTS, JAMES E
0248537 STILLER, MARSHA
0248581 WEST, JAMES W III
0248787 BRITT,JEFFREY L
0248802 UNION NATIONAL BANK
0248808 SCHMITZ, JOHANN
0248811 MAAG AGROCHEMICAL
0248815 INDIAN BEACH ASSOC, INC
0248855 DUBORD, DOROTHY A
0248866 THORPE REAL ESTATE
0249101 PANKIEWICZ-FUCHS, PATRICIA A
0249168 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
0249494 BROWN, HUBERT & LOLA
0249512 ANDERSON, SCOTT P
0249519 JENRETTE, MORRIS & CAROLINE
0249924 AMERICAN INSULATION INC
0249930 SHAW, THERESA
0249938 COTUGNO, JOHN V
0249949 KNOX, MICHELLE
0249953 RESALE HOME NETWORK
0255958 FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
0260160 BOND, MARION
0260658 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
0260685 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
0261119 OLSSON, JAY E D.0
0261250 ANDERSON, FRED
0261251 BECHT, TONYA AND CITY OF VERO
0261252 BROXTON, LYDIA
0261253 BREVCO PROPERTIES, INC
0261254 BEUTTELL, PETER M
0261255 BILKEN GROUP
0261256 BEANS, ROBERT
0261257 BROOKS, DONNA AND CITY OF VERO
0261258 BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
0261259 BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H
0261260 BLAHNIK, CHRIS OR MILDRED
0261261 BUCKNER, SHEILA & CITY OF VERO
0261262 BISHOP, SUSAN D
0261263 BROOKHAVEN, TOWN OF
0261264 BREVARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRTY
0261265 BLUE, YOLANDA
0261266 BACON, CHARISMA AND CITY OF
0261267 CARTWRIGHT, WILLIAM AND/
0261268 CORR, RHODA L
0261269 COLLINS, THOMAS H
0261270 COSCO, KEN
0261271 CENTURY 21 SEATREX REALTY, INC
0261272 CARLTON, ALLAN R
0261273 C P E ASSOCIATES
0261274 CAPAK, GERALD T
0261275 CUItlINGS, JERRY
0261276 COLDWELL BANKER
0261277 CLUNN, JEFFREY
0261278 CARONE, PAUL
MAY 119 1999
k,
CHECK
DATE
1998-08-20
1998-08-20
1998-08-24
1998-08-27
1998-08-27
1998-08-27
1998-08-27
1998-08-27
1998-08-27
1998-09-03
1998-09-03
1998-09-10
1998-09-10
1998-09-10
1998-09-10
1998-09-10
1998-09-10
1998-09-10
1998-09-17
1998-09-17
1998-09-24
.1998-09-24
1998-09-24
1998-09-30
1998-09-30
1998-09-30
1998-09-30
1998-09-30
1999-01-21
1999-03-31
1999-04-15
1999-04-15
1999-04-22
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
1999-04-23
CHECK
AMOUNT
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
148.00
92.00
219.00
471.00
270.00
1,694.00
226.00
59.00
1,283.00
397.00
364.00
84.00
256.00
557.64
484.64
248.00
26.00
197.00
299.00
588.00
478.00
245.00
306.00
892.00
350.00
438.00
426.00
314.00
230.00
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
BOOK PAGE
•
BOOK ��`� PACE40
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261279
CHAMBLISS, CHIQUITA AND CITY
1999-04-23
18.00
0261280
CARLUCCI, LEONARD A
1999-04-23
404.00
0261281
DAN PREUSS REALTY, INC
1999-04-23
274.00
0261282
DOOLITTLE JAMES A & ASSOCIATES
1999-04-23
2,952.00
0261283
DENNISON, WANDA
1999-04-23
911.00
0261284
DOVE, E WILSON
1999-04-23
267.00
0261285
DOYLE, CHERYL
1999-04-23
305.00
0261286
DIXON, LATONIA AND CITY OF
1999-04-23
8.00
0261287
EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113)
1999-04-23
166.00
0261288
EDWARD, FRANKLIN
1999-04-23
328.00
0261289
FOGERTY, GEORGE A
1999-04-23
315.00
0261290
FRESH, DANIEL J
1999-04-23
228.00
0261291
FT PIERCE, CITY OF
1999-04-23
1,545.92
0261292
FOGARTY ENTERPRISES, INC
1999-04-23
45.00
0261293
GASKILL, ROBERT
1999-04-23
251.00
0261294
GRIMM, FLOYD OR HELEN
1999-04-23
149.00
0261295
GIFFORD GROVES, LTD
1999-04-23
11,297.00
0261296
GEORGE, MARY KIM
1999-04-23
579.00
0261297
GRACE'S LANDING LTD
1999-04-23
2,939.00
0261298
GLOVERSVILLE HOUSING AUTHORITY
1999-04-23
271.64
0261299
HAWKINS, WANDA
1999-04-23
21.00
0261300
HOLM, LEO
1999-04-23
445.00
0261301
HAMM, BEVERLY AND CITY OF VERO
1999-04-23
89.00
0261302
INDIAN RIVER INVESTMENT
1999-04-23
270.00
0261303
IMBRIANI, VINCENT
1999-04-23
451.00
0261304
JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES
1999-04-23
6,703.00
0261305
JENSEN, PETER C
1999-04-23
526.00
0261306
JAHOLKOWSKI, PAUL
1999-04-23
278.00
0261307
JENNINGS, LESSIE
1999-04-23
261.00
0261308
JAHOLKOWSKI, MIKE
1999-04-23
210.00
0261309
JULIN, PAUL
1999-04-23
185.00
0261310
JONES, CECILIA AND CITY OF
1999-04-23
40.00
0261311
JONES, WILLIAM C
1999-04-23
335.00
0261312
JACOBS, CARRIE AND FLORIDA
1999-04-23
85.00
0261313
JONES, ALPHONSO
1999-04-23
258.00
0261314
KOLB, GREGORY L
1999-04-23
443.00
0261315
KUBILUS, DEBRA AND CITY OF
1999-04-23
75.00
0261316
LAWRENCE, TERRY A
1999-04-23
191.00
0261317
LLERENA, E D
1999-04-23
472.00
0261318
LANGLEY, PHILIP G
1999-04-23
230.00
0261319
LAWRENCE, CHARTENE FRANCES
1999-04-23
455.00
0261320
LINDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
1999-04-23
.00 VOID _
0261320
LINDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
1999-04-23
.00 VOID
0261321
MIXELL, LLONALD AND/OR
1999-04-23
1,036.00
0261322
M O D INVESTMENTS
1999-04-23
1,037.00
0261323
MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM
1999-04-23
201.00
0261324
MANN, ROBERT OR WANDA ARMA
1999-04-23
203.00
0261325
MORRILL, TINA AND CITY OF
1999-04-23
31.00
0261326
MCINTOSH, SYLVESTER B JR
1999-04-23
426.00
0261327
MULLINS, B FRANK
1999-04-23
501.00
0261328
MC CLAY, ROBIN
1999-04-23
312.00
0261329
MCGRIFF, SHARON AND CITY OF
1999-04-23
28.00
0261330
MCNEAL, JAMES
1999-04-23
177.00
0261331
NELSON, DONALD J & VALENTINE R
1999-04-23
500.00
0261332
NEUHAUSER, ERNEST
1999-04-23
272.00
0261333
NIRMIKA LIVING STONES, INC
1999-04-23
337.00
0261334
OLIVER, DOROTHY
1999-04-23
400.00
0261335
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND
1999-04-23
600.64
0261336
PARKER, RALPH & CITY OF VERO
1999-04-23
91.00
0261337
PALMER TRAILER PARK
1999-04-23
449.00
0261338
PITTMAN, CATHERINE & CITY OF
1999-04-23
96.00
0261339
POLLY, EMMA
1999-04-23
979.00
MAY 119 1999
LJ
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
DATE
AMOUNT
NUMBER
=
0261340
PIERSON, JOHN H DBA
1999-04-23
322.00
0261341
POSADO, LORI
1999-04-23
375.00
0261342
PALUMBO, LOUIS
1999-04-23
294.00
0261343
REAGAN, WILLIE C
1999-04-23
810.00
0261344
RENNICK, RONALD
1999-04-23
313.00
0261345
RAUDENBUSH, ERNEST
1999-04-23
155.00
0261346
REALTY CONNECTIONS OF VERO,INC
1999-04-23
690.00
0261347
REARDANZ, MARVIN
1999-04-23
499.00
0261348
RICHARDS, WILLIAM A
1999-04-23
470.00
0261349
RODRIGUEZ, BLANCA
1999-04-23
337.00
0261350
RICOTTI, RICARDO
1999-04-23
180.00
0261351
RIVER PARK PLACE
1999-04-23
1,642.00
0261352
SCHORNER, JAMES A
1999-04-23
161.00
0261353
ST FRANCIS MANOR
1999-04-23
2,263.00
0261354
SCROGGS, BETTY DAVIS
1999-04-23
324.00
0261355
SACCO, JACQUELINE AND/OR
1999-04-23
490.00
0261356
SABONJOHN, FLORENCE
1999-04-23
268.00
0261357
SANFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY
1999-04-23
198.64
0261358
SMOAK, JEANETTE AND CITY
1999-04-23
34.00
0261359
SANDY PINES
1999-04-23
4,393.00
0261360
SHELTON, ROBERT L
1999-04-23
424.00
0261361
STARCK, MICHAEL R
1999-04-23
382.00
0261362
STRIBLING, WILLIAM JR
1999-04-23
212.00
0261363
SUNDMAN, IVAN
1999-04-23
299.00
0261364
SPARKS, DAVID
1999-04-23
113.00
0261365
SARTAIN, CHARLES S & TELECIA
1999-04-23
65.00
0261366
TROPICAL SHORELAND, INC OR
1999-04-23
245.00
0261367
TOWN & COUNTRY LEASING
1999-04-23
347.00
0261368
TOLBERT, JEANETTE AND CITY OF
1999-04-23
34.00
0261369
VERO MOBILE HOME PARK
1999-04-23
490.00
0261370
VERO FIRST CORPORATION
1999-04-23
2,798.00
0261371
VAZQUEZ, DELIA & FLORIDA
1999-04-23
6.00
0261372
VARJABEDIAN, SUMPAD
1999-04-23
527.00
0261373
BLAKE, SALLIE (WYNN)
1999-04-23
284.00
0261374
WILLIAMS, TOBIAS M
1999-04-23
496.00
0261375
WILLIAMS, DEBRA WASHINGTON
1999-04-23
121.00
0261376
YORK, LILLY B
1999-04-23
194.00
0261377
YORK, DAVID
1999-04-23
467.00
0261378
ZANCA, LEONARD
1999-04-23
1,131.00
0261379
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-04-29
251.90
0261380
ACE PLUMBING, INC
1999-04-29
63.00
0261381
AIRBORNE EXPRESS
1999-04-29
34.50
0261382
ALEXANDER BATTERY COMPANY
1999-04-29
1,113.60
0261383
APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
1999-04-29
2,085.20
0261384
APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO
1999-04-29
726.15
0261385
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
1999-04-29
459.10
0261386
AT EASE ARMY NAVY
1999-04-29
327.00
0261387
AQUAGENIX LAND -WATER
1999-04-29
86.00
0261388
ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED
1999-04-29
59.90
0261389
COMMONWEALTH TECH
1999-04-29
1,500.00
0261390
ADDISON OIL CO
1999-04-29
10,848.08
0261391
A T & T
1999-04-29
92.41
0261392
A T & T LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
1999-04-29
269.40
0261393
ASHWORTH INC
1999-04-29
60.00
0261394
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
1999-04-29
157.00
0261395
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
1999-04-29
795.29
0261396
ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS
1999-04-29
288.87
0261397
AVATAR UTILITY SERVICES, INC
1999-04-29
11,717.86
0261398
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
1999-04-29
21.88
0261399
ARAZOZA BROS CORP
1999-04-29
145,051.12
0261400
ADAIR, RENEE
1999-04-29
330.12
MAY 119 1999
7
BOOK FSG
0
BOOK i0o PAGE
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261401
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1999-04-29
4,874.81
0261402
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
1999-04-29
23.25
0261403
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PED
1999-04-29
525.00
0261404
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
1999-04-29
193,590.33
0261405
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
1999-04-29
5,597.25
0261406
BARTON, JEFFREY K
1999-04-29
2,106.95
0261407
BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-04-29
1,944.00
0261408
BARER & TAYLOR INC
1999-04-29
1,038.03
0261409
BRODART CO
1999-04-29
1,282.55
0261410
BLAIS ELECTRIC, INC
1999-04-29
483.90
0261411
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
1999-04-29
219.78
0261412
BETROCK INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
1999-04-29
59.95
0261413
BOLLE AMERICA, INC
1999-04-29
218.25
0261414
SAUER, JANICE
1999-04-29
11.22
0261415
BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF
1999-04-29
11,151.12
0261416
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
1999-04-29
358.54
0261417
BLACKSTONE AUDIOBOOKS
1999-04-29
12.00
0261418
BMG
1999-04-29
33.45
0261419
BEAM, BETTY
1999-04-29
133.90
0261420
BLACKBURN, COLE
1999-04-29
28.32
0261421
BEST WESTERN PALMER HOUSE
1999-04-29
160.00
0261422
BILLY BUDD FILMS INC
1999-04-29
29.95
0261423
BELLSOUTH
1999-04-29
440.59
0261424
BROWN & CALDWELL
1999-04-29
1,585.80
0261425
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
1999-04-29
98,000.00
0261426
CLASSIC AWARDS
1999-04-29
40.00
0261427
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
1999-04-29
19.00
0261428
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
1999-04-29
12,626.72
0261429
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
1999-04-29
707.00
0261430
COPELAND, LINDA
1999-04-29
38.50
0261431
CROSS CREEK APPAREL, INC
1999-04-29
395.20
0261432
COMPUTYPE, INC
1999-04-29
1,069.20
0261433
CLIFF BERRY ENVIRONMENTAL
1999-04-29
325.00
0261434
COOGAN, MAUREEN
1999-04-29
387.28
0261435
C V S 0 A
1999-04-29
195.00
0261436
CROSSROADS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1999-04-29
51.00
0261437
CRITIC'S CHOICE VIDEO
1999-04-29
47.24
0261438
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
1999-04-29
6.50
0261439
CUSTOM PUBLISHING SERVICES INC
1999-04-29
135.00
0261440
CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE
1999-04-29
105.57
0261441
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
1999-04-29
435.50
0261442
COPYCO, INC
1999-04-29
12.99
0261443
CARTER, KELLY
1999-04-29
193.12
0261444
CENTER FOR COUNSELING
1999-04-29
100.00
0261445
COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT LEASING
1999-04-29
672.00
0261446
CONRADO, STEFANIE
1999-04-29
87.55
0261447
FLINT TRADING INC
1999-04-29
1,596.00
0261448
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
1999-04-29
1,877.34
0261449
DEEP SI% DIVE SHOP, INC
1999-04-29
539.95
0261450
DELTA SUPPLY CO
1999-04-29
718.93
0261451
FLORIDA DEPT OF MANAGEMENT
1999-04-29
3,510.25
0261452
DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC
1999-04-29
128.71
0261453
DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
1999-04-29
543,252.63
0261454
DICKEY SCALES, INC
1999-04-29
965.00
0261455
DADE PAPER COMPANY
1999-04-29
621.22
0261456
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
1999-04-29
81.65
0261457
DOLITTLE, JAMES
1999-04-29
510.00
0261458
ERRETT, NANCY
1999-04-29
79.60
0261459
ESQUIRE REPORTING INC
1999-04-29
25.00
0261460
EDLUND & DRITENBAS
1999-04-29
3,192.19
MAY 119 1999
8
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261461
EMERGENCY LINEN SUPPLY CO
1999-04-29
1,038.00
0261462
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES COUNCIL
1999-04-29
8,960.00
0261463
ERICSSON, INC
1999-04-29
25.00
0261464
ERDMAN, WILLIAM L
1999-04-29
570.00
0261465
EDACS INTERNATIONAL USER GROUP
1999-04-29
75.00
0261466
FEDEX
1999-04-29
51.25
0261467
FLORIDA BAR, THE
1999-04-29
16.00
0261468
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO
1999-04-29
92.74
0261469
FLORIDA STATE HORTICULTURE
1999-04-29
35.00
0261470
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
1999-04-29
38,415.38
0261471
FOUNDATION CENTER, THE
1999-04-29
287.00
0261472
FIRE PROTECTION PUBLICATIONS
1999-04-29
279.95
0261473
FOOT -JOY DRAWER
1999-04-29
197.27
0261474
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
1999-04-29
71.57
0261475
FRANKLIN PRODUCTS CORP
1999-04-29
2,373.62
0261476
FLORIDA DETROIT DIESEL -ALLISON
1999-04-29
3,429.56
0261477
FLINN, SHEILA I
1999-04-29
171.50
0261478
FLORIDA SECTION ITE
1999-04-29
145.00
0261479
FLORIDA TRANSCOR, INC
1999-04-29
1,005.00
0261480
FACETS MULTIDEDIA, INC
1999-04-29
152.06
0261481
FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
1999-04-29
19,738.62
0261482
FATHER & SON CARPET CLEANING
1999-04-29
823.50
0261483
FANNIN, JUSTIN
1993-04-29
190.55
0261484
FLORIDA UTILITIES COORDINATING
1999-04-29
20.00
0261485
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
1999-04-29
10,000.00
0261486
GENERAL GMC, TRUCK
1999-04-29
386.99
0261487
GENE'S AUTO GLASS
1999-04-29
10.00
0261488
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-04-29
232.00
0261489
GENTILE, MICHELLE
1999-04-29
29.87
0261490
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
1999-04-29
1,548.02
0261491
GOVERNOR'S HURRICANE
1999-04-29
625.00
0261492
GREENE, ROBERT E
1999-04-29
1,856.77
0261493
GRAPHIC DESIGNS INTERNATIONAL
1999-04-29
224.77
0261494
G H O DEVELOPMENT
1999-04-29
286.50
0261495
GOLDEN GATE TRAILER SALES,LLC
1999-04-29
47.25
0261496
GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTE
1999-04-29
16,546.69
0261497
GOLLNICK, PEGGY
1999-04-29
395.50
0261498
HAMMOND, KATHARINE R
1999-04-29
2,434.20
0261499
HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPH, INC
1999-04-29
172.00
0261500
HECTOR TURF, INC
1999-04-29
1,968.12
0261501
HICKMAN'S BRAKE & ALIGNMENT
1999-04-29
737.26
0261502
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
1999-04-29
1,155.04
0261503
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
1999-04-29
17.50
0261504
HIBISCUS CHILDREN'S CENTER
1999-04-29
1,829.86
0261505
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
1999-04-29
48,564.74
0261506
H T S CONTROLS, INC
1999-04-29
9,360.00
0261507
HARTSFIELD, CELESTE L
1999-04-29
199.50
0261508
HASENAUER, KRIS
1999-04-29
43.50
0261509
HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES INC
1999-04-29
2,343.86
0261510
HANSEN, SUSAN
1999-04-29
162.40
0261511
HALL, TOM
1999-04-29
51.50
0261512
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-04-29
57,370.83
0261513
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
1999-04-29
1,644.50
0261514
INDIAN RIVER ACE HARDWARE
1999-04-29
11.28
0261515
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
1999-04-29
169.50
0261516
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
1999-04-29
2,785.76
0261517
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
1999-04-29
126.62
0261518
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-04-29
5,200.00
0261519
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-04-29
150.00
0261520
IBM CORPORATION
1999-04-29
1,325.66
0261521
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
1999-04-29
24.70
MAY 11, 1999
E
BOOS
.J
BOOK iog
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261522
IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE-
1999-04-29
102,477.32
0261523
INDIAN RIVER SHORES POLICE
1999-04-29
25.00
0261524
INTERFACE ELECTRONICS, INC
1999-04-29
2,200.00
0261525
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH
1999-04-29
35.00
0261526
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S
1999-04-29
150.00
0261527
INTERIM COURT REPORTING
1999-04-29
600.50
0261528
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING
1999-04-29
2,422.00
0261529
I E S DRILLING SUPPLIES
1999-04-29
370.00
0261530
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
1999-04-29
129.50
0261531
JOHN WILEY & SONS, INC
1999-04-29
151.22
0261532
JUPITER BEACH RESORT
1999-04-29
160.00
0261533
JONES, LESLIE
1999-04-29
59.22
0261534
JUNIOR LEAGUE OF INDIAN RIVER
1999-04-29
500.00
0261535
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
1999-04-29
2,552.00
0261536
KEATING, ROBERT M
1999-04-29
66.90
0261537
KELLY-CRESWELL CO INC
1999-04-29
214.03
0261538
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-04-29
27,637.26
0261539
KELLY TRACTOR CO
1999-04-29
418.30
0261540
KLINK, RICHARD
1999-04-29
1,023.00
0261541
KERR, GRADY D
1999-04-29
200.00
0261542
R DATA PRODUCTS, INC.
1999-04-29
617.32
0261543
KIPP, BILLY C
1999-04-29
41.20
0261544
LONG, STEVEN A ESQ
1999-04-29
880.00
0261545
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1999-04-29
6,532.90
0261546
L B SMITH, INC
1999-04-29
86.36
0261547
LIBRARIES UNLIMITED, INC
1999-04-29
100.02
0261548
LESCO, INC
1999-04-29
323.60
0261549
LETTS, DAVID
1999-04-29
1,988.00
0261550
LINDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
1999-04-29
6,598.00
0261551
LUNA, JORGE
1999-04-29
175.10
0261552
JESSICA LIVALORDE
1999-04-29
115.87
0261553
MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP
1999-04-29
142.81
0261554
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
1999-04-29
323.77
0261555
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
1999-04-29
14,505.91
0261556
MIKES GARAGE
1999-04-29
160.00
0261557
MORA, RALPH PHD
1999-04-29
1,500.00
0261558
MATRX MEDICAL, INC
1999-04-29
395.30
0261559
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
1999-04-29
126.44
0261560
MCDADE WATERWORKS, INC
1999-04-29
42,810.70
0261561
MARTIN COUNTY PETROLEUM
1999-04-29
97.63
0261562
MICROMARKETING ASSOCIATES
1999-04-29
44.26
0261563
MAGNETHERAPY, INC
1999-04-29
244.20
0261564
MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC
1999-04-29
24.24
0261565
MARC INDUSTRIES
1999-04-29
675.07
0261566
MEDCHECK
1999-04-29
662.79
0261567
MELCHIORI, NICK
1999-04-29
69.52
0261568
M W I CORPORATION
1999-04-29
824.00
0261569
MOSS, ROGER
1999-04-29
162.22
0261570
MOSS, MARY
1999-04-29
90.12
0261571
MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES INC
1999-04-29
400.00
0261572
MAS, OGLA
1999-04-29
37.50
0261573
MOORE, LAWRENCE
1999-04-29
40.67
0261574
MID -FLORIDA FORKLIFT, INC
1999-04-29
83.14
0261575
NEW READERS PRESS
1999-04-29
461.85
0261576
NOLTE, DAVID C
1999-04-29
181,074.74
0261577
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC
1999-04-29
192.86
0261578
NICOSIA, ROGER J DO
1999-04-29
1,500.00
0261579
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
1999-04-29
32,397.33
0261580
NAPLES BEACH HOTEL & GOLF CLUB
1999-04-29
158.00
0261581
NAGY, BELA
1999-04-29
62.44
0261582
NATIONSBANK, N A
1999-04-29
10.90
0261583
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION
1999-04-29
150.00
MAY ll, 1999
10
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261584
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
1999-04-29
2,546.92
0261585
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
1999-04-29
1,075.29
0261586
O'NEIL, LEE & WEST
1999-04-29
8,718.36
0261587
OLSSON, JAY E D.O
1999-04-29
200.00
0261588
ORME, CLAUDIA
1999-04-29
93.00
0261589
PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC
1999-04-29
32.59
0261590
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
1999-04-29
86.00
0261591
POSTMASTER
1999-04-29
15,000.00
0261592
POWER & PUMPS, INC
1999-04-29
119.24
0261593
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
1999-04-29
671.49
0261594
PANGBURN, TERRI
1999-04-29
24.00
0261595
PRESS JOURNAL - SUBSCRIPTION
1999-04-29
117.00
0261596
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
1999-04-29
35.30
0261597
PROMEDIX CORP
1999-04-29
56.20
0261598
PARKER, DEBBIE
1999-04-29
151.92
0261599
PAYNE, JAMES
1999-04-29
92.70
0261600
PETERSON, DENNIS E, JR
1999-04-29
600.00
0261601
RADIO SHACK ACCT RECEIVABLE
1999-04-29
4.99
0261602
RAWLS, WILLIAM CARLTON
1999-04-29
41.01
0261603
RIFKIN, SHELDON H PED
1999-04-29
500.00
0261604
ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT
1999-04-29
7.00
0261605
ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC
1999-04-29
239.10
0261606
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
1999-04-29
490.58
0261607
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
1999-04-29
644.23
0261608
R & G SOD FARMS
1999-04-29
235.00
0261609
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
1999-04-29
44.21
0261610
REEL.COM, INC.
1999-04-29
33.99
0261611
ROYAL CUP COFFEE
1999-04-29
42.75
0261612
RAPP, PAMELA
1999-04-29
12.00
0261613
ROGER SHERMAN CONTRACTOR
1999-04-29
4,452.17
0261614
RUNGE, SUZANNE
1999-04-29
196.00
0261615
RASMUSSEN, ASHLEIGH
1999-04-29
175.10
0261616
REYNA, JIMMY LEE
1999-04-29
136.47
0261617
SCHOPP, BARBARA G
1999-04-29
290.50
0261618
SCOTTY'S, INC
1999-04-29
34.42
0261619
SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
1999-04-29
140.54
0261620
SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT
1999-04-29
76.00
0261621
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
1999-04-29
150.00
0261622
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
1999-04-29
77.95
0261623
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE
1999-04-29
4,459.33
0261624
SHELL OIL COMPANY
1999-04-29
34.02
0261625
SIMMONS, MARIE
1999-04-29
500.00
0261626
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
1999-04-29
377.40
0261627
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
1999-04-29
29.47
0261628
ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC
1999-04-29
869.88
0261629
SIMON & SCHUSTER
1999-04-29
131.68
0261630
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
1999-04-29
3,917.73
0261631
SPALDING
1999-04-29
55.59
0261632
SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC
1999-04-29
1,639.55
0261633
SUPERIOR PRINTING
1999-04-29
123.55
0261634
SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF
1999-04-29
461.49
0261635
STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
1999-04-29
19,665.41
0261636
SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE CO
19-99-04-29
250.00
0261637
SMITH, VICKY
1999-04-29
483.40
0261638
SMITH, DONALD
1999-04-29
417.60
0261639
SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO
1999-04-29
82.78
0261640
SKALA, ERIC
1999-04-29
51.50
0261641
SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF
1999-04-29
600.00
0261642
SUNSHINE STATE ONE CALL
1999-04-29
554.83
0261643
SMITH & NEPHEW INC
1999-04-29
616.75
0261644
SOUTHERN INSTRUMENTS
1999-04-29
147.36
MAY 119 1999
11
•
I
BOOK iojFAGS
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261645
SHIELDS, VANESSA
1999-04-29
37.33
0261646
SCHWEY, PAUL MATTHEW
1999-04-29
36.00
0261647
SCOTT, LONNIE G
1999-04-29
200.00
0261648
SATTENSTALL, MYRNA
1999-04-29
187.97
0261649
S M PUBLICATIONS
1999-04-29
24.95
0261650
STEWART TITLE OF INDIAN RIVER
1999-04-29
10,000.00
0261651
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH
1999-04-29
507.75
0261652
SAMARITAN CENTER
1999-04-29
4,810.14
0261653
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
1999-04-29
38.62
0261654
SOUTHWESTERN SUPPLIERS INC
1999-04-29
6,468.17
0261655
THOMAS, DEBBY L
1999-04-29
59.50
0261656
TITLEIST DRAWER
1999-04-29
871.92
0261657
TEXACO CREDIT CARD CENTER
1999-04-29
1,929.28
0261658
TABAR, JEFFREY
1999-04-29
135.40
0261659
TRUGREEN CEEMLAWN
1999-04-29
35.00
0261660
THERMOGAS COMPANY
1999-04-29
26.52
0261661
TEARDROP GOLF CO
1999-04-29
79.30
0261662
TOMMY HILFIGER GOLF
1999-04-29
1,762.03
0261663
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1999-04-29
18.00
0261664
US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
1999-04-29
7,205.54
0261665
UNITED BLOWER, INC
1999-04-29
830.00
0261666
UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC
1999-04-29
2,095.20
0261667
U S GOVT PRINTING OFFICE
1999-04-29
275.00
0261668
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA
1999-04-29
30.50
0261669
VELDE FORD, INC
1999-04-29
379.18
0261670
VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE
1999-04-29
39.00
0261671
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-04-29
3,245.15
0261672
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-04-29
9,175.00
0261673
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-04-29
170,000.00
0261674
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC
1999-04-29
60.00
0261675
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
1999-04-29
5,884.30
0261676
VERO TRAVEL SERVICE, INC
1999-04-29
383.00
0261677
VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS
1999-04-29
30.00
0261678
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-04-29
1,649.11
0261679
VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER
1999-04-29
18.00
0261680
VERO BEARING & BOLT
1999-04-29
273.19
0261681
VERO BEACH POWERTRAIN
1999-04-29
794.84
0261682
VOLUNTEER ACTION COMMITTEE
1999-04-29
50.00
0261683
W S DARLEY & CO
1999-04-29
4,987.17
0261684
WAL-MART STORES, INC
1999-04-29
355.55
0261685
W W GRAINGER, INC
1999-04-29
15.72
0261686
WAL-MART STORES, INC
1999-04-29
10.05
0261687
WILLHOFF, PATSY
1999-04-29
130.00
0261688
WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
1999-04-29
730.00
0261689
WILLIAMS, TOBIAS M
1999-04-29
82.00
0261690
WYNDHAM HARBOUR ISLAND HOTEL
1999-04-29
2,116.00
0261691
WAL*MART STORE 931
1999-04-29
179.76
0261692
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
1999-04-29
503.00
0261693
WASTE MANAGEMENT
1999-04-29
85,903.86
0261694
WELLS, CARLOS L, ESQ
1999-04-29
55.50
0261695
WELCH, SHAWN
1999-04-29
370.98
0261696
WILSON, SUSAN BARNES
1999-04-29
154.50
0261697
WRIGHT, MAGGIE
1999-04-29
48.92
0261698
WHEELED COACH INDUSTRIES INC
1999-04-29
264,327.00
0261699
YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC
1999-04-29
22.74
0261700
YOUTH VOLUNTEER CORPS
1999-04-29
130.01
0261701
PRESCITI, VICTOR
1999-04-29
108.70
0261702
MERCURI, DEBRA
1999-04-29
97.22
0261703
ROSENBERG, DAVE
1999-04-29
17.40
0261704
HAGUE, SOPHIE
1999-04-29
12.14
0261705
HOLMES, GREGORY
1999-04-29
20.28
0261706
MANAHAN, MATTHEW
1999-04-29
21.59
MAY 119 1999
12
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261707
ADAMS, C R
1999-04-29
28.89
0261708
ORIO, JOSEPH C
1999-04-29
56.67
0261709
HOGAN, JAMES D
1999-04-29
41.21
0261710
DUPREE, LENORA F
1999-04-29
7.46
0261711
CAL BUILDERS, INC.
1999-04-29
31.63
0261712
COLES, ROLSTON & ESTELLE
1999-04-29
57.11
0261713
R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS, INC.
1999-04-29
37.76
0261714
WODTKE, LOUIS & BETH
1999-04-29
22.23
0261715
RAYNE, JOHN
1999-04-29
77.35
0261716
LA BARCA, CHARLES
1999-04-29
38.44
0261717
M G B CONSTRUCTION
1999-04-29
121.43
0261718
RUSTIC DEMENSIONS, INC.
1999-04-29
22.32
0261719
KRATHY, JOAN S
1999-04-29
67.23
0261720
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO, INC.
1999-04-29
385.90
0261721
STEWART, DAVID
1999-04-29
29.76
0261722
WISSEL CONSTRUCTION
1999-04-29
14.11
0261723
CINDI'S PET CENTER
1999-04-29
194.09
0261724
WOODS, JOHN C
1999-04-29
46.32
0261725
CARRIE, RICHARD L
1999-04-29
6.52
0261726
GOULDER, NOELLIANE
1999-04-29
24.10
0261727
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
1999-04-29
25.81
0261728
HOLLAND-CHAVIS, LAURIE A
1999-04-29
26.10
0261729
MAJESTIC PARTNER OF V B LTD
1999-04-29
44.16
0261730
HAUSER, EVELYN J
1999-04-29
60.85
0261731
HABITAT FOR HUMANITY
1999-04-29
60.34
0261732
SHULOCK, MICHAEL
1999-04-29
84.72
0261733
JACOBS, MARTIN & GAIL
1999-04-29
4.68
0261734
EXIT 3 REALTY INC
1999-04-29
20.57
0261735
JOHN LLOYD BUILDERS, INC.
1999-04-29
33.21
0261736
GIFFORD GROVES LTD
1999-04-29
98.48
0261737
ZEA, TINA
1999-04-29
24.99
0261738
WHITE, EDWARD
1999-04-29
55.07
0261739
TAYLOR III, ELBRIDGE M
1999-04-29
56.45
0261740
GHO VERO BEACH, INC.
1999-04-29
144.39
0261741
MESSIER, JUDITH A
1999-04-29
56.14
0261742
MEGONNELL, CORINNE
1999-04-29
72.39
0261743
KLETTY, KIMBERLY A
1999-04-29
26.22
0261744
STRANGE, RICHARD
1999-04-29
72.05
0261745
BAUBLE, ALLEN
1999-04-29
44.92
0261746
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC.
1999-04-29
50.00
0261747
PERUGINI CONSTRUCTION
1999-04-29
36.29
0261748
ALDRIDGE, RACHEL
1999-04-29
47.85
0261749
FISHER, STEPHEN B
1999-04-29
41.57
0261750
SANDY PINES LTD
1999-04-29
51.94
0261751
BOZSIK, JOHN
1999-04-29-
93.07
0261752
ALVARADO, AUDREY
1999-04-29
127.88
0261753
VAN BUSKIRK, WARREN T
1999-04-29
92.19
0261754
BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA, INC.
1999-04-29
70.23
0261755
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
1999-04-29
50.00
0261756
OCEAN HOMES CORP.
1999-04-29
32.44
0261757
COASTLINE DEVELOPMENT INC.
1999-04-29
27.35
0261758
JONES, LAKIESCHA C
1999-04-29
0261759
MACE JR. RONALD & DEBORAH
1999-04-29
7.04
20.53
0261760
COLGREN, STEPHEN B
1999-04-29
0261761
MACKEY, JACQUELINE
1999-04-29
50.00
0261762
THOMPSON, LARRY L
1999-04-29
33.73
0261763
GARCIA, JORGE & EVE SUAREZ
1999-04-29
38.37
0261764
ADRAGNA, ANN MARIE
1999-04-29
42.23
0261765
ESTATE OF MIDORI NISHIO
1999-04-29
20.03
0261766
STUTES, SHERI & STACY
1999-04-29
77.99
0261767
WILLIAMS, JAMES L
1999-04-29
16.38
44.54
MAY ll, 1999
13
•
BOOK Fgt )
BOOK Joj M,E 9
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0261768
MC DERMOTT, MATTHEW J
1999-04-29
35.64
0261769
MACE, MICHAEL
1999-04-29
63.21
0261770
PRATT JR, RICHARD R
1999-04-29
52.51
0261771
FLORIDA AIDS RIDE #2
1999-04-29
261.26
0261772
KILEY, ELIZABETH
1999-04-29
53.41
0261773
ROGERS, JACQUELINE L
1999-04-29
36.22
0261774
PIERCE, ANGEL M
1999-04-29
6.14
0261775
MARTIN, DAVID S
1999-04-29
40.49
0261776
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES
1999-04-29
66.01
0261777
HINZMAN, FRANK D
1999-04-29
13.88
0261778
FERLAAK, JOHN D
1999-04-29
40.22
0261779
FANCY PANTS
1999-04-29
22.31
0261780
OAK ISLAND ASSOCIATES
1999-04-29
107.28
0261781
STAINED IMAGE
1999-04-29
61.76
0261782
PARSONS, BRIAN
1999-04-29
11.01
0261783
FORGARTY, MATTHEW
1999-04-29
34.26
0261784
STALHEBER, JOHN J
1999-04-29
29.20
0261785
WHALEY, M SUSAN OR EARL
1999-04-29
66.85
0261786
LINDSEY GARDENS LTD
1999-04-29
350.75
0261787
MC INERNEY, PATRICK & PATRICIA
1999-04-29
45.53
0261788
FOSTER MANAGEMENT
1999-04-29
145.02
0261789
QUERY, PAM
1999-04-29
85.20
0261790
WRIGHT, WENDY A
1999-04-29
68.80
0261791
GREGORY, JAMES L OR MAUREEN A
1999-04-29
7.26
0261792
ADKINS, JENNIFER
1999-04-29
11.84
0261793
DORVELIA, MICELIN
1999-04-29
60.01
0261794
AQUILONE, JOHN & CEIL
1999-04-29
31.95
0261795
IST EQUILTY LENDERS
1999-04-29
57.06
0261796
GARRETT, WILLIAM H
1999-04-29
38.28
0261797
ORCHID ISLAND PROPERTIES, INC.
1999-04-29
76.06
0261798
SHEA, TISHA MURRAY
1999-04-29
67.51
0261799
REESE, JEANNE M
1999-04-29
61.81
0261800
FOULKS, JEREMY
1999-04-29
26.53
0261801
BEASOCK, ROB
1999-04-29
31.66
0261802
FATLAN, MICHELLE A
1999-04-29
85.63
0261803
STOCK, JUDITH
1999-04-29
14.52
0261804
TRAMMELL, PATRICIA
1999-04-29
28.04
0261805
POWERS, CARON
1999-04-29
34.74
0261806
BALD, SASITYA
1999-04-29
69.45
0261807
DNORTON, JANICE
1999-04-29
10.11
0261808
VALLS, ELISABET
1999-04-29
14.07
0261809
PRITCHARD, ADRIENNE
1999-04-29
57.95
0261810
HELMS, ROBERT
1999-04-29
21.64
0261811
ED SCHLITT INC. REALTORS
1999-04-29
25.35
0261812
DISKIN, MICHAEL & MARISSA
1999-04-29
26.23
0261813
MEYER, WILLIAM S
1999-04-29
37.08
0261814
WILLIAMS, JOSEPH R
•1999-04-29
5.69
0261815
YOUNG, MELANIE
1999-04-29
22.17
0261816
SMITH, ELLEN L
1999-04-29
100.70
0261817
KENNEDY, ELIZABETH
1999-04-29
38.00
0261818
MULLINARY, GREG P
1999-04-29
32.40
0261819
CAMPOS, ISIAIAS
1999-04-29
46.00
0261820
THOMPSON, ELLAREE
1999-04-29
52.53
0261821
HUGHES, THOMAS J
1999-04-29
105.02
0261822
MCKENNA, JAMES P
1999-04-29
105.02
0261823
CASPER, MARY B
1999-04-29
52.53
0261824
CATALDO, MICHAEL
1999-04-29
48.06
MAY 119 1999
14
2,613,917.07
0 •
ZD. Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver - Lot 16, Block 14,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 2 (Ameron Homes InG�
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 3, 1999:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
AND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.
County Engineer
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E., Civil EngineerCb—c
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 16, Block 14,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 2
REFERENCE: Project No. 99040139
CONSENT AGENDA
DATE: May 3, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Ameron Homes, Inc. has submitted a building permit application for a single family residence on the
subject property. The site is located in an AE special flood hazard zone, base flood elevation 22.3
ft. N.G.V.D. In the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated April 16, 1999, a waiver of
the cut and fill requirements is requested. The lot area is 1.07 acres. The volume of the 100 year
floodplain displaced by the proposed grading plan is estimated to be 143 cubic yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The waiver request has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4. of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance for lots located in
the Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit.
Alternative No. 1
Grant the cut and fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the cut and fill waiver. Require an on site retention area be provided to compensate for the
proposed floodplain displacement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Ronald G. Keller, P.E., dated April 16, 1999
2. Calculations for cut and fill
MAY 119 1999
W,
BOOK PAGE
r
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Alternative No. 1 granting the cut and fill balance waiver based
on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4, as recommended in the
Memorandum.
IW 9 F�iGE 22 6
7.E. Out -of -County Travel - Commissioner Stanbridge to Attend
Hurricane Conference in Tampa
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 5, 1999:
DATE: mays, 1 see
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Ruth Stanbridge, Commissioner, Distriot 2
SUBJECT: Governors Hurrioane Conferenos
The 13th Annual Governor's Hurrioane Conferenoe will be
hold from June 7-1 1 at the Tampa Convention Center in Tampa,
Florida. On Wednesday (June Sth) a Publio Offlolals Conferenoe is
soheduled, 1 would like permission to attend this ons -day meeting.
Beoause the main session is in the afternoon, 1 will not need to
stay overnight.
0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
CommissionerAdams, the Boardunanimously approved out -of -
county travel for Commissioner Stanbridge to attend the Annual
Governor's Hurricane Conference in Tampa from June 7-11,
1999, as requested.
7.F. Out -of -County Travel for Commissioners to Attend FAC
Conference in Orlando
The Board reviewed information concerning the Florida Association of Counties 70'
Annual Conference & Educational Exposition in Tampa from June 21-25, 1999, as
requested. (CLERK'S NOTE: The information can be found in the backup for the meeting.)
MAY 119 1999
16
0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved out -of -
county travel for Commissioners to attend the FAC Conference
in Orlando June 21-25, 1999, as requested.
7.G. Qut-of-Coun& Travel for CommissionerMachttoAttendNACO
Conference in St. nouns, Mo. Jul y16-20
The Board reviewed information concerning the National Association of Counties 64'h
Annual Conference & Exposition in St. Louis, Mo. from July 16-20, 1999, as requested.
(CLERK'S NOTE: The information can be found in the backup for the meeting.)
Chairman Macht stated that he did not know how this request had gotten on the
agenda as he had no intention of going to the conference in St. Louis. He attends the
executive conference in Washington, D.C.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously DELETED item
7.G. from the agenda.
7.H. Resolution 99-042 -Florida Inland Navigation District Grant
Apjvlication forE�►uipment for Sheriff's Office Marine Unit
The Board reviewed a letter dated May 4, 1999:
6berif f
•
co'O.S.6wr
GARY C. WHEELER o INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION
4055 41st AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32860-1608 PHONE (561) 568-8700
May 04, 1999
The Honorable Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
MAY 119 1999
17
BOOK( F4 r
r -
BOOK 1-03 FAGt ��
RE: FZARIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT GRANT APPLICATION
Dear Commissioner Macht:
The Indian River County Sheriff's Office is pleased to inform you of our Florida Inland Navigation
District grant application for $34,682.92. The successful award ofthis grant would allow the Sheriffs
Office to procure needed equipment for odsting marked patrol vessels. The Sheriffs Office shall
provide the 25% matching funds ($11,560.98) from the Law Enforcement Forfeiture Ttust Fund.
The Sheriff's Office Marine Umt currently conducts waterway patrols to ensure boating safety,
adherence to navigational laws, BUI ettforcement, and environmental protection of the Indian River
Lagoon and its endangered species.
The attached document must be signed by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners in
order to officially apply for the grant award. We respectfully ask that the attached document be
placed on the consent agenda for the May 11, 1999, meeting.
Should you have any questions, I will be happy to address them.
Sincerely,
��j¢iLilG`LE �JiC /?Edi
Gary C. Wheeler, Sheriff Ec.�
GCW:mm
Attachment (1)
-� 291
The 173rd Internationally Accredited Law Enforcement Agency ('1004
Accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies. Incorporated .
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute the grant application to the Florida Inland
Navigation District, as requested, ad adopted Resolution 99-042.
COPY OF GRANT DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF TAE CLERK TO TAE BOARD
WHIN EXECUTED & RECEIVED
RESOLUTION 99-42
ATTACHMENT E-6
RESOLUTION FOR ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
WATERWAYS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
VBEREAS, THE INDIAN RIVER SHERIFF'S is interested in carrying out the
(Name of Agency) OFFICE
following described project for the enjoyment of the citizenry of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
and the State of Florida:
MAY 119 1999
18
•
Project Title MARINE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Total Estimated Cost $ 46,243.90
Brief Description of Project: Replacement engines and upgraded marine
electronics for existing Sheriff's law
enforcement patrol vessels.
AND, Florida Inland Navigation District financial assistance is required for the program
mentioned above,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
(Name of Agency)
that the project described above be authorized,
AND, be it further resolved that said INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
(Name of Agency)
make application to the Florida Inland Navigation District in the amount of 75 % of the
actual cost of the project in behalf of said INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
(Name of Agency)
AND, be it further resolved by the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
(Name of Agency)
that it certifies to the following:
1. That it will accept the terms and conditions set forth in FIND Rule 66B-2
F.A.C. and which will be a part of the Project Agreement for any assistance awarded under
the attached proposal.
2. That it is in complete accord with the attached proposal and that it will carry out
the Program in the manner described in the proposal and any plans and specifications attached
thereto unless prior approval for any change has been received from the District.
3. That it has the ability and intention to finance its share of the cost of the project
and that the project will be operated and maintained at the expense of said
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFF1ESpublicuse.
(Name of Agency)
4. That it will not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color or
national origin in the use of any property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this
proposal, and shall comply with the terms and intent of the Title vi of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, P. L. 88-352 (1964) and design and construct all facilities to comply fully with statutes
relating to accessibility by handicapped persons as well as other federal, state and local
laws, rules and requirements.
5. That it will maintain adequate financial records on the proposed project to
substantiate claims for reimbursement.
6. That it will make available to FIND if requested, a post -audit of expenses
incurred on the project prior to, or in conjunction with, request for the final 10% of the
funding agreed to by FIND.
MAY 119 1999
19
BOOK"9 I P151 ;;;
•
BOOK JO J F'AGE L ��
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly and
Indian River County
legally adopted by the Board of County Commissioners at a legal meeting
held on this 11 day of M a v 19199
Attest C!_e c Signature
(� Kenneth R. Macht
1� v
Chairman
Title Title
7.I. Commissioner Tib in Apj2ointed Board's Representative to
Treasure Coast Snorts Commission
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 5, 1999:
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman
Date: May 5, 1999
Subject: Appointment to -Treasure Coast Sports Commission
I am requesting the Board to appoint Commissioner John W. Tippin as our
representative to serve on the Treasure Coast Sports Commission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously appointed
Commissioner Tippin as their representative to serve on the
Treasure Coast Sports Commission, as requested in the
Memorandum.
7.J. St. Edward's School Conservation Easement
The Board reviewed a letter of April 12, 1999 and Memoranda of May 3, 1999:
MAY 119 1999
P
•
LAW OFFICES OF
GOULD, COOKSEY, FENNELL,
O'NEILL, MARnvE &. CARTER, P.A.
JOHN R GOULD 0921.190
BYRON T. COOKSEY
DARRELL FENNEU
EUGENE J. OWED*
*RA. BOARD CBMW
am TRIAL AND
BUSRaM LT CUMON
William G. Collins, H, Esquire
Assistant County Attorney
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Saint Edward's Project
Dear Will:
979 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963
TELEPHONE (561) 231.1100
FAX (561) 231.2020
April 12, 1999
•
CHRISIUFHER H. MARINE
DAVID M. CARTER
TODD W. FENNELL
SUSAN L. CHENAULT
This is to confirm my "voice -mail" to your office of April 1st. Saint Edward's School is
prepared to execute the new Conservation Easement, provided that the County releases the existing
Conservation Easement. I understand from you that this may require a Resolution of the County
Commission. Please advise me if you need anything from my office to agenda the item. Also, if you
will forward the original Conservation Easement, with the attached legal description, I will arrange
for execution and delivery to you in trust until the existing easement is approved for release.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sinc y
stophtHarine
TO: Will Collins
1 2 3 gS
Deputy County Attorney
�tio,��31
A 5'
r
ti
FROM: Roland M. DeBloi CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement1h�"
DATE: May 3, 1999
RE: St. Edwards Conservation Easement
I've reviewed the previous native upland conservation easement and proposed replacement easement
relating to the St. Edwards construction project. This memo is to advise you that I am satisfied that the
replacement easement fulfills the requirements of County Code Section 929.05, "Upland native plant
community conservation areas."
MAY 119 1999
21
MOM ` PAGE .� ,
BOOK
0FAG
Essentially, the replacement easement expands a 10% contiguous "clump" set-aside to a 15% linear strip
set-aside, which is in compliance with the Code requirement. As such, I have no objection to the
replacement. Following is a summary:
Area (square feet)
Percent of site native
uplands
Initial native uplands 60,765
100%
Original set-aside 6,100
10%
Re lacement set-aside 9,240
15%
If you have any questions, please let me know.
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: l t. William G. Collins 11- Deputy County Attorney
DATE: May 3, 1999
SUBJECT: Saint Edward's School Conservation Easement
Saint Edward's School, through its attorney, has requested the County release
an existing conservation easement in consideration of the substitution of a new
conservation easement covering 50% more land area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Termination of Conservation
Easement, which would be recorded immediately prior to recordation of the
newly executed conservation easement from the school.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute the Termination of Conservation Easement
to be recorded immediately prior to recording the newly
executed Conservation Easement from St. Edward's School, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
MAY 119 1999
TERIMWATION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT WML BE RECORDED
IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MMN RIVER COUNTY
COPY OF DMUM1 U ON FILE
22
•
7.K. Oaklsland Contract for Construction ofReauiredlmprovements
- 90 -Day Extension to Complete Landscaping Work
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 30, 1999:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: P'- William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
DATE: April 30, 1999
SUBJECT: Oak Island Contract for Construction of Required Improvements -
Request for a 90 -Day Extension to Complete Landscaping Work
On April 26, 1999 1 received a request from the developer of Oak Island for an
extension in time of 90 days to complete performance of the Contract for
Construction of Required Improvements at Oak Island. Code Section
913.10(1)(E) provides that for good cause shown, the Board of County
Commissioners may in its discretion grant one or more extensions of time for
performance of any contract for required improvements, provided surety
supporting such contract remains valid for the required 90 -day period following
the newly extended time for performance.
The developer is requesting an additional 90 days to install landscaping involving
littoral planting and an agricultural buffer. He believes they will have more
success in the installation of new plantings during the upcoming rainy season
than would had been possible during the last few months of drought. The
security supporting the contract for required improvements remains in place.
Upon certification by the project engineer that all or a substantial portion of
required improvements have been completed, and upon inspection by the Public
Works Department, the staff, per Code, will process a release of that portion of
security no longer required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Grant the requested extension until August 12, 1999 to install landscaping at
Oak Island.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously granted the
requested extension until August 12, 1999 to install landscaping
at Oak Island due to recent and current drought conditions, as
requested.
MAY 119 1999
23
BOOK FF1v
•
I
BOOK �� PAGE �
9.A. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 99-014 AMENDING
CHAPTER 953, FAIRSHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
(TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE) ORDINANCE - LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISE VERfr FOR BEARING
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 4, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP AAA K
Community Development Director
DATE: May 4,1999
RE: REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 953, FAIRSHARE ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS ORDINANCE. OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 11, 1999.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
In 1986, Indian River County adopted its Fair Share Roadway Improvements (Traffic Impact Fee)
Ordinance. That ordinance, which was subsequently incorporated in the County's land development
regulations (LDR's), was modeled after other traffic impact fee ordinances which had been
challenged in court and found to be legal. Consequently, the county's current ordinance was
structured to incorporate provisions, deemed necessary based on court decisions, to make the
ordinance legally enforceable.
Recently, a study of the County's current traffic impact fee ordinance was undertaken. That study
resulted in various proposed changes to the existing ordinance. Those changes are reflected in the
proposed land development regulation amendment. A copy of that proposed amendment and
proposed revised development policies are attached to this agenda item. A copy of the final impact
fee report is on file in the Board of County Commissioners office.
On April 22, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve this amendment to Chapter 953, Fairshare Roadway
Improvements Ordinance of the county's Land Development Regulations, and the revised Fairshare
Roadway Improvements Development Policies.
On April 28, 1999, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) voted 6 to 0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revised Chapter 953, Fairshare
Roadway Improvements Ordinance of the County's Land Development Regulations, and the revised
Fairshare Roadway Improvements development policies. As part of its recommendation, the PSAC
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners impose additional local option gas taxes and
reduce impact fees a corresponding amount. Also, the PSAC recommended that the timing of the
impact fee payment be revised from building permit issuance to certificate of occupancy.
Purpose of the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance
The purpose of a traffic impact fee ordinance is to generate revenue from new development projects
to pay for their fair share of the cost of needed roadway capacity improvements. Implementation of
that ordinance involves charging each new development an amount of money that corresponds to the
cost to construct the number of miles of roadway needed to accommodate the amount of traffic
generated by that development project. Simplified, the traffic impact fee ordinance requires new
development to pay for its fair share of roadway improvements.
MAY 119 1999
24
As a revenue producing device, a traffic impact fee is one of several revenue source options that may
be used to fund transportation capacity -producing improvements. Other funding sources that can
be used by local governments include state and federal funds, constitutional gas tax, county gas tax,
local option gas tax, local option sales tax, ad valorem property tax and others.
County long range transportation plans project that the total implementation cost of needed major
capacity producing roadway improvement projects over the next twenty years will be approximately
$220 million. Of this amount, it is projected that state and federal transportation revenues will
account for approximately $120 million. Approximately $100 million from local transportation
revenue sources will be needed to make up the difference. Traffic impact fees will account for
almost half of this amount. Other local revenue sources include those listed above.
There are, however, other transportation -related costs which must also be funded with local
revenues. These include road paving, traffic operations, intersection improvements, operation and
maintenance, safety improvements, system preservation activities, and reconstruction/replacement
costs for both the existing transportation network as well as future needed capacity producing
improvements. Therefore, an increased burden is placed on local revenue sources to pay for both
needed capacity producing improvements and for the other transportation -related costs listed above.
s
3
cnu r{
7 1 y
t
t , $
fPtW �� i
8
a 5
use
d
9 ago
A
FIGURE 1
Indian River County Original
Impact Fee B on efit D lstricts
Traffic Impact Fee Program Description
As adopted, the Indian River County traffic impact fee program is countywide in scope.
Consequently, fees are collected in each of the County's municipalities as well as the unincorporated
area Currently, nine traffic impact fee benefit districts exist. These are shown in figure 1. Fees
collected in a particular district must be spent on improvements in that benefit district. Fee revenue
may be spent only for capacity -producing improvements on arterial or collector roads.
Currently, impact fees vary among the nine existing benefit districts. In the current ordinance, the
impact fee schedule identifies the fee amount'by land use category by benefit district. For example,
the traffic impact fee for a single-family house in District V is $1,513. For a bank/financial office
in District V, the fee is $6,503 per 1,000 square feet.
The fee schedule in the traffic impact fee ordinance is based upon the County's adopted traffic
impact fee formula. A simplified version of that formula is shown below. Applied correctly, the
formula calculates the traffic impact fee rate for each land use listed in the traffic impact fee rate
schedule.
TIF Rate = (demand component) X (cost component) — (credit component)
Demand Component: The demand component of the traffic impact fee formula represents the traffic
impact generated by a land use. Factors that affect the demand component
include trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips.
MAY 119 1999
25
BOOK I - PAGE '
,
BOOK iJ J F'AGE E
Cost Component: The cost component of the traffic impact fee formula represents the cost of
roadway capacity improvement projects. Costs that are factored into this
component of the formula include design, right of way acquisition, and
construction costs.
Credit Component: The credit component of the traffic impact fee formula represents other
revenue sources, such as local option fuel taxes and local option sales taxes;
used for capacity producing transportation capital projects.
The demand component is multiplied by the cost component to determine the overall impact of a
project on the transportation network. Then, to account for other fees and taxes paid, a credit is
subtracted. This formula is applied to each individual land use category fisted in the fee schedule.
From the formula, a traffic impact fee rate is generated for each of the land use categories.
Fee vs Tax
Indian River County's traffic impact fee is not a tax; it is a fee. That distinction is important. While
local governments may impose fees under their home tole powers, local governments may impose
taxes only with specific legislative authorization. In establishing fees, however, local governments
must comply with various criteria dictated by the courts. These criteria have evolved from court
decisions on legal challenges to impact fee ordinances.
Some of the most important criteria that must be incorporated in an impact fee ordinance are:
► The fee revenue must be used to meet a need created by new development;
► The amount of the fee must be directly proportional to the benefit derived by the
feepayer,
► The funds derived from the fee must be earmarked for expenditures that relate to
feepayers' benefits; and
► Feepayers must be given credit for any other taxes or fees that they pay where the
proceeds of those taxes and fees are used to pay a portion of the cost of projects to
be funded by the impact fee.
Metropolitan Plannine Oreanization (MPO)
Although Indian River County is the general purpose local government which currently imposes the
countywide traffic impact fee, there is a separate government agency responsible for transportation
planning in the county. That is the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO). As the local agency responsible for planning and programming federal, state, and local
transportation funds to construct, enhance, and maintain major roads, bridges, airports, and public
transit facilities, the MPO has funds to conduct various transportation studies. For that reason,
Indian River County requested that the MPO initiate a study to assess the county's current traffic
impact fee ordinance.
Since the MPO is an independent governmental entity with a countywide transportation focus, the
MPO is the appropriate agency to assess the county's traffic impact fee ordinance. With a governing
board comprised of elected officials from local governments within the county, the MPO provides
a multi jurisdictional forum to address a countywide issue like the traffic impact fee ordinance.
Following is the Indian River County MPO governing board voting composition.
► City of Fellsmere:
1 member
► Indian River County:
4 members
► Town of Indian River Shores:
1 member
► City of Sebastian:
1 member
► City of Vero Beach:
2 members
Traffic Impact Fee Studv Process
In the thirteen years since its adoption, the traffic impact fee ordinance and its development policies
have not been revised other than for minor fee schedule modifications made in 1989. In the last few
years, however, concerns have arisen regarding the current traffic impact fee ordinance. These
concerns range from technical issues relating to the continued applicability of the data used to
develop the fee schedule to the number and structure of the county's nine traffic impact fee benefit
districts.
To address these concerns, the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
contracted with the consulting firm of Tindale -Oliver & Associates of Tampa to update the traffic
MAY 119 1999
W
impact fee ordinance. As structured, the scope of services required the consultant to analyze and
make recommendations on the following issues:
• reducing the number of benefit districts;
• updating the projected cost of all capacity -producing roadway improvement projects
programmed through the year 2020;
• reassessing the credit component of the traffic impact fee formula;
• updating the land use categories in the traffic impact fee schedule as well as updating
the schedule itself; and
• revising the individual assessment process.
From mid-1997 to late -1998, the consultant analyzed these and other aspects of the traffic impact
fee ordinance. Throughout this process, the consultant presented interim recommendations to the
MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and the MPO Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC).
Those recommendations were then modified based on feedback received from the TAC, CAC, and
from MPO staff.
On three occasions, the proposed revised Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance and Development Policies
were presented to the MPO for its review. At its December 9, 1998 meeting, the MPO voted 6 to
1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopt the revised Traffic Impact
Fee Ordinance and Development Policies.
Traffic Impact Fee Study Summary
As part of his contract, the traffic impact fee consultant prepared three documents. A final report
(Attachment 1) was prepared which analyzes traffic impact fee issues and makes recommendations
for traffic impact fee ordinance changes. A revised ordinance (Chapter 953 Fairshare Roadway
Improvements of the county's Land Development Regulations (Attachment 2)) was prepared based
on the recommendations of the final report. This ordinance is in an underline and st-keep format,
with underlines identifying additions to the chapter and sikeews identifying deletions to the
chapter. Finally, a revised copy of the county's Fairshare Roadway Improvements Development
Policies (Attachment 3) was prepared based on the recommendations of the final report. This
document uses the same underline/strikeout format that was used in the revised Chapter 953
document.
The consultant's final report addresses all of the major components of the county's traffic impact fee
program. As currently structured, the major components of the traffic impact fee program include:
► the benefit districts in which collected fees must be expended;
► the formula used to calculate the traffic impact fee rate for different land uses;
► the value of each variable in the formula;
► the traffic impact fee payment schedule; and
► the actual traffic impact fee ordinance and accompanying development policies.
Benefit Districts
Based on a review of the current traffic impact fee benefit districts map, as depicted in Figure 1, the
report concluded that the number of traffic impact fee benefit districts covering Indian River County
should be reduced from the current nine districts to three districts. Figure 2 illustrates the proposed
geographic boundaries of the three proposed benefit districts. Boundaries for the three benefit
districts, as shown in figure 2. were based on transportation modeling analysis as well as feedback
from the MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC).
MAY 119 1999
27
BOOK L1 FAL; d
�� G1
�g
oemn e.ww....
3
0 3 6 W—
Figgure
County
Indian River2•
Impact Fee Benefit Distdats
MAY 119 1999
27
BOOK L1 FAL; d
Fr -7
BOOK FAU .,
Since inception of the traffic impact fee program in 1986, fees have been collected, with the proceeds
deposited in the appropriate benefit district's trust fund. Although a number of road improvement
projects have been funded or partially funded with traffic impact revenues, there are fund balances
in each of the benefit districts. Some of these fund balances are substantial.
In conjunction with the reduction in benefit districts, the traffic impact fee report recommends that
the trust fund accounts established for each of the original nine benefit districts remain until the
funds collected in each district under the current ordinance have been exhausted. When expended,
those funds must be spent only in the district from which they were collected. Impact fee funds
collected under the revised ordinance will be deposited into the three new trust fund accounts
corresponding to the new benefit districts.
Attachment 4, the FY 1999/00-2003/04 Traffic Impact Fee ('TIF) Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), identifies how the fund balances in each of the existing nine districts will be expended. For
each existing TIF benefit district, the attached CIP indicates the projects that are to be completely
or partially funded with TIF revenues collected under the current ordinance. The CEP also compares
projected TIF expenditures with available revenues. As indicated in the CIP, projected TIF
expenditures for each district equal, and in most cases exceed, projected revenues during the next
five years. This indicates that, overall, the amount of TIF revenues collected under the current
ordinance will be insufficient to fund all of the transportation improvement projects programmed
during the next five years.
Formula
The final report concluded that no changes are needed to the structure of the current traffic impact
fee formula. The report, however, did reassess the values of each of the variables of the three
formula components. As part of the study, the values of all of the variables comprising the current
impact fee formula were examined.
With respect to the demand component of the formula, the three principal variables examined were
trip rate, trip length, and percent new trips. As indicated in the report, the values in the current
formula for each of those variables for many land uses were found to be out-of-date. Consequently,
the report recommends updating those values using two principal sources - the latest edition of the
Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual or Florida Studies.
For the cost component of the formula, the report recommends changing the cost per lane mile of
roadway construction. Based upon detailed analysis of recent construction projects and analysis of
planned projects, an updated cost per lane mile of $837,860 is recommended. This cost per lane mile
would apply countywide as opposed to the current situation where a different cost per lane mile is
used in each of the nine benefit districts.
The final component addressed was the credit component. Based upon new data, including revised
projections of state and federal transportation revenue for the next twenty years as well as new
estimates of the percentage of local gas tax money that will be used for capacity producing
transportation capital improvements over the next twenty years, the credit value was updated. As
indicated in the report, the recommendation is to apply a credit of 11.8 cents to reflect the other funds
available for transportation capital improvements.
The proposed changes in the values for the formula variables significantly affect the impact fee rate
by land use category. Generally, some land use category traffic impact fee rates will increase, while
others will decline. Since one set of countywide impact fee rates will apply, fees will increase in the
current districts where rates are now low. Those are generally the districts in the west part of the
county.
Fee Schedule
The third component reviewed was the impact fee schedule of the county's traffic impact fee
program. The current fee payment schedule lists fifty-four different land uses. As structured, the
traffic impact fee report recommends adding seven land uses to the fee schedule and deleting eight
land uses from the fee schedule. In addition, the report recommends modifying the unit measure of
certain land uses.
Table 1 provides a comparison of current impact fee rates and proposed impact fee rates. In table
1, values in the current rate column are shown as a range, since nine traffic impact fee districts
currently exist, and each district has a different impact fee rate. The report indicates that the same
impact fee rate should be applied in all three proposed districts. Therefore, the proposed rate column
displays the rate that would be applied to that specific land use regardless of the location of the
project.
MAY 119 1999
28
Table 1: Current and Projected Impact Fee Rates By Land Use
Land Use
Unit
Current Rate
Proposed Rate
Single Family
du
$587 - $1513
$1,523
Accessory Single -Family
du
$338-$871
$830
Multi -Family
du
$338-$871
$830
Mobile Home
du
$316-815
$568
Hotel
room
$516 - $1.331
$960
Motel
room
$605 - $1.559
$512
Nursing Home
bed
$171-S441
$159
ACLF
bed
$126-$326
$129
Medical Office
1,000 gsf
$1.115 - $2,876
$4,542
Bank
1.000 gsf
$2.553 - $6583
$4.603
Bank w/Drive-In
1.000 gsf
$3,912 - $10.088
$7.801
Office under 10,000 GSF
1.000 gsf
$796 - $2.053
$2,644
Office over 10,000 GSF
1.000 gsf
$532 - $1,373
$1550
Manufacturing
1,000 gsf
S149-$369
$446
Warehouse
1,000 gsf
$135-$348
$570
Mini -Warehouse
1,000 gsf
N/A
$292
General Industrial
1,000 gsf
$149-$369
$814
Concrete Plant
acre
$431-$1,112
$1.822
Sand Mining
acre
$55-$143
$234
Retail under 10,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$1,238 - $3,193
$3,387
Retail 10,001 to 50,000 GSF
1.000 gsf
$705 - $1,818
$2.436
Retail 50,001 to 100,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$819 - $2,111
$2,170
Retail 100.001 to 200.000 GSF '
1,000 gsf
$914 - $2,356
$1,913
Retail over 200,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$1,038 - $2,677
$1,971
Gas Station
fueling pos.
$990 - $2553
$1,859
New and Used Auto Sales
1,000 gsf
$2.027 - $5.227
$3,847
Quality Restaurant
1,000 gsf
N/A
$5.753
Restaurant
1,000 gsf
$1.496 - $3,856
$7,625
Fast Food Restaurant
1,000 gsf
$2,114 - $5.452
$11,468
Supermarket
1,000 gsf
N/A
$3,720
Auto Repair
1.000 gsf
$135-$348
$2,645
Car Wash
stall
$804-2.073
$4,882
Convenience Store
1,000 gsf
$2.948 - $7,602
$7,230
Convenience Store with Gas and Fast Food
fueling pos.
N/A
$6,289
Furniture Store
1.000 gsf
N/A
$467
Golf Course
acre
N/A
$702
Racquet Club
1,000 gsf
N/A
$1,904
County Park
acres
N/A
$223
Tennis Court
court
$1,008 - $2599
$3301
Marina
berth
$64-$165
$329
Post Office
1.000 gsf
$1,165 - $3,004
$4,807
Lim'
1,000 gsf
$1,469 - $3,787
$5,827
MAY 119 1999
29
BOOK�U SAG
Land Use
Unit
Current Rate
Proposed Rate
Government Office
1,000 gsf
$2,249 - $5,799
$8,047
Jail
bed
$39-$102
$131
Day Care Center
1,000 gsf
$936 - $2,413
$2,944
Hospital
1,000 gsf
$284-$733
$1,829
Veterinary Clinic
1,000 gsf
$1,115 - $2,876
$1,168
Church
1,000 gsf
$242-S625
$873
Movie Theater w/ Matinee
screens
$5,004 - $12,904
$7568
School (Elementary)
student
$18-$45
$39
School (High)
student
$18-S45
$149
School (College)
student
$18-$45
$297
Fire Station (w/o beds)
1,000 gsf
$1494385 $385
$329
While the proposed fee schedule changes will increase traffic impact fee rates, these will be the first
traffic impact fee rate changes since 1989. During that 10 year period, inflation, as measured by the
consumer price index, has affected the value of the traffic impact fee. Since the aggregate inflation
rate from 1989 to 1999 was 35% (as measured by the CPI), the value of impact fees assessed today
under the current fee schedule is 35% less than the value of those fees in 1989. Consequently, a 35%
across the board increase would be wan -anted just to bring the fees to their 1989 level.
As proposed, the revised traffic impact fee schedule will substantially increase fees in districts VII
and VIII, where fees are extremely low. In districts I, 11, and V, however, fee increases will be low.
In fact, the revised fees will be lower than the 1989 fees for those districts when considering the
effects of inflation based on changes to the CPI.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of amending the county's traffic impact fee ordinance is to ensure that persons affected
by the ordinance get assessed a fair fee and receive a proportional benefit from that fee. Over time,
various factors affecting the traffic impact fee program have changed. These factors include: the
financial cost to maintain the established minimum level of service standards for the county's
transportation network; the type of land uses being developed in the county; and the driving
characteristics of the users of the county's transportation network. This amendment to the traffic
impact fee ordinance addresses those and other factors; consequently, the amendment presents an
efficient and equitable traffic impact fee program for Indian River County.
As proposed, the amendment will reduce the number of benefit districts from nine to three. With
a smaller number of benefit districts that are geographically large in size, as shown in figure 2, the
impact fee program can be managed more efficiently. Not only will there be fewer accounts to
maintain, but projects can be done more expeditiously since more money will be available in a
shorter period of time.
By modifying the land uses in the fee payment schedule, the amendment reflects changing
circumstances. Some of these land uses did not exist when the traffic impact fee ordinance was
originally adopted Updating the land uses listed in the fee schedule will ensure that the proper land
uses are listed and assessed appropriately.
Unlike the existing traffic impact fee program that has separate fees for each of the nine benefit
districts, the proposed amendment has one countywide fee. A countywide traffic impact fee will
simplify the fee calculation requirements for both staff and applicants.
As Table 1 in the Descriptions and Conditions section illustrates, the amendment will increase traffic
impact fee rates in many areas of the county. Two factors contribute to this increase in fee rates.
First, the amendment revises the value of the demand variables of the traffic impact fee formula for
many land uses. The value of these demand variables (trip rate, trip length, and percent new trips)
has not been updated since development of the original ordinance. Consequently, the formula
derived impact fees for many land uses are not appropriate. For some land uses, rates are now too
low; others are too high. By using the most up-to-date sources for trip rate, trip length and percent
new trips, impact fee rates will be fairer and more consistent among land uses.
MAY 119 1999
W
0 0
•
0
Besides modifying the value of variables in the model, the amendment also modifies the cost
component of the traffic impact fee formula. Based upon detailed analysis of roadway project costs,
the cost per lane mile for construction of roads in the county was estimated to be approximately
$837,860. This amount is significantly higher than the cost per lane mile being applied to benefit
districts in the west part of the county.
Because of the detailed analysis, the updated lane mile cost is more defensible than the current nine
cost estimates. One advantage of the new cost estimate is that it applies countywide, thereby
allowing a single traffic impact fee to be assessed in all three of the new benefit districts. That not
only makes fee administration easier, it also ensures that fees will be assessed equitably countywide.
The revised cost estimate, however, is the principal reason why fees will be significantly increased
in the west part of the county with adoption of the amendment.
As with the current traffic impact fee rate schedule, the proposed rate schedule reflects a 15 percent
discount. Although this discount reduces the degree to which new development pays its way, there
are several advantages associated with the discount. First, it reduces the traffic impact fee rate
assessed to new projects, making the fee more acceptable. Second, it compensates for any errors
associated with overassessment, thereby making the fee more justifiable. Finally, it limits challenges
to the ordinance, because the absolute rates are discounted.
Although traffic impact fees will increase in the area covered by several of the existing benefit
districts, those increases are needed to correct current inequities. Adoption of the amendment will
ensure that the fees paid are equitable geographically as well as among different use categories.
Consequently, the proposed amendment will provide more fairness to feepayers, make
implementation more efficient, and allow improvements to be completed in a more timely manner.
Impact on Housing Costs
Whenever amendments to the county's LDR's are considered, policy 1.7 of the Housing Element
of the County's Comprehensive Plan requires that a financial statement be prepared to assess the
anticipated impact of the regulation changes on housing cost. Policy 1.7 is stated below.
"Policy 1.7: As part of the adoption process for any county regulation which could affect
housing development, county planning staff shall prepare a Financial Impact Statement to
assess the anticipated impact of the proposed regulation on the cost of housing. When
proposed regulatory activities are anticipated to increase the estimated cost per unit for the
development of housing, the Financial Impact Statement shall include an estimated increased
cost per unit projection. The financial impact statement then will be reviewed by the
Professional Services Advisory Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and, if
possible, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee. Those groups shall consider the
regulation's effect on housing cost in making their recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will consider the financial impact
statement in making its final decision on the adoption of any proposed regulations."
Following is the financial impact statement for revisions to Chapter 953 of the Land Development
Regulations (LDR)s. Proposed revisions to Chapter 953 of the county's LDRs will increase the
impact fee rate for most of the existing traffic impact fee benefit districts (please see the attachment
1 for the districts location). The following table compares the existing and proposed traffic impact
fee rates for single-family and multi -family housing units and displays the amount and percentage
of increase in each district.
TABLE 2. .SINGIN IRA MU V nWVT T n►Tn TMrnnc.
DISTRICT
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Single -Family existing
TIF
$1,450
$1,355
$1,113
$1,000
$1,513
$1,211
$587
$860
$1,110
Single -Family proposed
TIF
$1523
$1523
$1523
$1,523
$1.523
$1523
$1.523
$1,523
$1,523
Dollar mount difference
for a SF housing unit
+$73
+$168
+$410
+$523
+$10
+$312
+$936 J+$663
+$413
Percentage change
5.03%
12.39%
36.83%'
52.30%
0.66%
25.76%
159.45%
77.09%
37.20%
Proposed TIF rate as
Percentage of old rate for
105.03%
112.39%
136.83%
152.30%
100.66%
125.76%=177
MAY 119 1999
31
BOOK fAGc; °'3
BOOK ht 9 FADE _2 42
TABLE 3. MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING
UMTS
DISTRICT
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Multi -Family existing TIF
$835
$780
$640
$576
$871
$697
$338
$495
$639
Multi -Family proposed
TIF
$830
$830
$830
$830
$830
$830
$830
$830
$830
Dollar amount difference
for a MF housing unit
-$5
+$50
+$190
+$254
-$41
+$133
+$492
+$335
+$191
Percentage change
(increase or decrea-1
-0.59%
6.41%
29.68%
44.09%
-4.71%
19.08%
145.56%
67.67%
29.89%
Proposed TIF rate as
percentage of current TIF
99.41%
106.41$
129.68%
144.09%
95.29%
119.08%
245.56%
167.67%
129.89%
For single-family dwelling units, the traffic impact fee rate will be increased in all 9 districts.
Percentage of increase varies from 0.7% in district 5 to 159.4% in district 7.
For multi -family dwelling units, the traffic impact fee rate will be decreased in 2 districts and will
be increased in seven districts. Percentage change varies from -4.7% in district 5 to +145.6% in
district 7.
Timine of Impact Fee Pavment
As proposed, the revised traffic impact fee ordinance does not change the timing of impact fee
payment. Currently, traffic impact fees must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit.
Specifically, those fees must be paid at the time of concurrency certificate issuance.
As indicated, the PSAC recommended that the timing of impact fee payment be changed from
building permit issuance to certificate of occupancy (CO) issuance. This proposal, however, is
problematic both administratively and legally. From an administrative perspective, not requiring
traffic impact fee payment until CO affects the county's concurrency regulations. Basic to the
concurrency concept is that capacity is reserved when impact fees are paid and a concurrency
certificate is issued Modifying the timing of traffic impact fee payment would change that. The
legal issue is related According to the county attorney's office, projects that are built without
payment of impact fees (therefore without reserving roadway capacity) could not be denied a CO if
capacity is not available at time of CO. If a CO were then issued, the concurrency law would be
violated.
For the reasons identified above, staff recommends that the timing of traffic impact fee payments not
be changed
ALTERNATIVES
With respect to the revised traffic impact fee ordinance and development policies, the Board of
County Commissioners has several alternatives. These are:
Do nothing and maintain the existing traffic impact fee ordinance and development policies;
adopt the revised traffic impact fee ordinance and development policies; or
adopt the revised traffic impact fee ordinance and development policies with changes;
Analvsis of Alternatives
With respect to the county's traffic impact fee ordinance, there are three principal alternatives. These
are listed above.
The Board of County Commissioners could opt to do nothing and make no changes to the current
ordinance. That, however, would keep in place a system that is unfair and inequitable. It would
allow feepayers in some areas to pay too little. It would also continue to charge teepayers for some
uses to pay too much and some to pay too little. Finally, it would retain a system where credit
amounts are not accurately reflected Staff does not support this alternative.
The second alternative is to adopt the proposed ordinance. Doing so would update the current
ordinance to reflect the most current data. It would also create a fairer, more equitable program.
Staff supports this alternative.
MAY 119 1999
32
I
0
The final alternative is to adopt the proposed amendment -with changes. Any changes supported by
adequate data and analysis would be appropriate and should be considered.
POLICY ISSUE
Besides the general alternatives identified above, there is one other alternative/policy issue. This
relates to a proposition brought up by the Treasure Coast Builders Association (TCBA).
During the MPO's consideration of this issue, the TCBA proposed that the County eliminate traffic
impact fees or reduce traffic impact fees and make up the lost traffic impact fee revenue by
increasing local option gas taxes.
Based upon state law, Indian River County has the legal authority to impose six additional cents (6
additional pennies per gallon) of local option gas tax. This would be in addition to the six cents of
local option gas tax which the County currently imposes.
Currently, each cent of local option gas tax yields approximately $450,000 per year. Consequently,
an additional six cents of local option gas tax would:generate about $2.7 million per year in revenue.
That amount would exceed the current annual yield of the traffic impact fee. In fact, imposing only
five additional local option pennies per gallon would generate sufficient revenue to replace the traffic
impact fee.
Eliminating traffic impact fees and replacing them with local option gas taxes would represent a
major policy shift. Currently, the county's policy is that new development should pay for itself.
Using local option gas tax to fund transportation capital improvements, and therefore eliminate
traffic impact fees, would shift the financial responsibility from new development to the users of the
transportation infrastructure. This shift would require not only new residents of Indian River
County, but also existing residents of Indian River County to pay for transportation improvements
necessitated by new development. This shift in financial responsibility would increase the cost of
transportation for all residents of the county, including low income households.
By imposing additional local option gas taxes and reducing or eliminating traffic impact fees, a fee
now paid by those undertaking new construction would instead be paid as a tax applicable to
everyone. Staff does not support the proposal to replace traffic impact fees with local option gas
taxes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff, the MPO, the PSAC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners adopt the revised Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance (Chapter 953 of the
LDRs) and Development Policies which are attached to this staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Final Report: Update of the Fairshare Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance. (On file at the BCC
Office)
2. Revised Chapter 953; Fairshare Roadway Improvements. (On file at the BCC Office)
3. Fairshare Roadway Improvements Development Policies.
4. Indian River County Traffic Impact Fee Capital Improvement Program FY 1999/2000 _
2003/04
5. Unapproved minutes of the April 22, 1999, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting.
6• Current traffic impact fee payment schedule and benefit districts.
7. Adoption ordinance for revised Chapter 953; Fairshare Roadway Improvements of the county
LDRs.
MAY 119 1999
33
•
BOOK PAGE'
F,
BOOK FGF �
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the memorandum and
options, as well as the committee's and stafr s recommendations using the following outline
projected on the screens in the Chambers:
Update of Indian River County Traffic Impact Fee
Indian River County
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAY 11, 1999
MPO TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY
OBJECTIVES
»ASSESS BENEFIT DISTRICTS
• REVIEW VALUES OF FORMULA VARIABLES
• UPDATE FEE SCHEDULE
• REVISE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Presentation Format
�T Benefit Districts
• Impact Fee Formula
• Demand Component
• Cost and Credit Components
:: Impact Fee Schedule
• Impact Fee Administration
IMPACT FEE DEFINITION
Indian River County
Historical Population
Indian River County
Projected Population
Benefit Districts
* 9 Existing Impact Fee Benefit Districts
a 3 Proposed Benefit Districts
• Single Countywide Fee
:: Advantages to Fewer Districts
• Reduces Administrative Complexity
• Flexible Budgeting and Planning
• Reduces Potential Refund Issues
• Reasonable Proof of Benefit
MAY 119 1999
34
•
Impact Fee Formula
+ Gross Impact Fee Cost =
[(TGR12) x TL x %NT x CC)]/(CL) ( Travel Demand)
x (Unit Cost)
• where:
— TGR = Trip Generation Rate (vehicle trips per day)
— TL = Average Trip Length (Miles):
— %NT = Percent of Trips Generated by the impact Generating Land Development Activity considered to be new hips an the
roadway:
— CC= Unit cost to construct one lane mlle of roadway capacity;
— CL= Capacity per lane mfle.
Demand Component
:: Trip Rate X Trip Length X Percent New Trips
• Fairness and Equity Between Land Uses
• More Data Available
Changes Due to Better Data
• Updated ITE Trip Generation
• Florida Studies
— Trip Length
— Percent New Trips
Demand Component
+ Trip Rates - least change
+ Trip Lengths and % New Trips - most change
Demand Component - Trip Rate
Demand Component - Trip Length
Demand Component - % New Trips
Cost Component
• Reviewed the Following Plans
• FDOT TIP, County CIP
• County Transportation Element
• MPO Adopted Cost Feasible Plan
• Reviewed Historical Project Costs
• Discussed Cost Projections with Staff
• Projections Based on Best Available Data
Cost Component
+ Current Impact Fee Costs
• Last Update Over 10 Years Ago
• Costs Vary By District and Range From
— low of $350,000 per lane mile
— high of $680,000 per lane. mile.
Proposed Countywide Cost
• $837,000 Cost per mile
• 23% Increase from high district cost
Cost Component
MAY 119 1999
35
BOOK 109 FADE '
•
I
BOOK fAGL?
Impact Fee Formula
i* Impact Fee Credit = ((TGR(2) x TL x %NT x TPG x DAYS x
PWF]/(MPG) (Travel Demand x Unit Credit)
• where:
— TGR = Trip Generation Rate;
— TL = Average Trip Length. Including to allsubdivisiar travel (miles);
— %NT = Percent of New Trips;
— TPG = Tax paid per gallon of gasoline which Is expected to be applied towards construction of new capacity;
— DAYS = Number of days in the year;
— PVIF - Net present value factor at / percent over N years;
- MPG = Estimated average miles per gallon.
Credit Component
• Reduces the Impact Fee
• Based on Capital Expenditures
• Credit Increased Significantly
• from 6 cents to 11.8 cents per gallon
+Adjustments to Other Factors
Impact Fee Schedule Alternatives
Recommendations
• Updated trip characteristics
• New land use categories
• Updated cost and credit components
• Rate schedule contained in proposed ord
• 15% discount
Review of Transportation Impact Fee Administrative
Processes
Fair Share Roadway Improvements Ordinance
• Reduces number of districts from 9 to 3
• Changes assessment methodology
• Allows transfer of credits within districts
Impact Fee Schedule Alternatives
LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX OPTION
• CURRENTLY 6 CENTS
• ELMS 1-5 CENTS
• 9TH CENTNOTED
5 CENTS=IMPACT FEE REVENUE
;h ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
«ADOPT ATTACHED ORDINANCE
+ ESTABLISH JULY 6, 1999 AS EFFECTIVE DATE
»ALLOW USE OF NEW FEE SCHEDULE PRIOR TO EFFECTIVE
DATE
MAINTAIN EXISTING BENEFIT DISTRICT TRUST FUNDS UNTIL
ALL FUNDS EXPENDED
+ DON'T CHANGE TIME OF COLLECTION
MAY 119 1999
TT
Prior to opening the public hearing, at the request of Commissioner Ginn, Director
Keating clarified that by adding the ELMS (Environmental Land Management funds) 5 -cent
tax it would increase the total income enough to eliminate impact fees and exceed the $2
million per year if it is not distributed to the municipalities. Use of the ELMS tax would
result in $477,000 countywide for each penny, and of that, the Board of County
Commissioners would get $324,000, if divided according to the formula now in use.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Tim Zorc, 3907 58' Circle, spoke on his own behalf (as a local builder) and
representing the interest of the Treasure Coast Builders' Association. He reviewed the
history and philosophies of the present impact fees. He favored the concept of eliminating
impact fees and having the road users pay for the roads by using a portion of or the entire
"ELMS nickel". He pointed out that the distribution would be a crucial element to be
worked out. He also preferred an effective date in 6 -months instead of the proposed
effective date (July 6, 1999).
Tom Collins, 2200 Sanderling Lane, complimented Director Keating and staff for
their efforts in this difficult process. He supported the ordinance, but thought the Board
should look at using some of the gas tax. He hoped to see the impact fees reduced.
Debb Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, thought the title should be changed because
nothing about the fairshare roadway improvements ordinance was "fair". She cited various
statistics to support her argument that people driving on the roads should be paying the taxes
through use of tax on gasoline, not purchasers of new homes through the impact fees.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Director Keating responded to questions from Commissioner Stanbridge about how
other counties are handling this, when the provisions of this ordinance would be re-
evaluated, and if a 6 -month delay in the effective date would be a problem. He assured the
Board that staff would not wait another 10 years for re-evaluation.
Director Keating confirmed for Chairman Macht that a 6—month delay is workable
and acceptable.
MAY 119 1999
UFA
BOOK FAG -E
BOOK ` PAGE..���
County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that Mr. Zorc could come back at any time prior
to the effective date of the new ordinance and use the current lower rate.
Chairman Macht asked Director Keating to explain how the trip numbers in the study
were collected.
Director Keating advised that the figures were averages and not gathered in our
county because of time and cost. He felt confident, however, with the consultant's reports;
Indian River County is different from other areas, but not unique.
Commissioner Tippin was impressed with the consultant, found some humor in
statistics from an economic study done in Hillsborough County, and recalled an interesting
book he had read titled "How to Lie on Statistics".
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippm, SECONDED
BY Vice Chairman Adams, to adopt the ordinance, change the
effective date to 6 -months from now, and approve at least an
additional 3 cents optional gas tax.
Under discussion, Director Keating confirmed Vice Chairman Adams' understanding
that it would be necessary to redo all the calculations and go back to the municipalities for
their approval.
Commissioner Tippin WITHDREW HIS MOTION; Vice
Chairman Adams WITHDREW HER SECOND.
Commissioner Ginn thought Mr. Zorc and Ms. Robinson had some persuasive
arguments; however, she felt growth needs to pay for itself and did not wish to delay the
process further.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
BY Vice Chairman Adams, to adopt the revised Traffic Impact
Fee Ordinance and Development Policies, as presented by staff.
Ordinance shall have an effective date of October 1, 1999.
Under discussion, Vice Chairman Adams asked if they should give any consideration
or request an additional study on the optional gas tax.
MAY 119 1999
38
0 0
•
Commissioner Ginn thought that a good idea, that perhaps they would want to split
the tax, say 2-1/2 cents, just to see what it would do, but did not like the idea of additional
gas taxes for people who live here now. She thought the study should be left to the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Commissioner Stanbridge agreed and thought use of additional taxes on gasoline
should be re-evaluated to see how much money would be generated.
Director Keating advised that the MPO is presently going for a consultant selection
for the long-range transportation plan since a major update needs to be done and in effect by
January 1, 2001. That consultant could also look at this aspect if the Board concurred with
the time frame. He also pointed out that the ELMS nickel has to be used only for
transportation improvements that are in the capital improvements element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Vice Chairman Adams asked if they could to go the ninth cent, and Director Keating
advised that was possible and would generate about $477,000 which does not need to be
shared with the municipalities.
Chairman. Macht asked the Commissioners to bear in mind that our taxes are already
higher than other counties and the extra cent means a lot to people who are struggling
because there is a cumulative impact on those folks. Also, he disliked using a funding
mechanism the County may very badly need to use in the future and thought it advisable to
keep that 9' cent in reserve.
Commissioner Tippin indicated he would support the motion only with the
understanding that use of the ELMS tax will be added to the consultant's study for the MPO.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Ordinance 99-014 adopted with an
effective date of October 1, 1999.)
PROPOSED LDR AMENDMENTS
FOR MAY 11, 1999 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING
ORDINANCE NO. 99- 14
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING
CHAPTER 953, FAIRSHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS, OF THE LAND
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); AND PROVIDING FOR SHORT
TITLE; AUTHORITY TO ENACT CHAPTER; APPLICABILITY; PURPOSE;
DEFINITIONS; FEE; TIlAE OF PAYMENT; INTERPRETATION OF THE
CHAPTER AND FEE SCHEDULE; CREDIT AGAINST PAYMENT OF TRAFFIC
IMPACT FEES, REVIEW OF FEE SCHEDULE; USE OF FUNDS COLLECTED
AND TRUST FUNDS, LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION AND SEVERABILITY;
PENALTY; REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; AND
EFFECDATE.
MAY 119 1999
39
BOOK F'>�Uc a,'
•
BOOKLOFa1Ut
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. CHAPTER 953. FAIR SHARE ROADWAY EVIPROVEMENTS
Sec. 953.01.
Short title.
Sec. 953.02.
Authority to enact chapter.
Sec. 953.03.
Applicability.
Sec. 953.04.
Purpose.
Sec. 953.05.
Resefyed. Legislative Finding.
Sec. 953.06.
Definitions.
Sec. 953.07.
Fee.
Sec. 953.08.
Time of payment.
Sec. 953.09.
Interpretation of the chapter and fee schedule.
Sec. 953.10.
Credit against payment of traffic impact fees.
Sec. 953.11.
Review of fee schedule.
Sec. 953.12.
Use of funds collected and trust funds.
Sec. 953.13.
Liberal construction and sepembility
severability.
Sec. 953.14.
Penalty.
Section 953.01. Short title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Indian River County Fair Share Roadway
Improvements Ordinance."
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 953.02. Authority to enact chapter.
The board of county commissioners has authority to adopt this chapter through its general noncharter
home rule powers pursuant to Article VIII of the 1968 Florida Constitution, as amended and Sections 125
and 163, Florida Statutes.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 953.03. Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to the unincorporated area of Indian River County, and to the incorporated
areas of Indian River County to the extent permitted by Article VIII, Section 1(f) of the 1968 Florida
Constitution.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
MAY 119 1999
0
40
•
_I
•
Section 953.04. Purpose.
It is the purpose of this chapter to:
(1) Plan for the necessary capacity expansion of Indian River county's major road network
system to ensure the safety and efficiency of the county's roads and to provide for the health,
safety, welfare and economic well being of the citizens of Indian River County, is consistent
with the mandated responsibility of the county pursuant to Section 163.3161 et seq. Florida
Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act, and Section 125.01, Florida Statutes.
(2) Implement and be consistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan and the
Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Laud Development Regulation Act,
Section 163.3161 et seq., Florida Statutes.
(3) Require all new land development activity that places additional demand on the county's
major road network system to contribute its proportionate share of the funds, land or public
facilities to accommodate any transportation impacts having a rational nexus to the proposed
development and for which the need is reasonably attributable to the proposed development.
(4) Ensure that no funds, land or public facilities are collected from new land development
activity in excess of the actual amount necessary to offset the demand on the county's major
road network system generated by the new land development activity. This chapter is
intended to be consistent with the principles for allocating a fair share of the cost of new
public facilities to new users as established in Contractors and Builders Association of
Pinellas County V. City of Dunedin, 320 So.2d 314 (Fla. 1976), and Homebuilders and
Contractors Association of Palm Beach County V. Palm Beach County. 446 So.2d 140 (Fla.
4th DCA 1983).
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 953.05. Resetwed. Legislative Finding.
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County finds, determines, and declares that the report
entitled '11&ate of the Fairshare Roadway Impact Ordinance, Final Report". dated September 1998, sets
forth a reasonable methodology and analysis for determination of the impact of new development on the need
for and costs of additional right -0f -way. road constntction. and road improvements in Indian River County.
Section 953.06. Definitions.
Definitions used in this chapter are included in Chapter 901.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 953.07. Fee.
(1) Payment of fair share fee prior to issuance of building permit.
(a) Any person who shall commence any land development activity generating traffic that
creates an increased demand on the county's major road network system shall be obligated
to pay a "fair share roadway improvements fee' in the manner and the amount set forth in
this section.
(b) The fee shall be paid to the county administrator or his designee, prior to issuance of a
building permit for the development and no building permit shall be final until any
applicable fee has been paid. If the building permit is for less than the entire development,
the fee shall be computed separately, for the amount of development covered by the permit.
The obligation to pay the fee shall run with the land.
(c) The impact fee shall be computed on the assumption that the property will be developed in
the manner that will generate the maximum impact permitted under the applicable laws_-;
95 n T
(d) Any person who, prior to the effective date of this chapter, agreed as a condition of
development approval to pay impact fees shall be responsible for the payment of the fees
under the terms of such agreement, and the payment of such fees by the person will be offset
against any impact fees otherwise due at later stages of the development activity for which
the fee was paid.
MAY 119 1999
U1
BOOK Phu
•
I
BOOK d,g P,1Gt.
(2) Establishment of a fee schedule.
(a) Any person who shall initiate any new land development activity generating traffic, except
those preparing an individual assessment pursuant to sections 953.07(3) or 953.09(2) shall
pay a "fair share roadway improvements fee" for the land development activity as
established by the fee schedule set out herein for the district in which the new land
development activity is to be initiated. The district boundaries are shown on the current
Impact Fee Benefit District Map which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
(b) The impact fees in the fee schedule have been reduced by fifteen (15) percent. Applicants
preparing an individual assessment pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, shall also be
entitled to a fifteen (15) percent reduction in the fee amount determined through that
individual assessment.
(3) Individual assessment of fiscal impact of land development activity on the major road network:
the traffic impact analysis.
(a) The "fair share roadway improvements fee" shall be determined by the individual
assessment of the fiscal impact of land development on the major road network if.
Any person commencing land development activity generating traffic which
increases demand chooses to have the fee determined by the individual assessment
and pays to the county an individual assessment review fee of five hundred dollars
($500.00) or any other fee amount established by the board of county
commissioners by ordinance or resolution; or
The proposed land development activity requires a development of regional impact
or building permit and the county administrator or his designee determines the
nature, timing or location of the proposed development makes it likely to generate
impacts costing substantially more to accommodate than the amount of the fee that
would be generated by the use of the fee schedule_
(b) The individual assessment shall be undertaken through the submission of a traffic impact
analysis, which shall include the following information:
The projected trip generation rates for the proposed land development activity an$
based on the average daily traffic
of the proposed land development activity. , and an a
peak beer -,peak season, pe" diFeeties L The trip generation rates shall be
based upon local empirical surveys of trip generation rates for the same or similar
land use types that meet methodological standards acceptable to the transportation
engineering profession. If local empirical surveys are not available, state and/or
national trip generation rate information can be used, if it is based on
methodological standards acceptable to the transportation engineering profession;
2. The pmpesed-projected trip length and percent new , vip
ass*fflftew O€tlte trips geAeeateei-€r8m for the proposed land development activity
based on surveys of similar land use types E►ntw Ika;'- major- mad - e -k
syr and;if applieeble tseelienthe Ifip '-- '' hip
dislFib"OSH
-
dislFihatimr nd •—rr._ assigmneal _c the d c e*isting land
Trip length and
percent new trips information shall be based upon local empirical surveys of similar
land use types or trip-lenrA data compiled by the county administrator or his
designee for average trip lengths and percent new trins for similar land use types.
If local empirical surveys are not available state and/or national trip length and
present new trins information can be used, if it is based on methodological
standards acceptable to the transportation engineering profession T-kp distribution
MAY 11, 1999
42
•
3�. The resulting_ impact fee for the protrosed land development activity will be
calculated using the trip generation rate, trip length, and percent new trips,
developed in the preceding sections, along with the current impact fee equation
construction cost and credit equation factors.
the pFejeeted gas and Reense we Fevenves, any other- Fe-venties. and the eapital
(c) Prior to conducting an individual assessment. the applicant and/or his transportation planner
or engineer must schedule a pre-atrolication conference with the county traffic engineer or
his designee to review the type of data and analysis needed and acceptable to the county_
The traffic impact analysis submitted pursuant to section 953.07(3)(&)1: and 3. shall be
submitted by the developer of the proposed land development activity and shall be prepared
by qualified professionals in the field of transportation planning or engineering, and shall
be submitted to the county administrator, or his designee.
(d) Within twenty (20) days of receipt of a traffic impact analysis, the county administrator or
his designee shall determine if it is complete. If the county administrator determines the
application is not complete, he shall send a written statement specifying the deficiencies by
certified mail to the person submitting the application. Unless the deficiencies are corrected,
the county administrator shall take no further action on the traffic impact analysis.
(e) When the county administrator determines that the traffic impact analysis is complete, he
shall notify the applicant of its completion within (5) days, and he shall review it the
analysis within twenty (20) days. If it is not reviewed within these timeframes, then the item
will be scheduled for the next available board of county commissioners meeting.
(f) If on the basis of generally recognized principles of traffic engineering it is determined in
the individual assessment that the county's cost to accommodate the proposed land
development activity is substantially different than from the fee set down in section
953.07(2)(a), the amount of the "fair share roadway improvement fee" shall be varied from
that in the fee schedule to an amount consistent with the amount determined in the
individual assessment.
(g) Any person may appeal the county administrator's decision on his individual assessment by
filing a petition with the board of county commissioners within thirty (30) days of a decision
by the county administrator. In reviewing the decision, the board of county commissioners
shall use the standards established in section 953.07(3)(f).
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 9425, §§ 15, 16.8-31-94)
Section 953.08. Time of payment.
No building permit approval shall be issued until any applicable "fair share roadway improvements
fee" is paid according to these provisions. The obligation to pay the fee shall run with the land.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
MAY 119 1999
43
•
BOOK 1091 °4C;.25
F,
BOOK J0j�
E Ff1Gt fp
Section 953.09. Interpretation of the chapter and fee schedule.
(1) Interpretation. Interpretation of all provisions of this chapter, including whether a proposed land
development activity is identified in one of the land use types in the fee schedule established in section
953.07(2)(a). shall be made by the county administrator, or his designee.
(2) Fair share fee determination for land development activity not Included in fee schedules.
(a) Any person who shall initiate any land development activity interpreted by the county
administrator or hisor his designee as not included in the fee schedule established in section
953.07(2)(x) and traffic impact feedevelopment policies report shall submit a request to the
county administrator or hts destgnee for a fair share fee determination for the proposed land
development activity pursuant to the terms of this chapter. The fair share fee determination
shall be the "fair share roadway improvement fee" exacted for the proposed land
development activity pursuant to the terms of this chapter.
(b) The county administrator or his desienee shall prepare the fair share fee determination
within thirty (30) days after a formal request has been made b any
person who initiate land development interpreted as not expressly included in the fee schedule iproposes
section
953.07(2)(x).
(c) In completing the fair share fee determination, the county administrator or his desienee shall
consider the information outlined in section 953.07 3 b--+y�g.; -Reeess
(d) Any Person may contest the county administrator's fair share fee determination for his
Proposed land development activity by preparing an individual assessment for the proposed
land development activity pursuant to section 953.07(3)(b), and submitting it to the county
administrator. The traffic impact analysis shall be prepared by qualified professionals in the
acco
field of transportation planning or engineering and shall he processed and determined in
rdance with section 953.07 3 d throw heeHH", ad !I! sill-Hot-de-eizilkies it if the-
aflfti� -is- URI 5 the Wei file fie4ffVae+
MAY 119 1999
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 953.10. Credit against payment of traffic impact fees.
(1) Any person who shall commence any land development activity generating traffic may apply for
a credit against any fee owed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for any contribution, payment,
construction, or land accepted and received by Indian River County or any municipality participating in this
chapter, including any contribution, payment or construction made pursuant to a development order issued
by Indian River County or any participating municipality Pursuant to its local development regulation or
Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, or any additional development requirement imposed by the Florida Land
onal
and Water Adjudicatory Commission on a development of regional impact.
(2) The credit shall be in an amount equal to the market value as of the date of the contribution,
payment. construction or land dedication. No credit shall exceed the fee for the proposed impact generating
activity imposed by this chapter, unless a credit (developer's) agreement is completed which provides use
of excess credits and stipulates how the excess credits will be applied toward additional lands owned by a
developer within the same traffic impact fee benefit district.
(3) No credit shall be granted for any costs, contribution, payment, construction or land received by
Indian River County or any municipality participating in this chapter where such costs were incurred or
contributions made in relation to development for which a building permit was issued prior to March 1, 1986.
(4) No credit shall be granted for any costs, contribution, payment, construction or land received by
Indian River County or any municipality participating in this chapter if said costs, contribution, payment,
construction or land dedication is received or made before a credit agreement is approved by the county
administrator or his designee and is fully executed by all applicable parties. Any claim for credit not so made
and approved shall be deemed waived.
(5) The determination of any credit amount shall be undertaken through the submission of a proposed
credit agreement, on an application form provided by the county, to the county director of community
development for initial review before submission to the county administrator. Within twenty (20) days of
receipt of a proposed credit agreement; the community development director or his designee shall determine
if the proposal is complete. If it is determined that the proposed agreement is not complete, the director of
community development or his designee shall send a written statement to the applicant outlining the
deficiencies. The county shall take no further action on the proposed credit agreement until all application
submittal deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled.
(6) Once the proposal is determined to be complete, within thirty (30) days of such a determination,
the county administrator or his designee shall review the proposed agreement, and shall grant said a
if the provisions and requirements of seege s3 +9 agreement
�_. ��� s cha ter are satisfied.
(a) No credit shall be given for site -related improvements or site -related right -of --way
dedications.
(b) Site -related improvements are capital improvements and right -of --way dedications for direct
access to and/or within a development. Direct access improvements include, but are not
limited to, the following:
MAY 119 1999
Access roads leading to and from the development;
The paving and/or improvement of a thoroughfare plan roadway segment. as-a-twe_
ice° where such improvement is necessary to provide paved access to and
from the Project, if the roadway segment is not scheduled to be improved within
five (5) Years from the time of the credit agreement, as shown on the adopted capital
improvements program;
Driveways and roads within the development;
45
BOOK%, F-AGc "'1
r
BOOK�COJ F, G, J� 6
4. Acceleration and deceleration lanes, and right and left turn lanes leading to those
roads and driveways within the development;
5. Traffic control devices (including signs, marking, channelization and signals) for
those roads and driveways within the development.
(c) No credit shall be given for improvements or right-of-way dedications unless such
improvement(s) or dedication(s) meets an expansion need of the county's road network
system avhieh and is identified either in the county's twenty-year transportation capital
improvements program or in the transportation capital improvements program of a
municipality participative m this chapter .
(7) All required right -of --way dedications and/or roadway improvements, which are compensable,
made by a fee payer subsequent to October 9, 1992, shall be creditable against road impact fees otherwise
due or to become due for the development that prompted the county or the municipality to require such
dedications or roadway improvements. Such credits shall be determined as provided as set forth herein.
(8) Credit for the dedication of non -site related right-of-way shall be valued as of the date of the
dedication at one hundred fifteen (115) percent of the most recent assessed value by the Indian River County
Property appraiser or, at the option of the fee payer, by fair market value established by an independent
pn^vara anera�sal approved by
and
dthe county u Uc works
a credit agreemenn ap ant no expense to the county. Credit for• the dedication of right-of-way shall be provided when
t has been approved by the county administrator or his designee and when the property has
been conveyed at no charge to and accepted by the county, or if appropriate, a municipality participating in
this chapter in a manner satisfactory to the governing body to which the dedication is made. As part of the
referenced county credit agreement, the applicant shall supply to the county at his or her own expense, the
following:
(a) A drawing and legal description of the land; and
(b) A certificate of tide or tide search of the land.
(90 To receive a credit for construction ON non -site related road improvements, an applicant shall
submit to the county director of community development a proposed credit agreement application pursuant
to section 953.10(3), along with engineering drawings and specifications, and construction cost estimates
prepared and certified by a duly qualified and licensed Florida Engineer. The county director of community
development or his designee will coordinate review and approval of the application with the county public
works director. The county public works director shall determine credit for roadway construction based on
either these costs estimates or an alternative engineering criterion and construction cost estimate if the county
public works director determines that such estimates submitted by the applicant are either unreliable,
inaccurate or in excess of normal construction costs for such project.
COQ) Credit for non -site related construction is limited to capital improvements. A capital
improvement includes preliminary engineering, engineering design studies, land surveys, engineering,
permitting, and construction of all necessary features for any road construction project including, but not
limited to:
a}. Construction of eF new through lanes;
b_?. Construction of new turn lanes (not related to the project site);
93- Construction of new bridges;
44. Construction of new drainage facilities in conjunction with new roadway
construction;
e3. Purchase and installation of traffic signalization, including new upgraded
signalization and other traffic control devices (not related to the project site);
f6. Construction of curbs, medians, and shoulders (not related to the project site); and
g-7. Relocating utilities to accommodate new roadway construction.
RQU) In order to maintain the pro rata or proportionate share purpose of the Fair Share Roadway
Improvement Ordinance, it is necessary that a uniform method be used countywide in determining credit
against fee. Therefore, the county, when considering compensation or credit for the road right-of-way, shall
apply the right-of-way standards it has established in the unincorporated areas throughout the entire county.
i*-, ccordinI dedication of the minimum local road widths (sixty (60) feet with swale; fifty (50) feet with
curb and gutter) is non -compensable, thus putting the unincorporated
the integrity areas and the incorporated areas in the
same posture thereby maintaining grity of the pro rata or proportionate share concept.
MAY 119 1999
0 40
•
(124-0 Credits shall not be transferable from one project or development to another without the
approval of the county administrator or his designee Credit
develeWmat in a diffefeal transfers may be approved only when the project or
development where the credits are being transferred from is within the same impact fee benefit district as the
protect or development where the credits are being transferred to.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 92-39, § 28, 9-29-92)
Section 953.11. Review of fee schedule.
Prior to the adoption of the annual budget in every even numbered year, the board of county
commissioners shall receive a report from the county administrator or his designee on the review of the "fair
share roadway improvements fee" schedule in section 953.07(2)(a), along with any recommended changes
in the fee schedule. Changes in the schedule shall be based on any revisions to the population projections
for the county, travel characteristics, road costs or inflation.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 953.12. Use of funds collected and trust funds.
(1) Intent. Any "fair share roadway improvement fees" collected pursuant to the terms of this article
are expressly designated for accommodation of impacts reasonably attributable to the proposed land
development activity generating traffic as hereinafter provided in this section.
(2) Establishment of fair share roadway improvement trust fund and trust accounts. There is hereby
established the "fair share roadway improvements trust fund" (trust fund) for the purpose of ensuring that
the fees collected pursuant to this chapter are designated for the accommodation of impacts reasonably
attributable to the proposed land development activity generating traffic and are consistent with the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan. The trust fund shall be divided into three nine (339) separate trust
accounts, one for each district as shown on the Current Impact Fee Benefit District Map which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Impact fees collected and deposited into the original nine trust
accounts prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be expended in the original district in which they
were collected until all funds within said districts have been expended accordine to the provisions of this
ordinance. The original LmM fee district boundaries are shown on the Interim Impact Fee Benefit District
Map which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
(3) Payment of fair share fees into trust accounts. "Fair share roadway improvement fees" collected
pursuant to this chapter shall be paid into the trust accounts established for the district in which the new land
development activity is proposed.
(4) Expenditure of fair share fees in trust accounts.
(a) Proceeds from the trust accounts shall be used exclusively for capital expansion of the
county's major road network system as identified on the county's and/or other municipalities'
Thoroughfare Plan Maps, in the district from which the monies have come, and in a manner
consistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. , except that. until the trust
fund accounts of the nine original benefit districts have been expended the following
percent of proceeds from the nine (9) trust accounts may be used outside the district
boundaries for capacity expansion of bridge facilities and their access roads connecting
Orchid Island and the mainland: District I—thirty-one (31) percent; District II—nineteen (19)
percent; District III --eight (8) percent; District IV—nine (9) percent; District V—ten (10)
percent; District VI—four (4) percent; District VII—four (4) percent; District VIII—ten (10)
percent; and District IX—five (5) percent.
(b) Any funds in each of the trust accounts on deposit, not immediately necessary for
expenditure, shall be invested in interest-bearing assets. All income derived from these
investments shall be retained in the applicable trust account.
(c) Each year, at the time the annual county budget is reviewed, the county administrator or his
designee shall propose appropriations to be spent from the trust accounts. Any amounts not
appropriated from the trust accounts by the county administrator or his designee, together
with any interest earnings shall be carried over in the specific trust account to the following
fiscal period.
(5) Return of fair share fees if not encumbered for capital roadway improvements.
(a) Any "fair share roadway improvements fees" collected shall be returned to the feepayer, or
his successor in interest, if the fees have not been spent within six (6) years from the date
the fees were paid, with simple interest at the same rate the County has earned over the
same period on its pooled investment from the State Board of Administration Local
Government Trust Fund . Provided, however, that the board of
county commissioners may by resolution extend for up to three (3) years the date at which
MAY 11, 1999
47
•
BOOK 109 FAGS '57
BOOK FAr,ExB
- 7
40
fees must be refunded if they are to be committed within that time for capacity expansion
of the bridge facilities connecting Orchid Island and the mainland. Such an extension shall
be made upon a finding that within such three-year period bridge facility improvements are
planned to be constructed that are reasonably attributable to the feepayer s land development
activity. "Fair share roadway improvement fees" collected shall be deemed to be spent on
the basis of the first fee collected shall be the first fee spent for roadway improvements.
(b) The refund of "fair share roadway improvements fees" shall be undertaken through the
submission of a refund application to be submitted within one year following the end of the
sixth year from the date on which the "fair share roadway improvements fee" was paid. If
the time of refund has been extended pursuant to section 953.12(5)(a), the refund application
shall be submitted within one year following the end of this extension. The refund
application shall include the following information:
A notarized swom statement that the feepayer paid the "fair share roadway
improvements fee" for the property and the amount paid;
A copy of the receipt issued by the county for payment of the fee; and, if applicable.
Certified proof that the applicant is the successor in interest to the feepayer.
(c) Within twenty (20) days of receipt of the refund application, the county administrator or his
designee shall determine if it is complete. If the county administrator or his designee
determines the application is not complete, he shall send a written statement specifying the
deficiencies by mail to the person submitting the application. Unless the deficiencies are
corrected, the county administrator shall take no further action on the refund application.
(d) When the county administrator or his designee has determined that the refund application
is complete, he shall review it within twenty (20) days, and shall approve the proposed
refund if he determines the feepayer has paid a "fair share roadway improvements fee,"
which the county has not spent (exeambered) or (encumbered through a construction
contract}within the time established in section 953.12(5)(a).
(e) Any feepayer or his successor in interest, if applicable, may appeal the county
administrators decision on his refund application, by filing a petition with the Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners within thirty (30) days of a decision by the county
administrator. In reviewing the decision, the board of county commissioners shall use the
standards established in section 953.12(5.
(6) Refund of fair share fee upon cancellation of land development activiq• due to
noncommencement.
(a) Any "fair share roadway improvements fees" collected shall be refunded to the feepayer or
his successor in interest, if the land development activity generating traffic is canceled due
to noncommencement, and if the fees have not been spent4exeembem& or (encumbered
through a construction contract) unless the applicant has waived his right for a refund of his
traffic impact fee by obtaining an extended concuirrencv determination certificate nursuant
to Chapter 910 of the county land development regulations. The refund shall include interest
at the same rate the County has earned over the same period on its pooled investment from
the State Board of Administration Local Government Trust Fund.
"Fair share roadway improvement fees" collected shall be deemed to be spent (ett owJ
or (encumbered through a construction contract) on the basis of the first fee collected shall
be the first fee spent for the roadway improvement.
(b) The refund of "fair share roadway improvement fees" shall be undertaken within ninety (90)
days of noncommencement through the submission of a refund application. which
application shall include the following information:
1. A notarized sworn statement that the feepayer paid the "fair share roadway
improvements fee" for the property and the amount paid;
2. A copy of the receipt issued by the county for payment of the fee;
3. A certified copy of a certificate signed by the feepayer or his successor in interest
relinquishing the building permit received for the land development activity; and
if applicable,
4. Certified proof that the applicant is a successor in interest to the feepayor.
(c) The county administrator or his designee shall review the refund application within thirty
(30) days from the date of its receipt and determine whether the land development activity
has been canceled due to noncommencement.
(d) Only those "fair share roadway improvement fees" paid for land development activity which
the county administrator determines has been canceled due to noncomrnencement and lies
which have not been encumbered or §pent shall be returned to the feepayer or his successor
MAY 119 1999
48
•
in interest, with interest at the same rate the County has earned over the same period on its
pooled investment from the State Board of Administration Local Government Trust Fund
(e) Any feepayer or his successor in interest may appeal the county administrator's decision on
his refund application by filing a petition with the board of county commissioners within
thirty (30) days of the final decision of the county administrator. In reviewing the decision,
the county commission shall use the standards established in section 953.12(5)0.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 953.13. Liberal construction and seperehifity severability.
(1) The provisions of this chapter shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in
the interest of the public health, safety, welfare and convenience.
(2) All ordinances sec-siexs or parts of ordinances seetiees of Indian River County in conflict with
the provisions of this chapter are repealed to the extent of such conflict.
(3) If any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this chapter is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional, inoperative. or void by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed
separate, distinct and an independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portion of this chapter hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this
ordinance without such unconstitutional invalid or inoperative part.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 953.14. Penalty.
(1) Any building permit used for new construction as covered by these provision but without
payment of the "fair share roadway improvements fee" as required by these provisions shall be void.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
•
�mvvvvv��v
A A4..
MENOMONEE
Coding: words in sidlce;hr-eugh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are
additions.
MAY 119 1999
49
8OOK U0 FAC, t,
BOOK JOJ pA,,E , o;Ommmow mt0WRIM!W-1 �F; �" - I
.... ,
MAY 119 1999
0 40
�v0�0v�vv
.... ,
MAY 119 1999
0 40
MAY 119 1999
0 40
•
0
1111MINIMIll
N.--
b
d
O
ca
C
.4
M1111111
O
1111MINIMIll
3
sees�sse
to
d
E
ases�eessees
y
tn
�eseese�
eses��es�ee,
�sesesss
G
ON
oses�ees�ees
Q �
JrI`
V �
w
seeeesse
1�
eees�e�sseo�
�eeeesse
ee�e�eeesees
eeAeseoesees
eeee�eoeseee
IMINIIIII
N.--
b
d
O
ca
C
.4
M1111111
O
a
3
sees�sse
to
d
E
�sssesss
y
tn
�eseese�
�sesesss
G
ON
�eeees,e
Q �
JrI`
V �
w
seeeesse
1�
�eeeesse
e
N.--
b
d
O
ca
C
.4
C
O
a
3
to
d
E
0
w
y
tn
N
b
G
.y
G
ON
•�
Q �
JrI`
V �
w
1�
I
BOOK J0j PAGE
Impact Fee Benefit Districts
vx
www 9
3 0 3 a MW_
Current Indian River County
Impact Fee Benefit Districts
Indian River County Traffic Impact Fees Payment Schedule
Land Use
Unit
Rate
Residential:
Single Family
du
$1,523
Accessory Single -Family
du
$830
Multi -Family
du
$830
Mobile Home
du
$568
Hotel
room
$960
Motel
room
$512
Nursing Home
bed
$159
ACLF
bed
$129
Office and Financial:
Medical Office
1,000 gsf
$4,542
Bank
1.000 gsf
$4,603
Bank w/Drive-In
1.000 gsf
$7.801
Office under 10.000 GSF
1.000 gsf
$2.644
Office over 10,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$1.550
Industrial:
Manufacturing
1.000 gsf
$446
Warehouse
1.000 gsf
$570
Mini -Warehouse
1.000 gsf
$292
General Industrial
1.000 gsf
$814
Concrete Plant
acre
$1.822
Sand Mining
acre
$234
Retail:
Retail under 10,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$3.387
Retail 10.001 to 50,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$2.436
Retail 50,001 to 100,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$2.170
Retail 100.001 to 200,000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$1,913
MAY 11, 1999
52
Land Use
Unit
Rate
Retail over 200.000 GSF
1,000 gsf
$1,971
Gas Station
fueling pos.
$1.859
New and Used Auto Sales
1.000 gsf
$3,847
Quality Restaurant
1.000 gsf
$5.753
Restaurant
1.000 gsf
$7.625
Fast Food Restaurant
1,000 gsf
$11,468
Supermarket
1.000 gsf
$3,720
Auto Repair
1.000 gsf
$2.645
Car Wash
stall
$4.882
Convenience Store
1,000 gsf
$7,230
Convenience Store with Gas and Fast Food
fueling pos.
$6,289
Furniture Store
1,000 gsf
$467
Recreational:
Golf Course
acre
$702
Racquet Club
1.000 gsf
$1,904
County Park
acres
$223
Tennis Court
court
$3.301
Marina
berth
$329
Govemmental:
Post Office
1.000 gsf
$4.807
library
1.000 gsf
$5.827
Government Office
1.000 gsf
$8.047
Jail
bed
$131
Miscellaneous:
Day Care Center
1.000 gsf
$2.944
Hospital
1,000 gsf
$1.829
Veterinary Clinic
1.000 gsf
$1,168
Church
1,000 gsf
$873
Movie Theater w/ Matinee
screens
$7.568
School (Elementary)
student
$39
School (High)
student
$149
School (College)
student
$297
Fire Station (w/o beds)
1.000 gsf
$329
Note: gsf = gross square feet
(Ord. No. 96-6, § 16, 2-27-96; Ord. No. 96-24, § 5, 12-17-96)
2. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated
portion of Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
3. CODIFICATION
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the county code and the word
"Ordinance" may be changed to "section', "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions.
MAY 11, 1999
53
BOOK i FAGF
I
BOOK F'A' .7
4. EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective on October 1st ,1999. However, in
recognition of the improved data and analysis underlying this revision to the Indian River County Fair
Share Roadway Improvements Ordinance, any fee payer who may benefit from the fee schedule
adopted herein may elect to pay the new fees adopted herein upon filing of this ordinance with the
Department of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press-Joumal on the 28' day of April, 1999,
for public hearing to be held on the I I' day of May, 1999, at which time at the final hearing it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner G i n n , seconded by Commissioner
Adams , and adopted by the following vote;
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge AMP
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Ay e
Commissioner John W. Tippin Ay e
The majority having voted approval, the ordinance was adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this I I'a day of May, 1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF ]ND CO
By:
K A& R. Macht,hairman
ATTEST BY:
Je K..Darton, Cle
Filed with the Department of State on the day of , 1999.
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this day of , 1999.
APPROVED A�S�TOpLEGAL FORM
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
u\v\s\ldrord
MAY 11, 1999
APP AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development irec
�rirL�a�E'L'n�
�•��!�E�l7fiC�ii
Coding: words in Neagh type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are
additions.
54
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - RESCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER NEW RATES, FEES AND CHARGES FOR
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES - JUNE 22, 1999
The Chairman read the following Memorandum dated May 4, 1999 into the record:
DATE: MAY 4,1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: D I
ONALD IL HUBBS, P.E.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S CES
FROM: JEFFREY SMITH, CPA
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OIC SERVICES
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF RE -SCHEDULING PUBLIC HEARING
It is requested that the user charge information presented on April 13, 1999, be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 22, 1999.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The draft resolution and subsequent code modification recommendations will be presented to the
Board of County Commissioners on June 22, 1999 and will parallel that presented on April 13
1999. The Final completed report will be available for review in the Board of County
Commissioners office and in the Dept. of Utilities Services. As per Utility Advisory Committee
recommendation, the Public Hearing is recommended to be postponed to allow for a better
definition of "Multi -family Designation', considering that a clearly defined code will lead to
reduced mis-interpretation and customer dispute. As per Florida Statutes, the Public Hearing will
be advertised no less than 10 consecutive days prior to June 22, 1999. The attached draft
resolution will constitute the subject of the proposed rate changes, final versions to follow in the
June 22nd agenda.
RECOMMENDATION:
The above referenced public hearing date is provided for the Board of County Commissioners
information. No action is needed.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
11.A. JUNGLE TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN - FINAL DRAFT
FOR TRANSMITTAL TO LAMAC (CAIRNS AND IRWIN TRACTS
Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Chief Roland M. DeBlois reviewed a
Memorandum of May 4, 1999 using Attachment 1(which can be found in the backup for the
meeting) displayed on the ELMO:
MAY 119 1999
55
BOCK PAGE X65
I
BOOK 103 mu
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP 6RfMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
FROM: Roland M. DeBloisP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: May 4, 1999
SUBJECT: Approval of Management Plan for the Jungle Trail Conservation
Area (Cairns and Irwin Tracts) for Transmittal to the State
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 11, 1999.
Background
On April 22, 1997, the Board approved hiring Bellomo-Herbert and Company, Inc. (subcontracted by
F1oridAffinity, Inc.) to draft a management plan for the Cairns tract. The ±104 acre Cairns tract, located on
south Jungle Trail, was purchased in October 1996 under a 50/50 cost -share agreement with the State
Conservation and Recreation Lands (CARL) program, whereby the State obtained title to the property. On
January 14, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners approved a lease agreement with the State for the
County to manage the Cairns tract. In May 1998, the County and State purchased the ±8 acre oceanfront
Irwin tract contiguous to and south of the Cairns tract, and the lease/management agreement was extended
to include the Irwin tract. The combined Cairns and Irwin tracts are currently referred to as the "Jungle Trail
Conservation Area."
On September 1, 1998, the Board adopted a resolution establishing the Jungle Trail Conservation Area
(JTCA) Advisory Group. The Advisory Group was established to fulfill state procedural requirements for
the development of management plans for CARL program properties.
Florida Statutes Section 259.032(10) provides that the Advisory Group must conduct at least one advertised
public hearing, with a management prospectus made available to the public for a period of 30 days prior to
the public hearing. Accordingly, the Advisory Group held a hearing/workshop on April 21, 1999 for public
comments on a final draft management plan (see attached unapproved minutes).
This matter is herein presented for the Board to approve the final draft management plan for
transmittal to the State Land Acquisition and Management Advisory Council (LAMAC) for State
approval of the plan.
Overview of Management Plan
The management plan consists of two interrelated components: the resource management component and
the land use component. The resource component provides an inventory and assessment of the site's natural
and cultural resources. Resource management needs are identified, and specific management objectives are
established for each resource type. This component provides guidance on the application of such measures
as nuisance exotic plant eradication and restoration of natural conditions.
The land use component relates to public access and passive recreational facilities. Based on consideration
such as access, population and adjacent uses, an allocation of the site's physical space is made, locating use
areas and proposing types of facilities and volume of use to be provided.
MAY 119 1999
56
Following is a bullet summary of proposed improvements and management activities.
• Nuisance exotic plants will be eradicated over time by a combination of mechanical
clearing and herbicide application with follow-up monitoring, to be undertaken by an
experienced, specialized contractor. Public access improvements will be located in
currently "disturbed" areas to the extent feasible, to minimize impacts to natural areas.
• Two limited parking areas are proposed (±10 parking spaces each); one accessed off
Jungle Trail, the other east of SR AIA. No formal SR AIA pedestrian crossing is proposed.
• The Jungle Trail access area is planned to have a restroom facility and pavilion(s),
serving as a trail head for nature -walk trails throughout the ±80 acres between Jungle Trail
and SR AIA. The Jungle Trail parking area and restrooms are to be fimded with Jungle Trail
enhancement project ISTEA fiords.
• The oceanfront access will be limited to a ±10 pace parking area, accessing a meandering
nature trail/path leading to a single dune crossover.
• Access facilities will be designed so as not to disturb cultural resources on site. Signs
and displays are proposed for educational purposes relating to the site's cultural and natural
resources.
• An existing boat dock will be kept and improved to serve as a public access point and
"water taxi" landing for use by the Environmental Learning Center, similar organizations
and groups, and the general public.
• Trails and improvements will be interior to the property to minimize potential public
use nuisance impacts to adjacent private properties.
• Boundary markers are proposed along property lines in lieu of fencing. The option of
fencing is left open to address security needs along certain boundaries as may arise once the
property is formally opened to the public.
Cost/Funding
Addendum 8 of the proposed management plan presents a priority schedule and cost estimates in tabular
form (see attached). The table footnotes those costs to be funded with ISTEA monies and anticipated
recreational development (FRDAP) grants. With respect to the overall cost estimates, it is possible that the
actual cost of re -vegetation will be substantially less than the estimate of $182,400, in that natural
recruitment/ growth of native plants in areas of exotics eradication will minimize the need for native
landscape plantings.
Given the anticipated grant funding and conservative cost estimates, it is anticipated that the cost to the
County will be substantially less than the total estimate of $772,877 for the improvements. The proposed
source of County fiords for the improvements are environmental land bond funds, mitigation fiords, and tree
fine funds.
Advisory Group Recommendations
The JTCA Advisory Group met five times from October 1998 to April 1999 to develop and review the
proposed management plan, including the public hearing/workshop held on April 21, 1999. The final draft
plan incorporates Advisory Group recommendations from those meetings. One recommendation, however,
that has not yet been addressed relates to the name of the conservation area. The consensus of the Advisory
Group is to change the name of the conservation area to distinguish it from the overall Jungle Trail
greenway. While the Group did not have a specific recommendation for a name change, one alternative
discussed was to make reference to the cultural history of the property, in that it was the homestead of
Captain Forster, a pioneer in the County's history. The other thought was to tie the name to a geographic
feature of the property.
MAY 11, 1999
57
I
BOOK 109 qF AB
FAGL �;,;;
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the final draft Jungle Trail Conservation
Area Management Plan for transmittal to the State Land Acquisition and Management Advisory Council
(LAMAQ for State approval, with the caveat that the County reserves the right to rename the conservation
area. Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff to coordinate with Advisory Group members to
develop a list of potential names for the property and report back to the Board for Board selection of a name.
General maps of the Jungle Trail Conservation Area showing (conceptual) improvements
Copy of Addendum 8, Priority Schedule and Cost Estimates
Unapproved minutes from the 04/21/99 Advisory Group hearing/workshop
NOTE: The proposed management plan is available for review in the County Commission Office
Vice Chairman Adams felt the meandering path to the beach from AlA would be
restrictive for many people who cannot walk a good distance. She did not want to discourage
people from using the park for an entrance to the beach and preferred to see the path
straightened out.
Mr. DeBlois understood Vice Chairman Adams' concern and pointed out that was
discussed with the advisory group and the general concept was not to make it a full-blown
public beach park, but more of a nature trail access point from an environmental standpoint.
Certainly, it was the Commission's pleasure to determine the concept of how they wanted
the path configured.
Commissioner Ginn suggested a compromise might be achieved, and Commissioner
Stanbridge advised there is an existing meandering trail to the beach and probably some of
the turns could be eliminated.
Commissioner Ginn wondered if any funds were still available from mitigation funds
or tree fine funds and a brief discussion about funding sources followed. Then she cautioned
that this project is getting expensive and wondered about on-going maintenance, our liability,
and crossover walks for AIA.
Mr. DeBlois advised there is already an existing crossover to the south, but there is
no crossover proposed at the present for this project.
Vice Chairman Adams voiced her concern about re -vegetation after the exotics are
removed, and Mr. DeBlois advised that the concept is to encourage growth and supplement
with native planting, that is indigenous plants typical to a maritime hammock, which would
be minimized if removal of the exotics is managed correctly. Mr. DeBlois also spoke briefly
MAY 119 1999
58
to it
of trail enhancements. He did not believe the cost would go too high, the most cost would
be for clearing.
Commissioner Stanbridge inquired whether this would require a consultant or if the
ISTEA enhancements could be handled by Public Works, and Community Development
Director Bob Keating reported that Public Works planned to do all the design work and
manage the construction work because they are now LAP (Local Assistance Program)
certified. She pointed out the study was done by a consultant and the projected prices are
much higher than similar work performed by staff. The Board will be able to control the
actual implementation and cost.
Commissioner Ginn wanted the parking area to be kept natural, and Director Keating
advised they are looking for alternatives to asphalt for the surface treatment of the parking
area. Commissioner Ginn wanted staffto track the costs on this and Director Keating agreed
it would be done.
Chairman Macht commented that this was his committee (Jungle Trail Conservation
Area Advisory Committee) and approval today would cause it to sunset. He thanked the
committee members for their hard work and a great job in refining the consultant's report.
His main point was that the committee should continue in some form and suggested the
Board re-formulate the committee in whatever structure they see fit and bring a
recommendation to the Board for approval. Further he suggested that Commissioner
Stanbridge chair the committee if she would agree.
Commissioner Ginn thought it an excellent suggestion and Commissioner Stanbridge
thought the committee should track all preservation areas and not isolate one area from the
others.
Chairman Macht recommended Commissioner Stanbridge include that in the
committee's tasks.
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
final draft Jungle Trail Conservation Area Management Plan for
transmittal to the State Land Acquisition and Management
Advisory Council (LAMAC) for State approval, and directed
that the final design of the beach route go before the Parks and
Recreation Committee with the caveat that the County reserves
MAY 119 1999
59
BOOK i0o I'o-1Gt
r
BOOK ' pmu
the right to rename the conservation area. The Board also
directed staff to coordinate with JTCA Advisory Croup
members to develop a list of potential names for the property
and report back for the Board to select a name.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY Vice
Chairman Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
reorganization/continuance of the committee, that its purpose be
expanded (as discussed above) for submission to the Board, and
that Commissioner Stanbridge chair the committee.
The Chairman and Commissioners thanked the advisory committee members for a job
well done.
H.C. DISCUSSION CONCERNING TERMINATION OF FOOD
SERVICE CONCESSION LICENSE - TROGDON (ORIGINALLY
BARKER
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 1999:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners 44--(70
FROM: Thomas Frame - Director of General Services
Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: May 10, 1999
SUBJECT: Termination of Food Service Concession License
The current licensee for the food service concession has failed on several
occasions to be open for service during work days. This random closing is
disruptive of employees' and visitors' plans to utilize the facility. This has been
made known to the current licensee but the random closings continue. It is
recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached
resolution which will terminate the license in accordance with the terms of the
license.
TPO/nhm
Attachment
MAY 119 1999
0
0
-I
General Services Director Tom Frame gave a brief history of the caf6 concession
licensees and told of the recent random closings and notices given to the current licensee and
responses received.
Vice Chairman Adams asked Director Frame if he knew the reasons for the random
closings. She pointed out how difficult it is to make money and to hire and pay an employee
with our small caf6 operation. The move out of the Tax Collector's office caused a loss of
public flow as well as internal flow from the employees of that office.
Director Frame responded that he had been advised they were closed due to various
personal reasons but he had no details. He stated that Ms. Trogdon had recently assured him
she would call his office in the future if the caE would not be open, but that has not been
done.
Vice Chairman Adams was concerned about the employees who depend on the caf6
being open. She wanted to be careful about terminating the license without a replacement
because it would hurt our own employees. She thought it was better to fix the current
problem or find a replacement, so it would not be shut down. She did not want to revert back
to having just machines in the caf6 if it can be avoided. She had some alternatives to discuss
with Director Frame and suggested the Commission defer action for at least a week.
Director Frame stated that deferring a decision for a week would not make a
difference.
County Attorney Vitanac reminded the Commissioners that even if they acted today
to terminate the license, there will be a period of time after the notice is provided to find a
replacement or other answer.
There was CONSENSUS to defer the matter to next week.
11.G. BID #9056 - ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT - McCULLY
MARINE SERVICES, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 4, 1999:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E
Public Works Director
FROM: Jeffrey R. Tabar, P.E ,
Coastal Engineer
MAY 119 1999
61
BOOK 109 PAGE k27
BOOK 103 FAGS `7
SUBJECT: AWARD OF BID #9056 - McCully Marine Services
Artificial Reef Project
DATE: May 4, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On March 16, 1999, during the Board of County Commission regular meeting, the Board
approved a $25,000 grant agreement with the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP) for the construction of four (4) artificial reef sites. These reef sites are
located approximately ten miles offshore of Sebastian Inlet.
Bids were received on April 30, 1999 as follows:
Budget $ 25,000
Following the bid opening, staff contacted the Sebastian Inlet Sports Fishing Association
(SISFA) to inquire if any additional funds would be available for the project. SISFA
responded by donating $5,000 to the project bringing the total project budget to $30,000.
The original bid was based on the placement of 2000 tons of material (500 tons/site). Staff
has prepared a Change Orderto the original bid which calls forthe placement of 1300 tons
of material (325 tons/site). The change order reduces the contract cost by $16,100,
resulting in a total revised cost of $29,900.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the bid be awarded to McCully Marine Services. Inc. and approval of
Change Order No.1 to reduce the contract cost by $16,100, resulting in a total revised cost
of $29,900. Funding is from the Beach Restoration Fund 128-144-572, with a contribution
of $5,000 from the Sebastian Inlet Sports Fishing Association.
ATTACHMENT
Bid Tabulation
Contract
Change Order No. 1
Vice Chairman Adams complimented Coastal Engineer Jeffrey R Tabar and Public
Works Director James Davis for their efforts in negotiating this contract.
MAY 119 1999
62
ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously awarded bid
#9056 to McCully Marine Services Inc., for the artificial reef
project and approved Change Order No. 1 to reduce the contract
cost to $29,900 (13 00 tons of material) and accepted the $5,000
contributionfromthe Sebastian Inlet Sports Fishing Association,
as recommended in the Memorandum.
BID DOCUMENTS CAN BE FOUND IN TAE BACKUP FOR TAE M MMG
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE
IN TAE CLERK TO TAE BOARD OFFICE
H.H. PETITION WATER SERVICES - FLORAVON SHORES
(110TH PLACE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 3, 1999:
DATE: MAY 3, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
'• DONALD R. HUBBS,�7
I,_ • C • 1-1I1 .MM J NNi
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST v
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSB89NIENT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FLORAVON SHORES SUBDIVISION PETITION WATER SERVICE
(I le PLACE)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -99 -03 -DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received from the residents of 11 & Place, the V' of two streets in Floravon Shores
Subdivision requesting the County to supply potable water to its residents. A petition for water for
110' Street, the other street in this subdivision resulted in the installation of a County water system,
which was completed with the final assessment, September 1, 1998. We are now coming to the Board
of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin design of the above-mentioned project. (See
attached petition and plat map.)
ANALYSIS
Of the 13 homes on 110` Place (one under construction) 11 home owners have signed the petition
(85% of the homes) for County water due to substandard quality of their well water. Although this
MAY 119 1999
63
BOOK l FAGS 2 -4
represents just 52% of the 21 lots, 8 lots being vacant, staff believes the project should begin to move
forward at this time.
Staff has been encouraged by the petitioner and resident home owners supporting the project to give
greater weight and consideration of the needs of the existing home owners. The typical lot sizes in this
subdivision are 0.30 acre to 0.33 acre with 3 lots greater, these being 0.37 to 0.42 acre, All of lots
being `undersized" as defined in the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan.
According to the Environmental Health Department for Indian River County, this subdivision may not
meet today's standards for construction with wells and septic tanks. This limits the size homes that
may be constructed. Since construction is subject to site placement of wells and septic tanks on
neighboring lots, some of the 8 vacant lots could be determined "unbirildable." Installation of a water
system can help to reduce such a risk for future home construction.
Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan states, `The County's water system shall be expanded to
supply the potable water needs of the eastern half of the County during the period 1986 - 2005."
(Attached are page 4 of the Potable Water Sub -element and page 22 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -
element.) The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. This project is to
be paid through the assessment of property owners along the proposed water line route. In the interim,
financing will be from the Assessment Fund No. 473. In cooperation with the Public Works
Departnient, staff has obtained a right-of-way record drawing that may be utilized for design of this
project. Although some minor survey work will still be required, this will assist in reducing project
design costs. Design services will be provided by the Department ofUtility Services.
RECONM ENDATTON
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the above -listed project and
requests authorization for the Department to proceed with the design engineering work and award a
contract for survey services through the issuance of a purchase order based on the most favorable
quote in preparation for the special assessment project.
JDGc
Attachments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board -unanimously approved the
Floravon Shores Subdivision Petition Water Service and
authorized the Utilities Department to proceed with the design
engineering work and award a contract for survey services
through the issuance of a purchase order based on the most
favorable quote in preparation for the special assessment
project, as recommended in the Memorandum.
MAY 119 1999
64
-I
13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN FRAN ADAMS - COMMENT ON
PERSONAL MATTER
Vice Chairman Adams stated she felt the matter concerning the Sheriff's investigation
about fire hose needed to come to an end and read the following remarks into the record:
At our meeting on April 20, I called attention to an investigation that
had been quietly pursued by Sheriff Gary Wheeler. As Chairman Macht so
aptly said at our last meeting, there seems little doubt but that the Sheriff not
only sought to impugn the integrity of both Ken Macht and Fran Adams but
also to intimidate others. Since the initial disclosure of this rather insidious
activity on the part of the Sheriff, a number of things have happened, some
have been made public and some have not. You have a right to have it all
public.
Following our meeting on April 20 an article appeared the following
day in the Press Journal which included several very pertinent quotes from
Sheriff Wheeler. Thus I now take the opportunity to put the whole matter in
context and record as follows.
My life is an open book an I like it that way. In public office we all
live in a goldfish bowl and that is the way it should be. We are in no way
above the law. In fact we have a responsibility to hold ourselves more
accountable that others. We have to set the example not the exception. So in
light of what has transpired allow me to relate the facts.
On November 3, 1997 I spoke with Ray Borgis who inquired about the
availability and price of surplus fire hoce. I replied that I had never seen fire
hose on our surplus list but that I would inquire of Doug Wright, our
Emergency Services Director. I called Doug Wright, recounted the
conversation, gave Mr. Wright the gentleman's name and telephone number
and asked that he talk to the gentleman for me. I am sure Mr. Wright
responded in his usual professional manner for he has always expeditiously
handled any inquiry, request, or complaint I have sent his way.
So far as Fran Adams is concerned, that ended the matter. Fran Adams
never asked for fire hose, never received any fire hose and certainly has never
had any fire hose in her possession.
However such requests from constituents are commonplace for me. I
get calls about recycle bins, dumping at trash transfer stations, conduct of
county employees, grading roads, paving roads, zoning inquiries, code
complaints, beautification requests, speeding, park inquiries, recreation
program requests, flooding, water and sewer complaints, even I-95 rest stop
inquiries to name a few. There are many who seek assistance in dealing with
the haze and maze of government and as a County Commissioner I am proud
to be of help.
MAY 119 1999
65
BOOK 109 PMH
Approximately nine months ago, about the time of our budget hearings
in 1998, I heard that Sheriff Wheeler had initiated an investigation of the
matter of the fire hose. Sometime later I farther heard that the investigation
by the Sheriff had turned up nothing of substance, but that he had turned the
matter over to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for them to
investigate. No questions were ever asked, nothing ever happened, and I
have smiled often at the thought of the Sheriff searching for a needle that is
not in the haystack. Fran Adams welcomes an investigation because she has
nothing to hide.
After the leak to the press of the investigation and the subsequent call
to me on April 16 by a member of the press inquiring about these events, I
felt it was time to place the matter that there was an investigation in the
record which I did at our Board meeting on April 20.
The article on April 21 in the Press Journal states that the complaint
filed by the Sheriff to FDLE claims that Fran Adams received surplus
property in violation of county rules. That claim is a blatant
misrepresentation of fact: Fran Adams never received fire hose or any other
county surplus property. A simple phone call or interview with any one
supposedly involved would have discovered the truth in less time than a 911
dispatch.
The Sheriff is quoted as saying that he was simply a pass-through for
the investigation. What could be further from the truth? The Sheriff himself
initiated an investigation some nine months ago and after finding nothing of
substance, filed a complaint with the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement. Obviously a political gestapo move by what should be our
most respected law enforcement official.
The Sheriff is further quoted as saying " Adams asked Wright for some
fire hose and when she received it was dissatisfied with the quality and
demanded newer hose". What tree did the Sheriff fall out of? This statement
is such a bald-faced untruth that I cannot. believe the Sheriff would lower
himself to say that in the absence of any substantiating evidence. Fran Adams
never asked for, received, nor has she ever had in her possession any fire
hose, now or ever before or atter.
So here we have the chief law enforcement'officer of the County using
his position and resources seeking to politically and publicly damage those
who may have questioned or disagreed with his decisions. But worse, his
credibility is at stake. He has incriminated innocent people in his quest and
made untruthful statements to support his clandestine efforts. These gestapo
tactics went out of style with Adolph Hitler. A Sheriff without credibility is a
serious concern to everyone of us in Indian River County.
MAY 119 1999
so 0
Then just minutes before our meeting on April 27, I received a packet
from Sheriff Wheeler which purported to be in response to my request for all
information fromIum regarding his investigation. This investigative report
contains statements and allegations credited to Otis Humanes by Police Chief
James Gabbard of Vero Beach, Lt. Phil Williams of the Sheriff's stat% and
Sheriff Wheeler himself.
Now comes Sheriff Wheeler with his letter to the editor of May 5
asking people to come to his office and review the investigative report. He,
of course, is careful not to say that the report is repleat with false information
which started as a rumor at most, investigated only to determine that there
was a rumor and then that rumor was repeated and repeated in the
investigation hoping to give it credibility. The entire report amounts to a very
crafty fabrication.
If other investigations conducted by the Sheriff fall into the same
pattern of distorted fact and false information, we in Indian River County
have a serious problem.
So that no one will have to go to the Sheriffs office to review the
investigative report, I have provided a copy to be left at the front desk that
can be reviewed by anyone and I will personally pay for a copy should
someone want to take it with them.
In addition there is a copy of the statement of Mr. Ray Borgis as to his
involvement.
Finally, I would like to invite Sheriff Wheeler to appear before this
Board so that we can publicly discuss his allegations and investigation. It is
distressing for the public to continually see their public officials feuding and
we need to bring this ridiculous event to an end
Fran:
4/21/99
To the best of my recollection , we met, 18 to 20 month ago, on Mon in the
library While you were having your open section for the public.
On the way out from doing work on the Master Gardener Cart,I saw Fran and
. decided to. -stop in and say HI:
During our conversation 1 ask you if you knew what they did with the old fire
hose Fran replied she didn't know but would check. Ask me the size
and how much I needed, told the 1 % half and 150 ft. A few minutes later I
left.
Several weeks later I received a call from the fire station , saying they have the
hose for me.When can I pick it up. Told them I'm on my way down now.
MAY 119 1999
67
BOOK I .0 D F.�
BOOK
Arriving at the fire station and on my way into the building a young lady met me
and ask if she could help me I told her I was after the fire hose .She said its
outside, and to come with her, and sure enough there it was 3 rolls of 50 each.
Ask if I need help loading it, I told her I can make it.
Ask if there were any charge for this, the reply no charge , the hose is old and its
going to be tossed out anyway.
R,L, BorgisV
NO ACTION REQUMD OR TAKEN.
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 10:40 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved '
MAY 11, 1999
68
It 0