HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/22/1999MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
TUESDAY, JUNE 22,1999 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Kenneth R Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn, (District 5)
Ruth Stanbridge (District 2
John W. Tippin, (District 4)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP
PAGES
2. INVOCATION -
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Caroline D. Ginn
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EM[ERGENCY ITEMS
138. Vice Chairman Adams - Shared Title Update
DELETION:
98.2. Request by Francis R Coffey to comment on the Beach Preservation Plan
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of May 18, 1999
B. Regular Meeting of May 25, 1999
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to
the Board: 1) Fellsmere Water Control District
Annual Budget for FY 99-00, 2) Fellsmere Water
Control District Current Map
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated June 10, 1999)
C. Laurel Homes, Inc.'s Request for Final Plat
Approval for Laurel Springs Planned Development
(memorandum dated June 15, 1999)
D. Temporary Sewer Service Agreement - IRC and
Gerald Arsenault & Arleen Arsenault
(memorandum dated June 14, 1999)
E. Temporary Sewer Service Agreement - IRC and
Richard S. Pino
(memorandum dated June 14, 1999)
1-8
9-13
14-19
20-25
Boa AO i1,,UE M
BOOK iW FAGE5153
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): BACKUP
F. Appointment of Robert J. Leshe to Beach and PAGES
Shore Preservation Advisory Committee
(letter dated June 14, 1999) 26
G. Acceptance of Resignation of B.T. Cooksey from
Emergency Services District Advisory Comm.
(letter dated June 9, 1999) 27
H. Settlement of the Turner vs. Drackett vs. IRC
Lawsuit
(memorandum dated June 14, 1999) 28-37
I. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated June 11, 1999) 38-39
J. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #019
(memorandum dated June 16, 1999) 40-41
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Sebastian Water Expansion Phase 11-C
Resolution III
(memorandum dated June 11, 1999) 42-54
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
CHAPTER 201, WATER AND SEWER
SERVICES, OF THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY CODE
(memorandum dated June 7, 1999) 55-73
3. Request for Authorization for the Community
Development Director to Make Application
for a Community Development Block Grant
in the Neighborhood Revitalization Category
(memorandum dated June 15, 1999) 74-101
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Appeal by Home & Patio, Inc. of a Board of
Adjustments Denial of a Request for a 10.6'
Frontyard Variance and a Variance from the
CG Zoning District Maximum Building Coverage
Requirement for Proposed Building Enclosures at
1396 US 1
(memorandum dated June 15, 1999) 102-144
2. Request by Francis M. Coffey to Comment on
the Beach Preservation Project
(letter dated June 16, 1999) 145
•
BACKUP
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): PAGES
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
The following public hearings are being scheduled
for the July 6, 1999 BCC Meeting:
1. Christ Presbyterian Church's Request for
Conceptual Plan & Special Exception Use
Approval for a Place of Worship Located on
the North Side of CR 510 Approximately
Halfway Between US#1 and the Wabasso
Causeway (Quasi -Judicial)
2. Christ Presbyterian Church's Request for
Right -of -Way Abandonment to Abandon a
Portion of "Excess" 87'' St. (Bridge Blvd.)
Right -of -Way, Between US#1 and CR 510
(Legislative)
(memorandum dated June 14, 1999) 146
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Develoument
None
B. Emergency Services
None
C. General Services
1. Automation Agreements for Upgraded
Software, Equipment and Training
(memorandum dated June 14, 1999) 147-159
2. Rental Charges at Main Library for the
Friends of the Library
(memorandum dated June 16, 1999) 160-163
D. Leisure Services
None
E. Office of Management and Budget
Optional Sales Tax - Third Five Years
(memorandum dated June 16, 1999) 164167
F. Personnel
None
G. Public Works
1. CR512 Right -of -Way Acquisition -
John A. King Parcel
(memorandum dated June 10, 1999) 168-170
2. Final Payment for Contract #9056
McCully Marine Services, Inc.
Artificial Reef Project
(memorandum dated June 10, 1999) 171-177
3. 44" Ave. & 19" St. Drainage Retention Site
43' Ave. Improvements / 8" St. to 26'h St
County Project No. 9601 / Parcel No. 126W,
Ethel L. Mathis
(memorandum dated May 27,1999) 178-182
BOOK i s PAHE Q J
o
BOOK i0j PAGE eye
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.); BACKUP
G. Public Works (cont'd.): PAGES
4. IRC Agricultural Arena/Exhibit Building
Design/Build Contract with Barth Construction,
Inc. -Part 11 Agreement
(memorandum dated June 11, 1999) 183-197
5. Right -of -Way Acquisition / 81' Street
HSG Properties
(memorandum dated June 15, 1999) 198-206
H. Utilities
1. Developer's Agreement for Welton Convenience
Store - Water Main Construction
(memorandum dated June 11, 1999) 207-213
2. Revised Interlocal Agreement Between the City
of Fellsmere and Indian River County for the
Provision of Wastewater Transmission and Treat-
ment Services
(memorandum dated June 9, 1999) 214-224
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 Stanbridee
E. Commissioner John W. TipjLm
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
•
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS (cont'd
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
Request for Proposals #9040 - Closed
Landfill Investigations
(memorandum dated June 10, 1999)
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
BACKUP
PAGES
225-242
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
BOOK 9 FAHE 55
a
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF JUNE 229 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.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 18, 1999 .......................... 2
6.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 25, 1999 .......................... 2
7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 2
7.A. ........................................................ 2
7.B. Approval of Warrants ....................................... 2
7.C. Laurel Springs Planned Development - Final Plat Approval Requested by
Laurel Homes, Inc . ......................................... 9
7.D. Temporary Sewer Service Agreement - Gerald & Arlene Arsenault .... 11
7.E. Temporary Sewer Service Agreement - Richard S. Pino ............ 12
7.F. Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee - Appointment of
Robert J. Lesh6 (Town of Indian River Shores) ................... 13
7.G. Accept Resignation of B. T. Cooksey from Emergency Services District
Advisory Committee ....................................... 14
7.H. Settlement of the Turner vs. Drakett vs. Indian River County Lawsuit (Set
Back Variance Granted) ..................................... 15
7.I. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs ..................... 16
7.J. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #019 ........................ 17
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION 99-057 - SEBASTIAN WATER
EXPANSION PHASE II -C (RESOLUTION M) ........................ 20
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 99-058 - RATES, FEES, AND
CHARGES FOR UTILITY SERVICES; ORDINANCE 99-016 AMENDING
WATER AND SEWER SERVICES CODE - HARTMAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
............................................................. 25
1
BOOK JO a PAGE ��
r �
BOOK 109 FADE eyu
9.A.3. PUBLIC DARING - RESOLUTION NO. 99-059 - COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) - NEIGHBORHOOD
REVITALIZATION CATEGORY - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR AUTHORIZED TO MAKE APPLICATION - POTABLE WATER
AND SANITARY SEWER PROJECTS FOR FOUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN
WABASSO AREA - (OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION PAVING AND DRAINAGE
PROJECT REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION) .................... 45
9.13.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - APPEAL BY HOME & PATIO, INC. OF A
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR A 10.6' FRONT
YARD VARIANCE AND A VARIANCE FROM THE CG ZONING DISTRICT
MAXIMUM BUILDING COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR PROPOSED
BUILDING ENCLOSURES AT 1396 US 1(quasi judicial) ............... 52
9.13.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - FRANCIS M. COFFEY COMMENT ON
BEACH PRESERVATION PROJECT ............................... 60
9.C.1.& 2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR
JULY 6, 1999: CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH -1) REQUEST
FOR CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE
APPROVAL AND 2) REQUEST FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY
ABANDONMENT ........................................ 60
11.C.1. LIBRARY AUTOMATION SYSTEM - PURCHASE FROM GEAC
COMPUTERS, INC. - (COMPUTER HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE
UPGRADE NECESSARY FOR Y2K COMPLIANCE) ............. 62
11.C.2. MAIN LIBRARY GIFT SHOP RENTAL CHARGES - FRIENDS OF THE
LIBRARY ............................................... 64
11.E. OPTIONAL SALES TAX - THIRD FIVE YEARS ................ 65
11.G.1. COUNTY ROAD 512 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - JOHN A.
KING PARCEL ........................................... 68
11.G.2. ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT - McCULLY MARINE SERVICES, INC. -
FINAL PAYMENT FOR CONTRACT #9056 .................... 69
11.G.3. 44TH AVENUE AND 19TH STREET DRAINAGE RETENTION SITE -
43RD AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS (8TH TO 26TH STREETS) -
PARCEL NO. 126W - ETHEL L. MATHIS - COUNTY PROJECT NO.
9601 ................................................... 70
11.G.4. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS AGRICULTURAL
ARENA/EXHIBIT BUILDING - DESIGN/BUILD CONTRACT - BARTH
CONSTRUCTION, INC. - PART II AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT #1 -
FINAL DESIGN, PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION .......... 72
11.G.5. 8TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND COUNTY DEED
FOR 250 SQUARE FEET - HSG PROPERTIES .................. 74
2
go
11.H.1. WELTON CONVENIENCE STORE - LONE CABBAGE TRADING
COMPANY - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - WATER MAIN
CONSTRUCTION - US 1 AND 53RD STREET .................. 75
11.H.2. REVISED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF FELLSMERE -
WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT SERVICES . 76
13.13. VICE CHAIRMAN ADAMS - SHARED TITLE UPDATE -
CONFERENCE IN ORLANDO .............................. 78
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ........................ 79
DOCUMENTS MADE PART OF THE RECORD .......................... 79
1) NOTICE THAT CITY OF FELLSMERE INTENDS TO HOLD A PUBLIC
HEARING ON ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 27 ACRES ................................... 79
2) DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND
LARRY DREW (DEVELOPER) FOR INITIAL OR FINAL CONCURRENCE
REVIEW WHEN WATER/WASTEWATER PLANT CAPACITY AND/OR
DISTRIBUTION/COLLECTION FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE
(ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED) .............................. 79
3
sy
BOOK (.� FAGE btu
6
June 22, 1999
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, June 22, 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, County Attorney; and Patricia
Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.
2. INVOCATION
Commissioner Ginn delivered the invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Ginn led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Vice Chairman Adams requested the addition of U.B. concerning Shared Title of
Environmental Lands.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that W Coffeyhadrequested that 9.B.2. be deleted
from the agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
addition of item 13.B. and deletion of item 9.B.2.
JUNE 22t 1999
1
BOOK JW
PAGE jOf--'
BOOK i6J %AGE
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 18, 1999
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 18, 1999. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Boardunanimouslyapproved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 18, 1999, as written and
distributed.
6.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 25, 1999
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 25, 1999. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 25, 1999, as written and
distributed.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. Reports
Received and place on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
1. Fellsmere Water Control District Annual Budget for FY 99-00
2. Fellsmere Water Control District Current Map
7.B. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 10, 1999:
JUNE 229 1999
2
It 9
TO:
DATE:
HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JUNE 10,1999
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of
County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of wan -ants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for
the time period of June 8 to June 10, 1999.
Attachment:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously approved this list
of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period June
8-10, 1999, as requested.
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0020006
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
1999-06-08
944.26
0020007
FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
1999-06-08
331,107.50
0020008
KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
1999-06-09
138.50
0020009
BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF THE
1999-06-09
963.04
0020010
ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF THE
1999-06-09
135.20
0020011
ST LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF TBE
1999-06-09
724.98
0020012
VELASQUEZ, MERIDA
1999-06-09
200.00
0020013
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK OF
1999-06-09
3,376.47
0020014
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
1999-06-09
650.00
0020015
CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE
1999-06-09
75.00
0020016
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC.
1999-06-09
1,992.00
0020017
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
1999-06-09
84,650.25
0020018
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
1999-06-09
257.69
0020019
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
1999-06-09
189.52
0020020
NACO/SOUTHEAST
1999-06-09
5,935.72
0020021
SALEM TRUST COMPANY
1999-06-09
675.76
0020022
OKEECHOBEE CO., PMTS DOMES REL
1999-06-09
167.25
0020023
WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS
1999-06-09
23.08
0263794
ACTION PRINTERS _
1999-06-10
104.28
0263795
ACTION TRANSMISSION AND
1999-06-10
169.90
0263796
ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC
1999-06-10
97.10
0263797
AIRBORNE EXPRESS
1999-06-10
25.00
0263798
AMERICAN BUSINESS INTERIORS
1999-06-10
341.36
0263799
APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
1999-06-10
2,536.23
0263800
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
1999-06-10
2,699.25
0263801
ACTION DIESEL INJECTION
1999-06-10
399.03
0263802
AMERICAN AIR FILTER INT'L
1999-06-10
223.92
JUNE 229 1999
3
BOOK U� PAGE U04
r
BOOK J09 PAGE565
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0263803
A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES
1999-06-10
353.68
0263804
A T & T
1999-06-10
102.60
0263805
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
1999-06-10
5,455.81
0263806
AMERICAN REPORTING
1999-06-10
22.00
0263807
ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP
1999-06-10
14,916.08
0263808
A T & T
1999-06-10
64.00
0263809
AMERITREND HOMES
1999-06-10
500.00
0263810
ARCADIA PUBLISHING
1999-06-10
57.93
0263811
AQUA -MARINE SERVICES _
1999-06-10
1,500.00
0263812
ACCENT INSURANCE RECOVERY
1999-06-10
205.60
0263813
BARER DISTRIBUTING CO
1999-06-10
141.47
0263814
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
1999-06-10
3,042.50
0263815
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1999-06-10
4,704.49
0263816
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
1999-06-10
9.00
0263817
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
1999-06-10
170.40
0263818
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PHD
1999-06-10
500.00
0263819
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
1999-06-10
37,042.19
0263820
BERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC
1999-06-10
980.70
0263821
BARTON, JEFFREY K
1999-06-10
5,000.00
0263822
BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-06-10
630.00
0263823
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
1999-06-10
1,988.33
0263824
BRANDTS & FLETCHERS APPLIANCE
1999-06-10
113.95
0263825
BLAIS ELECTRIC, INC
1999-06-10
68.50
0263826
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
1999-06-10
200.00
0263827
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
1999-06-10
71.74
0263828
BROWN, SABRINA
1999-06-10
6.00
0263829
BASS-CARLTON SOD INC
1999-06-10
50.00
0263830
SENNETT, VERONICA
1999-06-10
13.00
0263831
BELLSOUTH
1999-06-10
685.47
0263832
CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY
1999-06-10
920.82
0263833
CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC
1999-06-10
17,000.00
0263834
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
1999-06-10
5,417.77
0263835
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
1999-06-10
850.72
0263836
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
1999-06-10
528.50
0263837
CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO
1999-06-10
500.00
0263838
COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING
1999-06-10
7,880.55
0263839
COPELAND, LINDA
1999-06-10
451.50
0263840
CLARKE, DOROTHEA
1999-06-10
23.49
0263841
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
1999-06-10
103.73
0263842
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
1999-06-10
55.75
0263843
CARTER, CYNTHIA L
1999-06-10
59.65
0263844
CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC
1999-06-10
334.17
0263845
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND _
1999-06-10
175.00
0263846
COPYCO, INC
1999-06-10
34.17
0263847
CARTER, KELLY
1999-06-10
144.20
0263848
CRIMES COMPENSATION TRUST
1999-06-10
150.00
0263849
CRESCENT RESEARCH SERVICE, INC
1999-06-10
2,000.00
0263850
CHEMICAL SERVICES CO
1999-06-10
6,000.00
0263851
CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING &
1999-06-10
417.17
0263852
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
1999-06-10
724.00
0263853
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
1999-06-10
341.78
0263854
DEEP SI% DIVE SHOP, INC
1999-06-10
181.59
0263855
DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
1999-06-10
469.27
0263856
DIVE RESCUE INT'L, INC
1999-06-10
1,293.52
0263857
DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE
1999-06-10
205.00
0263858
FLORIDA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
1999-06-10
125.00
0263859
DURO-TEST CORP
1999-06-10
1,147.20
0263860
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
1999-06-10
154.60
0263861
DILLARD, CASSIE
1999-06-10
16.73
0263862
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC _
1999-06-10
150.50
0263863
EVANS, FLOYD
1999-06-10
12.50
JUNE 229 1999
4
qp 0
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0263864
FINNEY, DONALD G
1999-06-10
18.56
0263865
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
1999-06-10
30,390.00
0263866
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
1999-06-10
1,077.35
0263867
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
1999-06-10
15,471.87
0263868
FLORIDA SLUDGE, INC
1999-06-10
2,749.50
0263869
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
1999-06-10
104.24
0263870
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
1999-06-10
11101.00
0263871
FERGUSON PUBLISHING CO
1999-06-10
460.05
0263872
FLINN, SHEILA I
1999-06-10
430.50
0263873
FIREFIGHTERS BOOKSTORE
1999-06-10
54.75
0263874
FLORIDA DEPT OF COMMUNITY
1999-06-10
5,000.00
0263875
FLORIDAFFINITY, INC
1999-06-10
5,440.00
0263876
FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER
1999-06-10
19.31
0263877
FATHER & SON CARPET CLEANING
1999-06-10
743.00
0263878
FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE
1999-06-10
132.00
0263879
FACTS ON FILE INC
1999-06-10
300.871
0263880
FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE
1999-06-10
856.00
0263881
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
1999-06-10
24.73
0263882
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-06-10
57.32
0263883
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
1999-06-10
153.60
0263884
GARD DISTRIBUTING CO
1999-06-10
630.00
0263885
GRAPHIC DESIGNS INTERNATIONAL
1999-06-10
468.00
0263886
GINN, CAROLINE D
1999-06-10
28.07
0263887
GOLLNICK, PEGGY
1999-06-10
297.50
0263888
GULYAS, CALVIN
1999-06-10
500.00
0263889
HELSETH MACHINE AND MARINE
1999-06-10
120.70
0263890
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
1999-06-10
549.34
0263891
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
1999-06-10
140.00
0263892
HARRISON, JAMES
1999-06-10
500.00
0263893
HAMMOND & SMITH, PA
1999-06-10
950.00
0263894
HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC
1999-06-10
3,421.50
0263895
HARTSFIELD, CELESTE L
1999-06-10
301.00
0263896
HOMETOWN PET CARE CENTER _
1999-06-10
8.50
0263897
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
1999-06-10
500.00
0263898
HINTON'S CARPET CLEANING
1999-06-10
682.00
0263899
HASENAUER, KRIS
1999-06-10
18.00
0263900
HOLLOMAN III, WILLIE JAMES
1999-06-10
46.35
0263901
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID
1999-06-10
186.50
0263902
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1999-06-10
75.00
0263903
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
1999-06-10
782.95
0263904
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
1999-06-10
345.98
0263905
ISIS PUBLISHING
1999-06-10
13.50
0263906
IRVINE MECHANICAL, INC
1999-06-10
583.17
0263907
I P T HARRINGTON
1999-06-10
580.16
0263908
INDIAN RIVER SHORES POLICE
1999-06-10
50.00
0263909
INDIAN RIVER CREMATIONS INC
1999-06-10
300.00
0263910
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
1999-06-10
903.00
0263911
INTERIM COURT REPORTING
1999-06-10
25.00
0263912
IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT
1999-06-10
108.19
0263913
JACKSON ELECTRONICS _
1999-06-10
12.99
0263914
JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC
1999-06-10
304.90
0263915
JAX NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
1999-06-10
10.80
0263916
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
1999-06-10
957.00
0263917
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
1999-06-10
32.42
0263918
KELLY TRACTOR CO
1999-06-10
1,096.91
0263919
KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT
1999-06-10
90.86
0263920
K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
1999-06-10
277.00
0263921
KIPP, BILLY C
1999-06-10
33.47
0263922
K -MART $7294
1999-06-10
197.19
JUNE 229 1999
F
BOOK
Fp- I
BOOK �� FAGE 50
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0263923
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE
1999-06-10
9,427.09
0263924
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1999-06-10
1,392.73
0263925
LEWIS, RUTH A
1999-06-10
37.78
0263926
L B SMITH, INC
1999-06-10
3,219.75
0263927
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
1999-06-10
2,196.05
0263928
LITMAN, GARY W PH.D
1999-06-10
4,000.00
0263929
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES
1999-06-10
31.80
0263930
LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC
1999-06-10
123.93
0263931
LONA, JORGE
1999-06-10
20.60
0263932
LAKE SHORE PETROCORP
1999-06-10
500.00
0263933
LESLIE, JOSEPH
1999-06-10
1,998.17
0263934
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
1999-06-10
216.00
0263935
_MCCOLLUM, NATHAN
1999-06-10
51.44
0263936
MICKLER'S FLORIDIANA, INC
1999-06-10
154.97
0263937
MICROFORMS MANAGEMENT CORP
1999-06-10
47.00
0263938
MOSS, KATHY
1999-06-10
600.00
0263939
MUMFORD LIBRARY BOOKS, INC
1999-06-10
841.91
0263940
MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT CO
1999-06-10
2,140.00
0263941
MARTINS LAMAR UNIFORMS
1999-06-10
1,837.63
0263942
MORA, RALPH PHD
1999-06-10
500.00
0263943
MCLEOD, PETER H
1999-06-10
61.50
0263944
MIAMI ELEVATOR COMPANY
1999-06-10
1,958.00
0263945
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
1999-06-10
114.35
0263946
MEREDITH CORP, BOOK GROUP
1999-06-10
17.48
0263947
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET _
1999-06-10
671.80
0263948
MAIN STREET HARDWARE, INC
1999-06-10
69.93
0263949
MARC INDUSTRIES
1999-06-10
625.67
0263950
MELCHIORI, NICK
1999-06-10
139.05
0263951
MAS, OGLA
1999-06-10
50.00
0263952
MARSHALL ALEXANDER'S SIGN ARTS
1999-06-10
139.73
0263953
MITCHELL TRAINING, INC
1999-06-10
1,200.00
0263954
MEZZINA, SYLVIA M
1999-06-10
6.00
0263955
MILLBROOK PRESS, INC
1999-06-10
578.76
0263956
NEW READERS PRESS
1999-06-10
361.88
0263957
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC
1999-06-10
30.47
0263958
NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC VIDEO
1999-06-10
23.70
0263959
NATIONAL REGISTER PUBLISHING
1999-06-10
246.18
0263960
NAPIER, WILLIAM MATT
1999-06-10
23.78
0263961
NATIONAL DATA CORPORATION
1999-06-10
50.00
0263962
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
1999-06-10
2,240.44
0263963
ON IT'S WAY
1999-06-10
147.10
0263964
OFFICE DEPOT, INC _
1999-06-10
646.75
0263965
ORLANDO, KAREN M
1999-06-10
217.00
0263966
PARKS RENTAL INC
1999-06-10
1,142.36
0263967
PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC
1999-06-10
173.84
0263968
PEPSI -COLA COMPANY
1999-06-10
172.00
0263969
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
1999-06-10
125.17
0263970
PHILLIPS, LINDA R
1999-06-10
511.00
0263971
PUBLIC DEFENDER
1999-06-10
50.00
0263972
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
1999-06-10
500.00
0263973
PETTY CASH
1999-06-10
27.00
0263974
PINKERTON, DOREEN A
1999-06-10
82.97
0263975
PORT PETROLEUM, INC
1999-06-10
260.23
0263976
PRESS JOURNAL
1999-06-10
51.00
0263977
PEREZ, GEORGE
1999-06-10
51.50
0263978
PAK-MAIL
1999-06-10
19.05
0263979
PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC
1999-06-10
4,313.00
JUNE 229 1999
Cl
40 0
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0263980
PAGENET OF FLORIDA
1999-06-10
122.01
0263981
PANGBURN, TERRI
1999-06-10
24.00
0263982
PRESS JOURNAL - SUBSCRIPTION
1999-06-10
117.00
0263983
PRESS JOURNAWSTUART NEWS
1999-06-10
144.20
0263984
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
1999-06-10
233.15
0263985
POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES
1999-06-10
324.15
0263986
PRESCITI, VICTOR J
1999-06-10
5.00
0263987
POSTMASTER
1999-06-10
514.65
0263988
PARKER, DEBBIE
1999-06-10
20.60
0263989
PAYNE, JAMES
1999-06-10
92.70
0263990
PROSPER, JANET C
1999-06-10
161.00
0263991
PRIMA PIZZA
1999-06-10
60.00
0263992
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE
1999-06-10
252.00
0263993
RADIOSHACK
1999-06-10
229.89
0263994
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
1999-06-10
325.12
0263995
ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC
1999-06-10
69.60
0263996
RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND, INC
1999-06-10
116,723.61
0263997
R & G SOD FARMS
1999-06-10
160.00
0263998
ROYAL CUP COFFEE _
1999-06-10
42.75
0263999
RASMUSSEN, ASHLEIGH
1999-06-10
123.60
0264000
REDSTONE, PAUL C AND JOYCE C
1999-06-10
7,872.00
0264001
SAFETY KLEEN CORP
1999-06-10
177.90
0264002
SCOTTY'S, INC
1999-06-10
76.92
0264003
SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC
1999-06-10
216.32
0264004
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
1999-06-10
256.20
0264005
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
1999-06-10
726.60
0264006
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
1999-06-10
180.96
0264007
ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC
1999-06-10
2,919.51
0264008
SIMON & SCHUSTER
1999-06-10
531.42
0264009
STEWART TITLE OF INDIAN RIVER
1999-06-10
10,000.00
0264010
SUBWAY STAMP SHOP INC
1999-06-10
31.68
0264011
SEBASTIAN ANIMAL HOSPITAL
1999-06-10
15.00
0264012
SAFETY EQUIP COMPANY
1999-06-10
397.35
0264013
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
1999-06-10
4,856.49
0264014
SALEM PRESS, INC
1999-06-10
350.00
0264015
SOLINET _
1999-06-10
516.81
0264016
STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC
1999-06-10
9,805.10
0264017
SIMPSON, JAMES E
1999-06-10
500.00
0264018
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
1999-06-10
4,681.67
0264019
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
1999-06-10
25.00
0264020
SOUTHERN LOCK AND SUPPLY CO
1999-06-10
73.64
0264021
SKALA, ERIC
1999-06-10
20.60
0264022
SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF
1999-06-10
980.00
0264023
SUNSHINE STATE ONE CALL
1999-06-10
543.74
0264024
STAGE & SCREEN
1999-06-10
124.23
0264025
SHIELDS, VANESSA
1999-06-10
18.02
0264026
SCHWEY, PAUL MATTHEW
1999-06-10
56.00
0264027
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM
1999-06-10
446.22
0264028
SELLECK, ROGER
1999-06-10
5.00
0264029
STEWART, SARAH LYNN
1999-06-10
19.31
0264030
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
1999-06-10
1,750.07
0264031
TREASURE COAST REFUSE
1999-06-10
304.78
0264032
T-SHIRT FACTORY
1999-06-10
209.50
0264033
THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP, INC
1999-06-10
254.00
0264034
TRUGREEN CFE,AWN
1999-06-10
655.00
0264035
T C BILLING CORPORATION
1999-06-10
10,722.08
0264036
TRAFFIC MONITORING
1999-06-10
405.00
0264037
T A P SOD
1999-06-10
3,190.68
0264038
VELDE FORD, INC
1999-06-10
49.58
0264039
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-06-10
8,522.12
JUNE 229 1999
7
BOOK 109 FAGUE e5H
BOOK 109 PAGE 569
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0264040
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
1999-06-10
221.68
0264041
VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS
1999-06-10
186.30
0264042
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
1999-06-10
253.20
0264043
VERO MARINE CENTER, INC
1999-06-10
36.00
0264044
VIDEO PALACE
1999-06-10
1,050.00
0264045
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
1999-06-10
100.00
0264046
VERO BEARING & BOLT
1999-06-10
59.47
0264047
VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER
1999-06-10
100.00
0264048
VERO VACUUM
1999-06-10
19.95
0264049
VERO COLLISION _
1999-06-10
228.00
0264050
WAL-MART STORES, INC
1999-06-10
636.98
0264051
WALSH, LYNN
1999-06-10
40.60
0264052
WGYL-FM 93.7 FM
1999-06-10
420.00
0264053
WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY
1999-06-10
17.92
0264054
W W GRAINGER, INC
1999-06-10
2,375.00
0264055
WAL-MART STORES, INC
1999-06-10
26.96
0264056
WIGINTON FIRE SPRINKLERS,INC
1999-06-10
1,400.00
0264057
WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC
1999-06-10
220.00
0264058
WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
1999-06-10
141.49
0264059
WOSN-FM RADIO STATION
1999-06-10
304.85
0264060
WILSON, SUSAN BARNES
1999-06-10
185.40
0264061
WILLIAMSON, LESLIE K
1999-06-10
388.50
0264062
WINTER, JOHN
1999-06-10
24.65
0264063
WYNN, DIANE
1999-06-10
10.00
0264064
XEROX CORPORATION
1999-06-10
2,310.79
0264065
ZIMMERMANN, KARL
1999-06-10
203.40
0264066
MILLER, JOSEPH _
1999-06-10
601.92
0264067
AULICK, THOMAS & ANITA
1999-06-10
54.21
0264068
TORY, DONALD RAY & PLINIE
1999-06-10
36.23
0264069
INMAN, JOHN E
1999-06-10
52.51
0264070
GIFFORDS GROVES LTD
1999-06-10
93.68
0264071
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO INC
1999-06-10
11.87
0264072
PIZZA HUT INC
1999-06-10
689.42
0264073
WALKER, LESLIE
1999-06-10
5.84
0264074
EDISON STORES #170
1999-06-10
30.73
0264075
BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA INC
1999-06-10
91.57
0264076
SANDY PINES LTD
1999-06-10
81.19
0264077
CYPRESS GREEN APTS.
1999-06-10
9.77
0264078
TIMBER RIDGE INC
1999-06-10
74.82
0264079
BRANDON CAPITAL CORP
1999-06-10
72.38
0264080
BETHEL, LEROY & REBECCA
1999-06-10
9.76
0264081
GREGG, JOHN A
1999-06-10
101.20
0264082
TUROFFM LILLIAN F
1999-06-10
18.01
0264083
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO, INC
1999-06-10
243.67
0264084
MELLOR, ELLSWORTH P
1999-06-10
27.85
0264085
BEKEMEIER, MARK
1999-06-10
97.63
0264086
GOMEZ, FERNANDO
1999-06-10
16.71
0264087
SALERNO, MICHAEL
1999-06-10
84.53
0264088
HAAS, ROBERT E
1999-06-10
34.13
0264089
LEWIS, LINDA J
1999-06-10
38.65
0264090
FLORIDA LABELS & SYSTEM
1999-06-10
50.00
0264091
PIERRE, MONESE
1999-06-10
71.39
0264092
LOZADA, FREDDA
1999-06-10
40.72
0264093
STEIL, DEBORAH
1999-06-10
37.25
0264094
TOZZOLO BROTHERS CONST CO INC
1999-06-10
18.04
0264095
M G B CONSTRUCTION INC
1999-06-10
69.97
0264096
OLIVER, CHRISTINE T
1999-06-10
29.75
0264097
PREUSS, ADAM
1999-06-10
5.99
0264098
ROWAN, JAMES F
1999-06-10
66.74
0264099
FALCETTA, JEFFREY L
1999-06-10
15.66
0264100
ST LUCIE DEVELOPMENT CORP
1999-06-10
36.98
JUNE 2291999
8
•
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0264101
PAYNE JR, ROBERT
1999-06-10
19.70
0264102
DELANO, FRANCIS A
1999-06-10
41.80
0264103
BRODEN JR, RICHARD W
1999-06-10
52.12
0264104
ENGLISH, JOHN L
1999-06-10
35.62
0264105
KELLY, ROBERT J
1999-06-10
57.54
0264106
MUIR, SHIRLEY
1999-06-10
16.21
0264107
LIEBERMAN, STEVEN E
1999-06-10
26.24
0264108
HOLLAND, SANDRA
1999-06-10
28.06
0264109
CARLEY, MORRIS G
1999-06-10
90.35
0264110
CAVOSSA, CARL
1999-06-10
12.75
0264111
DILLON, KARIN E
1999-06-10
22.93
0264112
CANNONE, JODY K
1999-06-10
28.81
0264113
WELLINGTON HOMES
1999-06-10
32.56
0264114
BROWN, CLARENCE H
1999-06-10
74.53
0264115
PRICE, ALETHEA
1999-06-10
28.98
0264116
WHEELER, ANTHONY
1999-06-10
103.46
0264117
AMERITREND HOMES
_ 1999-06-10
49.90
0264118
LUCIAN, MICHAEL L
1999-06-10
102.86
0264119
ELLIS, DENNIS R
1999-06-10
23.34
0264120
ANTONELLIS, MARILYN
1999-06-10
76.47
0264121
BRINK, MICHAEL H
1999-06-10
50.87
0264122
DE MILT, DONNA J
1999-06-10
72.19
0264123
PUTNAM, DAVID
1999-06-10
63.17
0264124
LUKE, SUSAN
1999-06-10
59.02
0264125
ROBINSON, BRIAN & SHIRLEY
1999-06-10
69.62
0264126
CLARK, LARRY
1999-06-10
20.88
0264127
BLOCK, AUGUSTA
1999-06-10
43.65
0264128
FRAZIER JR, VANN
1999-06-10
52.53
0264129
KRUGER, STEPHEN
1999-06-10
105.18
0264130
SPIKES, VERGIE
1999-06-10
23.90
900,113.37
7. C. Laurel Springs Planned Development - Final Plat Approval
Requested by Laurel Homes: Inc.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 15, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
t
Robert M. Keating, AIPP
Community Development Dir or
-4.6.
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: June 15, 1999
SUBJECT: Laurel Homes, Inc.'s Request for Final Plat Approval for Laurel Springs
Planned Development
JUNE 229 1999
0
BOOK 10 1j- FADE 5'70 0
BOOK 109 FACE 571
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 22, 1999.
Laurel Springs is a 19.54 acre 6 lot single-family planned development (PD) approved through the
special exception and preliminary PD plan/plat process. The project site is located on the south side
of 8' Street immediately west of the Pine Tree Park subdivision. The final plat will establish 6
single-family lots, a stormwater tract to cover the site's existing 13.4 acre lake, and easements for
drainage, utilities, access, and conservation purposes.
At its regular meeting of September 1, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners granted PD special
exception approval for this proj ect with conditions. Subsequently, the applicant obtained preliminary
PD plan/plat approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant has also obtained
a Land Development Permit and has constructed required improvements. The developer is now
requesting final PD plan/plat approval with a condition that either the project's required agricultural
buffer (west side of Lot 6) be bonded -out and installed or the developer obtain a "no -spray" easement
over the existing citrus grove adjacent to Lot 6. Such an option for addressing the Lot 6/citrus grove
interface was approved by the Board of County Commissioners as part of its 1998 action. The
proposed plat accommodates either option.
The owner, Laurel Homes, Inc., through its agent Carter Associates, Inc., is now requesting final PD
plan/plat approval and has submitted a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PD
plan/plat.
ANALYSIS:
Most of the required improvements have been completed as of the date of this report. Staff
anticipates that final inspections and a certificate of completion will be forthcoming prior to the
Board of County Commissioner's meeting. Final plat approval can be granted as long as a condition
is also approved that requires the applicant to obtain a Certificate of Completion prior to recording
the final plat.
As previously described, the developer has an option to either provide an agricultural buffer along
the west boundary of Lot 6 or obtain a "no -spray" easement across the citrus grove that is adjacent
to the western boundary of Lot 6. The developer has indicated that she will probably choose to
bond -out for and construct the buffer. Final plat approval is being requested, and may be granted,
subject to a condition that prior to recording the final plat, the developer shall either bond -out to
construct the agricultural buffer or shall obtain the "no -spray" easement. If the construction/bond-out
option is pursued then the buffer will need to be installed within 1 year or prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for a residence on Lot 6, whichever occurs first.
Subject to the conditions referenced above, all applicable requirements regarding final plat approval
have been satisfied After the developer obtains a Certificate of Completion, she will warranty the
utilities improvements via a Utility Services Department Bill of Sale. Since no other improvements
are being dedicated to the public, no other warranties will be required
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for Laurel Springs PD, authorize staffto enter into any necessary construction contracts
and authorize staff to accept security to guarantee any such contract, with the following conditions:
JUNE 229 1999
10
0 •
1. Prior to recording of the approved final plat, the developer shall:
a. Obtain a Certificate of Completion, and
b. Obtain a "no -spray" easement over citrus grove property adjacent to the
western boundary of Lot 6 or enter into a contract with the county and
guarantee construction df an agricultural buffer along the western boundary
of Lot 6. Any required agricultural buffer shall be installed within 1 year
from the date of final plat approval or prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for a residence on Lot 6, whichever occurs first.
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plat
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for Laurel Springs Planned Development; authorized
staff to enter into any necessary construction contracts; and
authorized staff to accept security to guarantee any such
contract, with conditions as set out above, as recommended in
the memorandum.
ZA Temporary Sewer Service Agreement - Gerald & Arlene
Arsenault
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 14, 1999:
DATE: JUNE 149 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
11
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. !
DIRECTOR OF UTII,ITY
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAJ
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF MENT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: TEMPORARY SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND
GERALD ARSENAULT AND ARLEEN ARSENAULT
JUNE 229 1999
11
BOOK 109 FADE 572
r-7
BOOK 109 PAGE 573
BACKGROUND
Gerald Arsenault and Arleen Arsenault have requested that a temporary service be installed from
the sewer line on CR 510 to service their property at 236 Live Oak Drive (Little Orchid Island),
Vero Beach, Florida 32963, prior to the installation of a sewer main on Live Oak Drive.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall provide
temporary sewer service to Gerald Arsenault and Arleen Arsenault until such time that a sewer line
may be constructed on Live Oak Drive by assessment. Payment of all fees required to make this
connection, and participation in the assessment which may involve reconnecting to this sewer line,
as required by the Indian River County Department of Utility Services, has been agreed to by
Gerald Arsenault and Arleen Arsenault.
RECOMIVIIJNDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached Agreement with Gerald Arsenault and Arleen Arsenault on the Consent Agenda.
JDC/b
Attachments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
agreement with Gerald and Arlene Arsenault as presented, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
RECORDED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Z.E. Temporary Sewer Service Agreement -Richard S. Ping
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 14, 1999:
DATE: JUNE 14, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS,
DIRECTOR OF U.I1UTY-SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF A SE PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTH TTY SERVICES
SUBJECT: TEMPORARY SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND
RICHARD S. PINO
JUNE 229 1999
n
U
12
•
BACKGROUND
Richard S. Pino has requested that a temporary service be installed from the sewer line on CR 510
to service his property at 240 Live Oak Drive (Little Orchid Island),Vero Beach, Florida 32963,
prior to the installation of a sewer main on Live Oak Drive.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall provide
temporary sewer service to Richard S. Pino until such time that a sewer line may be constructed on
Live Oak Drive by assessment. Payment of all fees required to make this connection, and
participation in the assessment which may involve reconnecting to this sewer line, as required by
the Indian River County Department of Utility Services, has been agreed to by Richard S. Pino.
RECOMII�NDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the attached Agreement with Richard S. Pino on the Consent Agenda.
JDC/b
Attachments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
agreement with Richard S. Pino as presented, as recommended
in the Memorandum.
RECORDED AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF TEE CLERK TO TEE BOARD
Z.F. Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee -
Appointment of Robert J. Leshe (Town of Indian River Shores)
The Board reviewed a letter of June 14, 1999:
MAYOR:
BARBARA J.HOLMEN-MCKENNA
VICE MAYOR:
DONALD J. MURRAY
COUNCIL:
ROBERT G- BOWMAN
ROBERT J.LESHE
CHARLES C. WURMSTEDT
TOWN MANAGER:
VIRGINIA L GILSERT
JUNE 22, 1999
TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
6001 NORTH A -1-A, INDIAN RIVER SHORES, FLORIDA 32963
13
(561) 231-1771
June 14, 1999
FAX (561) 231-4348
BOOK 109 FADE 57"!
BOOK DO PAGE b d'
Commissioner Fran B. Adams, Chairman
Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee
Board of County Commissioners
1840 251hStreet
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioner Adams:
At their regular Council meeting held May 27, 1999 the Town Council of Indian
River Shores appointed Robert J. Lesh& as the Town's representative on the Beach and
Shore Preservation Advisory Committee.
Sincerely,
Narcia D. McCullers
Town Clerk/Treasurer
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Crinn, the Board nanim_ously appointed Robert
J. Leshe to the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory
Committee, as requested by the Town of Indian River Shores.
7. G. Accent Resignation ofB. T. Cooksey from Emergency Services
District Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed a letter of June 9, 1999:
LAW OFFICES OF
GOULD, COOKSEY, FENNELL,
O'NEILL, MARINE &. CARTER, P.A.
JOHN R. GOULD (19211981)
979 BFAC 1LAND BOULEVARD
BYRON T COOKSEY
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963
DARRE r FENNELL
TELEPHONE (561) 231-UOO
EUGENE J. O'Ni31.L'
FAX (561) 231.2020
•PLS. BOARD C ER17W
C WM 71UAL AND
BLaNE S LIIIOA3MN
-
June 9, 1999
Mr. Ken Macht, Chairman
Emergency Services District Advisory Committee
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Ken:
JUNE 229 1999
14
JUN 10 1999
f3uC6MMISSICN
CHRIS TPM H. MARIM
DAVID K CARTER
'TODD W. FE104EM
SUSAN L. 0 ENAULT
•
I have served as a member at large representative on the Emergency Services District
Advisory Committee for over eight (8) years and I am presently cutting back my outside
activities so I may spend more time on my professional activities. Due to this, I have
decided to resign from the advisory committee and would appreciate it if you would
consider this letter my formal resignation. It has been a pleasure to serve on this committee
over these years and I am leaving with the utmost respect for the outstanding job that is
done by Doug Wright and all the members of the fire and emergency service departments.
I feel that our county is very fortunate to have such dedicated and professional people to
rely on in emergency situations.
Kindest regards.
Very truly yours,
(K-
Byron T. Cooksey
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously accepted with
regret the resignation of B. T. Cooksey from the Emergency
Services District Advisory Committee, as requested.
7.H. Settlement of the Turner vs. Drakett vs. Indian River Countp
Lawsuit (Set Back Variance GrantedZ
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 14, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney-0
DATE: June 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Settlement of the Turner vs. Drackett vs. IRC law suit
RE: 1) Memorandum from W.G. Collins to BCC, this subject, dated 4/12/99
2) Memorandum from W.G. Collins to Robert Keating, this subject, dated 3/30/99
(copies attached)
Court ordered mediation was held on June 1, 1999. An agreement was reached between the
parties subject to Board of County Commission approval. From a County standpoint, the Board of
County Commissioners would agree to grant an administrative minor variance which would result
in a combined set back between the properties of aJittie more than nineteen feet but less than the
20 feet required by the regulations. The revised property line would be substantially equidistant
between the two parcels. Under normal circumstances it would not be within the province of the
Board of County Board to grant variances to the land development regulations; however, in this
instances we are a party defendant to a law suit and this variance would be in settlement of that
law suit. This would be an action within the authority of the Board of County Commissioners.
JUNE 229 1999
15
•
BOOK iU'9 FAGE 57 0'-
I
BOOK 109 PAGE 57 d
This office recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the agreement. The
variance is minor in nature and it will avoid a protracted law suit which will cost the County money
and extensive staff time. Further, it appears likely that if said law suit is carried out to its
conclusion the result will be the same as the result achieved by this settlement agreement.
TPO/sw
Attachment
cc: William G. Collins II
Robert Keating
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board ,inanimously approved the
Agreement between Barry S. Drackett and Turner Builders of
Vero Beach, Inc. and Indian River County, as recommended in
the Memorandum
AGREEIdM IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
U Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 11, 1999:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attorney -Ifd
DATE: June 11, 1999
SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors
for the weeks of May 31, 1999 and June 7, 1999. Listed below are the vendors names and the
amount of each court related costs.
Crescent Research Services
Leslie K. Williamson
Floyd Evans
Peggy Gollnick
Karen Orlando
Janet Prosper
Celeste Hartsfield
American Reporting
Linda Copeland
Celeste Hartsfield
Linda Copeland
Patricia B. Held
Olga Mas
Shirley Corbin
Shirley Corbin
Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D.
Linda R. Phillips
Linda R. Phillips
Linda R. Phillips
Linda R. Phillips
JUNE 229 1999
0
Public Defender Conflict Costs
2,000.00
Public Defender Conflict Costs
388.50
Public Defender Costs
12.50
Transcription
108.50
Transcription
133.00
Transcription
105.00
Transcription
234.50
Transcription
22.00
Transcription
262.50
Transcription
66.50
Transcription
189.00
Transcription
140.00
Public Defender Costs
50.00
Transcription
49.00
Transcription
24.50
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
Transcription
91.00
Transcription
17.50
Transcription
231.00
Transcription
56.00
16
Sheila I. Flinn
Transcription
378.00
Deaf Services Center
Public Defender Costs
120.00
Office of the Public Defender
Public Defender Conflict Costs
50.00
Deaf Services Center
Court Reporter
85.00
Hammond & Smith, P.A.
Dependency Legal Services
950.00
Ralph Mora, Ph.D.
Clinical Evaluation
500.00
John Winter, Esq.
Public Defender Costs
24.65
Interim Court Reporting
Court Reporter
25.00
Gary W. Litman, Ph.D.
Public Defender Conflict Costs
4,000.00
Shirley Corbin
Transcription
108.50
Shirley Corbin
Transcription
168.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
157.50
Karen Orlando
Transcription
84.00
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
31.50
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
35.00
Shirley Corbin
Transcription
84.00
Janet Prosper
Transcription
56.00
Linda R. Phillips
Transcription
80.50
Sheila Flinn
Transcription
52.50
Shirley Corbin
Transcription
94.50
Jax Navy Federal Credit Union
State Attorney Costs
10.80
Janet Prosper
Transcription
52.50
Karen M. Orlando
Transcription
31.50
Big Dipper Productions
State Attorney Costs
35.00
Shirley E. Corbin
Transcription
101.50
Carlos L. Wells
Public Defender Costs
75.10
George D. Dugan, III
Public Defender Conflict Costs
378.32
Floyd Evans
Public Defender Costs
12.50
Peggy Gollnick
Transcription
49.00
Peggy Goliinck
Transcription
56.00
Philip Colaizzo, M.D.
Expert Witness
400.00
Patricia B. Held
Transcription
59.50
Patricia B. Held
Transcription
56.00
Kathy Hubbard
Transcription
556.50
Esquire Court Reporting
Court Reporter
1,868.75
Patricia B. Held
Transcription
70.00
Sheila I. Flinn
Transcription
175.00
Philip J. Yacucci, Jr., Esq.
Legal Services
5,835.00
Kevin MacWilliams, Esq.
Indigent Dependency Cases
1,801.40
Hammond & Smith, PA.
Indigent Dependency Cases
4,750.00
Janet C. Prosper
Transcription
94.50
Sheila I. Flinn
Transcription
105.00
Neurological Associates
State Attorney Costs
100.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict - Misd.
900.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict - Felony
3,000.00
James T. Long, Esq.
Public Defender Conflict - Juvenile
2.700.00
Total
$35,039.52
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
7.J. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #019
The Board reviewed a Memorandum. of June 16, 1999:
JUNE 229 1999
17
BOOK 109 FAGE ;'-j' 7
BOOK 109 PAGE 5 79
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 16, 1999
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 019
CONSENT AGENDA
THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
FROM: Jason E. Brown
Budget Analyst
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. Due to changes in claims guidelines, the County has experienced a large increase in
medicaid claims this year. The current amount budgeted will not cover the expected
claims for the rest of the fiscal year. Funding will be provided by the General Fund cash
forward revenues.
2. Road and Bridge has various equipment that needs immediate replacement. The
department's track excavator has failed, and they are currently leasing an excavator in
order to continue some operations. Two of the oldest dump trucks are in poor
mechanical condition and need costly repairs. These vehicles were scheduled for
replacement next year, so it will cost less to replace them now. The attached entry
appropriates funding from the Transportation Fund cash forward revenues.
3. On March 16, 1999, the Board of Commissioners approved a grant agreement with the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection for construction of a reef off the
Sebastian inlet in the amount of $25,000. The county has also received a donation from
the Sebastian Inlet Sportfishing Association for $5,000 to assist in construction of the
reef. The attached entry appropriates funding.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved Budget
Amendment 019, as recommended in the Memorandum.
JUNE 229 1999
18
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB _Director
i
BUDGET AMENDMENT: 019
DATE: June 16, 1999
•
Entry
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUES
GENERAL FUND/ Cash Forward Revenues
001-000-389-040.00
$100,000
$0
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND/ Medicaid/ Hospital
001-111-564-033.17
$30,000
$0
GENERAL FUND/ Medicaid/ Nursing Home
001-111-564-033.18
$70,000
$0
2.
REVENUES
TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Cash Forward
Revenues
111-000-389-040.00
$290,000
$0
EXPENSES
TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road & Bridge/
Automotive Equipment
111-214-541-066.42
$140,000
$0
TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road & Bridge/
Heavy Equipment - Wheel Track
111-214-541-066.43
$150,000
$0
3.
REVENUES
BEACH RESTORATION FUND/ Contributions &
Donations
128-000-366-090.00
$5,000
$0
BEACH RESTORATION FUND/ FDEP Artificial -
Reef Grant
128-000-334-729.00
$25,000
$0
EXPENSES
BEACH RESTORATION FUND/ Offshore Reef
128-144572-067.63
$30,000
$0
JUNE 229 1999
19
BOOK A FKEYO
BOOK �.0 PAGE 6' �
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION 99-057 - SEBASTIAN
WATER EXPANSION PHASE H -C (RESOLUTION M
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADW RTI OMRSU FOR BEARING
IS ON FILE IN TBE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
Director of Utility Services Donald Hubbs reviewed a Memorandum of June 11,
1999:
DATE: JUNE 11, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADN M41STRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. —'6-7,11
i
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SCES
PREPARED =AG
S D. CHAST f -
AND STAFFED ER OF PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION PHASE II C
RESOLUTION III —PUBLIC HEARING
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -97 -12 -DS
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 1999, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolutions
99-52 (Resolution 10 and 99-53 (Resolution ED, which contained the preliminary assessment roll and
established the date of the public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been
notified of the public hearing by mail. Resolution 99-52 was published in the PRESS JOURNAL
on June 7, 1999. (See attached agenda item and minutes for the above meeting.)
ANALYSIS
Design of the water distribution system is complete. Approval of the attached Resolution M will
confirm and approve the preliminary assessment.
On June 8, 1999 at 7:00 p.m., in the County Commission Chambers, an informational meeting was
held for the property owners, of whom approximately 30 attended Overall the meeting was
Positive, however, three (3) owners of double lots did object to the amount of their proposed
assessment(s). The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. The area
to be served is located north of Vocelle Avenue. This area includes all or portions of 30 blocks.
Included are 562 lots and approximately 324 homes. There are 521 Parcel IDs. Typical lot sizes are
.25 acre, plus or minus.
JUNE 229 1999
20
-I
The City of Sebastian entered into an interlocal agreement with Indian River County providing for
the transfer of the City of Sebastian's water and wastewater system on September 20, 1995. The
agreement requires the County to extend water or wastewater transmission, distribution or
collection facilities and improvements, and impose special assessments upon benefited parcels
located within the incorporated area of the City.
At their regular meeting of June 26, 1996, the City Council adopted Resolution No. R-96-48 (copy
attached), which among other things, states that the City Council deems it in the best interest of the
citizens of Sebastian that Indian River County proceed as soon as possible with the water
expansion.
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. Financing will
be from the assessment fund (473). The Engineering design services and the assessment roll have
been prepared by staff. The survey work was provided by Masteller, Moler and Reed, Inc. We are
now ready to begin the assessment process associated with this project. The total estimated cost of
the Phase II C project to be assessed is $1,256,465.84. The total estimated cost per square foot is
$0.204577 (rounded). The estimated cost per square foot of Phase II -C, although slightly less is
similar to Phase IIB ($0.208299). The Phase II -C project cost estimates have allowed for a higher
ratio of improvements, concrete driveways, more stringent restoration specifications, and
conservancy with the estimate. The assessed cost, as with any project, will be regulated by the
degree of competition at the bidding of the project.
On May 21, 1999, a letter was sent to the Interim City Manager, John Van Antwerp, City of
Sebastian with a copy of an agenda item, a map of the Phase II -C (Phase I>) project area, and a
summary assessment roll schedule.
RECOAEWENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached Resolution III, and allow for project bidding.
JDC/b
Attachments
Director Hubbs added that staffhas been trying to expedite this project because wells
have been impacted negatively by the lack of rain.
Vice Chairman Adams requested that in the future staff try to hold informational
meetings in the impacted areas.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Tom Offerding, 662 Wallis Avenue, Sebastian, was concerned about the assessment
being based on square footage because there were easements on all four sides ofhis property.
JUNE 22, 1999
21
BOOK D FADE
BOOK i0J FAE O-53
County Attorney Vitunac explained that the majority of the lots had such easements
and the total cost for the improvements was divided equally among the benefitting property
owners. He added that if Mr. Offerding had proof that a portion of his property was
unusable, he could get relief from the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Macht suggested that Mr. Offerding meet with Director Hubbs after the
meeting for clarification on his easement concerns, and, if warranted, that he present any
documentation which might justify a lower assessment on his property.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 99-057 confirming the special assessments in
connection with a water main extension to the Sebastian Area
Phase H -C; providing for special assessment liens to be made of
record.
(CLERK'S NOTE: THE BELOW RESOLUTION AND
ASSESSMENT ROLL HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN THE
PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AT OR
1281 PG 0785. THE RECORDED ORIGINAL IS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.)
JUNE 22,1999
22
Public Hearing (Third Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 99. 57
5/99(reso%seb2c)Vk/DC
IN THE RECORDS Or
JEFFARTON
CLERK CIRCUIT COURT
'NI)" RIVER CCw FIS►,
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION
WITH A WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO THE SEBASTIAN AREA
PHASE II -C; PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO
BE MADE OF RECORD.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by
Resolution No. 99-52, adopted June 1, 1999, determined to make special assessments
against certain properties to be serviced by a water main extension to the Sebastian
Area Phase II -C (an area north from Vocelle Avenue along Layport Drive); and
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said special
assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are to be paid; and
WHEREAS, the resolution was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal, as
required by Section 206.04, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County passed
Resolution No. 99-53 on June 1, 1999, and set a time and place for a public hearing at
which the owners of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons would
have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints as to said project and said
special assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section 206.07, Indian
River County Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was published in
the Press Journal Newspaper on Friday, June 4, 1999, and once again on Friday, June
11, 1999 (twice one week apart; the last being at least one week prior to the hearing),
as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least ten days prior
to the hearing, as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County on
Tuesday, June 22, 1999, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public hearing with regard to the
special assessments;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
JUNE 229 1999
23
800K hal FtaGE SLI
BOOK iOJ PAGE 555
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety.
2. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are hereby
confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against
the properties assessed until paid in full.
3. The Board finds that the properties assessed by this resolution will receive special
benefits equal to or greater than the cost of the assessment.
4. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution, which describes
the properties assessed and the amounts of the special assessments, on the public
records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the special
assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner S t a n b r i d 9 and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
22nd day of June, 1999.
;R
Atte . K. Barton ',Cle
B
PATHIC a Clerk
ELY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIANER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Kenneth R. Macht
Chairman
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL Inds �• c. Aoproveooar,
(to be recorded on Public Records) Admin
Legal
outlgaI
JUNE 229 1999
24
M gr.
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 99-058 - RATES.
FEES, AND CHARGES FOR UTILITY SERVICES; ORDINANCE 99-
016 AMENDING WATER AND SEWER SERVICES CODE - HARTMAN
& ASSOCIATES, INC.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR BEARMG
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF TEE CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 7, 1999:
DATE: JUNE 7,1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.ELeS H
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FINALIZATION OF THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
WATER/WASTEWATER, RECLAIMED WATER AND SLUDGE
USER CHARGE ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND
On May 13, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners instructed the Department
of Utility Services staff to compile a Request for Proposal (RFP) seeking
professional services for the performance of a waterlwastewater rate equity review
and user charge study. On August 20, 1997 the RFP was advertised. Of the five
responses, three were short-listed by the Utilities Advisory Committee on October
21, 1997. On November 5, 1997 the Board of County Commissioners selected
Hartman & Associates, Inc. as the number one candidate for negotiations with
County staff. On March 5, 1998 the Utilities Advisory Committee voted
unanimously to finalize and proceed with the contract for services with Hartman &
Associates, Inc. and bring the issue to the Board for action. The Board of County
Commissioners approved execution of the professional services contract on April 7,
1998 and on April 22, 1998 County staff members and Hartman & Associates, Inc.
held a kickoff meeting in the County Commission Chambers to establish a specific
strategic plan of action. Hartman & Associates, Inc. then set to work developing the
rate equity analysis, projection of fiscal requirements and cost allocation associated
with the first phase of the study. On August 6, 1998 the consultants and County staff
presented to the Utilities Advisory Committee the initial findings of the study,
indicating minor rate inequities between certain residential subclasses and
commercial rates. The Utilities Advisory Committee concurred with the initial
findings and subsequent reviews further refined the equity analysis. On November
5, 1998 the staff presented it's finding regarding rate equity and received
concurrence to proceed with Phase II of the rate study from the Utilities Advisory
Committee. On January 7, 1999 a preliminary revised rate architecture was
presented to the Utilities Advisory Committee and having received input, Utility
staff and Hartman & Associates, Inc. proceeded to refine the developing rate model.
JUNE 229 1999
25
A.9
KOK J FA'E 0S
BOOK iOa FAGE 537
Further input was received on February 4, 1999 and on March 4, 1999 the Utilities
Advisory Committee voted to approve an equity enhancing scenario and asked the
staff to bring the item forward to the Board of County Commissioners for review
and approval. On April 13, 1999, the Utility staff and Hartman & Associates, Inc.
presented the draft Rate Resolution and rate schedules and sought permission to
proceed with the appropriate revisions of the County Code after scheduling a public
hearing. Originally scheduled for'May 18, 1999, the public hearing was rescheduled
for June 22, 1999, to allow staff more time to develop the recommendations
tendered by the Utilities Advisory Committee during it's May 3, 1999 meeting.
On May 7, 1999, Hartman and Associates suggested new language consistant with
their Utility experience, that would more clearly define the newly created residential
designations. Subsequent stat� County Attorney and Committee comment has been
incorporated on page 2 and 3 of the attached Ordinance revisions. On June 3, 1999,
the Utilities Advisory Committee voted to send the attached Code language to the
Board for Public Hearing and adoption.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
The most recent user charge study was performed by CH2M Hill in 1991 using FY
1989/90 as the test year. Normally such charges are evaluated at a minimum of once
every five (5) years making this study long overdue. Over the last year, the Utility
staff and Advisory Committee have heard significant public input regarding user
charge concerns. Chief among them are as follows:
1. "Base facility charges are too high. Because of this, customers do not have control
over their bill creating a conservation dis-incentive."
2. "Small volume users are paying a disproportionately larger bill than the service they
are receiving."
3. "The $2.00 billing charge for water and wastewater is too high The charge is an
irritant and should not be itemized separately on the monthly bill."
The User Charge Study recommendations have incorporated all these concerns and
although the following recommendations will not satisfy every concern, the
proposed changes go a long way to improve the inequities in the current rate
structure.
ANALYSIS
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the rate
recommendations finalized by the Utility consultant and the Utility Advisory
Committee. A copy of the Comprehensive Water and Sewer Systems Rate Study
final report is available in the Offices of the County Commission and the
Department of Utility Services for inspection.
The primary goals of the user charge study were:
* To achieve greater equity among user classes and maintain all rate scenarios as revenue
neutral (no excess revenue generated) -
* That revenue sufficiency be achieved for the five year planning period (debt service plus
coverage equaled or exceeded)
User charge model assumptions:
• ERU growth factor for single-family, manufactured homes, multi -family and commercial
customers would equal 1%, 0%, 1% and 0.75% per annum respectively, commencing October
1, 1999 and ending September 30, 2003. ERU growth is assumed to be added evenly
throughout the twelve months of each fiscal year.
• Fiscal year 1998/1999 O&M expenses and non operating revenue based upon 1998/1999
approved budget.
• Inflation for O&M expenses assumed 3% per year.
JUNE 229 1999
W
•
• O&M labor expenses escalated according to Teamster's Union contract, annual debt service
payments based upon no new borrowing during the five year planning period. Renewal and
replacement (R&R) annual transfers of 5% are utilized for ongoing renewal and replacement
of the water, sewer and sludge systems.
• The existing capital improvement program (CIP) is used for capital projection. It is assumed
that the user charge rates will be annually indexed for inflation at a rate of 2.5%.
Final rate recommendations:
During several workshops with the Utilities Advisory Committee and having
received substantial public input, a number of rate scenarios were considered and
modified during the process. Final recommendations coming before the Board of
County Commissioners today are as follows:
1. That the existing residential class be broken out into single-family residential, multi-
family and manufactured home communities with commercial remaining as a distinct
class according to land use as per County Code.
2. That base facility charge adjustment factors of 1.0 and 0.85 be applied to single -&roily,
multi -family and manufactured home communities respectively.
3. That the base facility charges be reduced for all classes and the volume charges be
adjusted to provide a conservation incentive and give customers greater control over
their bills.
4. That the sewer volume charge be billed at 100% of metered flow.
5. That a reclaimed water rate be established.
6. That the existing impact fee, renamed "capacity charge", be retained with an
equalization factor for MHC and W.
7. Ancilliary charges be modified and adopted.
8. Other changes to the current rate as contained in the attached draft rate schedules.
9. The Utility staff, using the newly aquired user charge computer model, will reevaluate
the rates and charges at least annually and report findings to the Utilities Advisory
Committee and the Board of County Commissioners.
OPTIONS
1. Move forward with the User Charge Study recommendations and adopt
the attached Resolution and Exhibit A, with a planned effective date of
October 1, 1999. Approve revisions of the County Code indicated in the
attached Ordinance to take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of
State.
2. Ask that the st4 consultant and Utilities Advisory Committee consider
additional scenarios and receive additional public comment. Authorize an
amendment to the consultant contract with Hartman & Associates, Inc. for
additional services.
RECOMMENDATION -
The Utilities staff in conjunction with Hartman & Associates, Inc., respectfully
recommends Option 1, that the Utilities Advisory Committee rate recommendations
be approved by Resolution No. 99- , effective October 1, 1999, and that the
Board of County Commissioners authorize adoption of Ordinance No. 99- , as
attached.
JUNE 22, 1999
27
•
BOOK In
PAGE
I
BOOK 10� PAGE 66. 0 7
(CLERK'S NOTE: COMPREHENSIVE WATER AND SEWER RATE
STUDY RESULTS BOOKLET IS ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.)
Director of Utility Services Donald Hubbs thanked his staff, Assistant Utilities
Director Jeff Smith, the members of the Utilities Advisory Committee, and the customers
who have participated in the rate study process. He asserted that the proposed changes are
the result of good hard listening. He predicted that some customers would see lower rates
and other rates would remain the same. He then introduced Mike Rocca who would present
the results of the Hartman & Associates' study assisted by M. Mo Elkaldi.
Marco H. (Mike) Rocca gave a comprehensive presentation of the results of the rate
study which Hartman & Associates had conducted using the booklet (filed with the backup
of this meeting) as an outline. The Commissioners and the public were able to follow along
as the pages of the report were displayed on the ELMO.
(CLERK'S NOTE: The pages of the report were spread upon the minutes during the
meeting held April 13, 1999 and are not repeated herein.)
Mr. Rocca advised that the County now has a model which has the built-in ability to
adapt to inflationary impact. He thanked the Board and staff for the cooperation from all
parties.
Vice Chairman Adams expressed a concern about the sewage cap of 12,000 gallons,
and after Mr. Rocca's explanation, she understood it to be an encouragement for recharging
the aquifer. She asked for and received an explanation from Director Hubbs on the two
charging methods used at the sludge facility and an explanation of a "wet ton".
Vice Chairman Adams then advised that one ofthe biggest complaints she continually
receives concerns the "base facility charge".
Mr. Rocca and Director Hubbs responded by pointing out the necessity of the base
facility charge in order to ensure cash flow and debt service retirement; without it the County
could have a problem if a very wet season came along. Assistant Director Smith added that
the interest rate we pay would also be negatively affected.
Director Hubbs also explained for Vice Chairman Adams how the department will
determine rates paid by various users through the use of primitive drawings displayed on the
ELMO.
JUNE 22, 1999
28
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter.
Lee Wheeler, a resident of Heritage Village, thought it was unfair that her bill is the
same even though she goes away for 10-12 days and shuts off the water while gone.
Director Hubbs explained the base facility charge and the pointraised by Ms. Wheeler
was a classic example of what is proposed for change. He predicted she will see a significant
reduction in her monthly bill (approximately $3.50 when there is no usage) after the new
rates are put in place in October. This reduction is because mobile home rates will change
and the usage will play a greater role in the billing component.
Richard Hutchison, a resident of Heritage Village, asked why there was a $2 per
month charge for water and sewer on his bill when he has no sewer.
Director Hubbs detailed how the $2 charge was tied to (billing, mailing, meter -
reading, tum-on/tum-off )costs and how the charge will be reduced to $1.29 (actual cost) for
the water. On further questioning, Director Hubbs explained there is not a savings to the
County for electronic payments but the department does encourage its use.
Peter Robinson, Laurel Homes, inquired whether any studies had been done on
annual peak usage for the different groups.
Director Hubbs detailed the seasonality factor which will be used and gave examples.
Commissioner Ginn pointed out that all of these concerns had been raised and
discussed in depth at the Utility Advisory Committee's meetings.
Mr. Robinson then commented that it is proposed to change "impact fee" to "capacity
charge" and he thought it should remain "impact fee" because that is the term to which the
(development) industry is accustomed.
Director Hubbs responded that the bottom line is that when you buy into the system,
you are actually buying a piece of the system which is unlike what would be considered a
normal impact fee where you are not buying a piece of the system but paying a penalty for
moving in. People do not have to pay if they do not connect; it is not a requirement. It is an
actual value and adds value to the properly.
Sharon Bell, 539 Stanley's Cay, Heron Cay, (a manufactured housing community)
thanked the presenters for answering nearly all her questions. Her remaining question was
JUNE 229 1999
29
Pr -
BOOK hJ FAGE 50i
for an explanation of the franchise surcharge.
County Attorney Vitunac responded that if the utilities had been provided by a private
company, the county would raise tax money by a franchise fee. The Board, some years ago,
decided that since the County was going into the business and displacing the private
company, that it should tax itself as if it were a private company and apply the 6% to non-
utility purposes. So, it is a source of revenue for the general fund or for whatever fund the
County chooses to use it.
Hank Gunther, Heron Cay, wondered if the rate adjustment other monthly providers
use for "snowbirds", which is usually half the regular rate, has been considered for water and
sewer customers.
Director Hubbs advised that staffhas pledged to look into that concern after a comfort
level has been reached with the new rates. Changes are being made, but he realizes that the
proposed changes will not resolve all concerns of all customers. He could not disagree with
Mr. Gunther. He believed eventually a reduction for seasonal users would be possible.
Mr. Gunther raised another concern about the number of systems' water leaks (due
to the material used) and asked if there is a contingency or reserve for replacement of the
existing pipes.
Director Hubbs agreed that, once again, Mr. Gunther was correct that there is a lot of
"blue polybutylene" pipe which was cheap. When newly developed it was supposed to be
good, but experience has proved it to be a source of a lot of the leaks in the system. The
department is in the process of replacing that pipe with amore standard PVC or polyethylene
pipe. He advised that 5% of the gross receipts from utilities is dedicated to renewal and
replacement (reserve fund), or about $815,000 annually, for that purpose.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the
public hearing.
Vice Chairman Adams inquired about the meaning of "cost plus overhead" found on
page 3 of the proposed schedule of rates and fees. She questioned the definition of
"overhead" and whether it was a fixed amount or a percentage.
Director Hubbs advised that would generally be for engineering, if required. There
is no fixed number for overhead. Unless there is office or administrative involvement, other
than just a work order generation, there would be no "overhead".
JUNE 229 1999
WC
Commissioner Ginn thanked the Utilities Department staff, especially Director Hubbs
and Assistant Director Smith, and Mr. Rocca and Hartman & Associates for the very fine
effort. She also thanked the Utilities Advisory Committee members who challenged Mr.
Rocca every step of the way on cost allocations; she thought the result was much better
because of their involvement. There is now a model in place and the goal is to eliminate as
much as possible the base facility charge and to have volume charges more reflective of
actual usage, but that is not possible at this time. She felt this was the very best rate study
the County could have.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn, and
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, to approve staff's
recommendation (Option 1).
Commissioner Ginn asked the Commissioners if they wished to change "capacity
charge" back to "impact fee", and Commissioner Tippin thought it should remain as
proposed.
Commissioner Stanbridge remarked onthe excellentpresentationbyHartman and that
the GIS in the department has made the overhead cost almost non-existent.
Vice Chairman Adams commended Commissioner Ginn and the committee for years
of hard work. The committee members have put in a lot of time with staff and it was
appreciated.
Vice Chairman. Adams was still concerned with the department's policy on cut-offs
when there are existing deposits and felt that needed to be fixed.
Commissioner Ginn agreed that it definitely needed to be given consideration.
Director Hubbs pledged that a minimum threshold of $10 would be appropriate (now
$5) and thought it could be done administratively.
Vice Chairman Adams asked if it could be increased to $20-$25 if the customer had
a $50 deposit, and Director Hubbs responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Ginn pointed out that committee member, Mr. Adam Kubik, had
worked as a rate consultant for many years in New York.
JUNE 229 1999
31
BOOK 109 PAGE 5-a
BOOK
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Resolution 99-058 adopting rates, fees,
and charges for the Department of Utility Services adopted.,
pursuant to the authority of Ordinance No. 91-9.)
RESOLUTION NO. 99- 58
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
ADOPTING RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES, PURSUANT TO THE
AUTHORITY OF ORDINANCE NO. 91-9.
109 FACE 503
WHEREAS, Indian River County operates a Department of Utility Services, which
is funded without contribution from the ad valorem tax fund of the County and is required
to support itself from rates, fees, and charges paid by the customers of the utility system;
and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 91-9 authorizes the imposition by the Department of
Utility Services of certain rates, fees, and charges to support the operation of the
Department in a fair and equitable manner; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 92-35 requires an annual review of user charges and
notice of rates; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to amend the existing rate resolution to keep the
Department of Utility Services on a sound financial footing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
The Schedule of Rates, Fees, and Charges described on Exhibit °A" is hereby
adopted for use by the Department of Utility Services effective October 1, 1999.
2. Rates, fees, and charges will be reviewed on an annual basis beginning one year
from the effective date of this resolution.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner. G i n n , and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p i n , and, upon being put to a vote,
the vote was as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
22nddavof June .1999.
Atte - J. K. Barton,
Ce
De U6 GE
Attachment: Exhibit "A"
JUNE 229 1999
BOAR6OF
NTY CMISSIONERS
INDCOON FLORIDA
By
Kenneth R. Macht
Chairman
32
willm We CQ Approved
Date
Admin
Legal
_
Budget
Dept. S14H6"
/ 14
RISK Mgr.
Indian River Coun
Q((
'f\
G'
1z
y
ORI
Department of Utility Services
Schedule of Water and Sewer Rates,
Fees and Other Charges
JUNE 229 1999
Effective October 1, 1999
EXHIBIT "A"
33
BOOK hO FAGS 67 `I
I
BOOK JOJ FADE
SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RATES
Water
Billing Charge - Per Account $1.29
Base Facility Charge:
Where Lines Are Available -
Single -Family (per ERU) $7.76
Manufactured Home 0.85 (per ERU) $6.60
Multi -Family 0.85 (per ERU) $6.60
Commercial (per ERU) $7.76
Base Facility Charge:
Capacity is Reserved But Where Lines Are Not Available -
Single -Family (per ERU)
$3.88
Manufactured Home 0.85 (per ERU)
$3.30
Multi -Family 0.85 (per ERU)
$3.30
Commercial (per ERU)
$3.88
0 to 3,000 Gallons Per Month Per Connection -
Per 1,000 Gallons
$2.20
3,001 to 7,000 Gallons per Month Per Connection -
Per 1,000 Gallons $2.42
Over 7,000 Gallons Per Month Per Connection -
Per 1,000 Gallons $3.85
Greater than 13,000 Gallons Per Month Per ERU -
Per 1,000 Gallons $7.70
Sewer
Billing Charge - Per Account $1.29
Base Facility Charge Where Lines Are Available -
Single -Family (per ERU)
$14.58
Manufactured Home 0.85 (per ERU)
$12.40
Multi -Family 0.85 (per ERU)
$12.40
Commercial (per ERU)
$14.58
Base Facilities Charge Where Capacity is Reserved But Lines Are Not Available -
Single -Family (per ERU)
$7.29
Manufactured Home 0.85 (per ERU)
$6.20
Multi -Family 0.85 (per ERU)
$6.20
Commercial (per ERU)
$7.29
Volume Charge Per 1,000 Gallons -12,000 Gallons Per Month Maximum for
Single -Family & Manufactured Homes, individual meters
$2.86
Multi -Family Master -metered & Commercial
0 to 13,000 Gallons - billed water flow
$2.86
Above 13,000 Gallons - billed water flow
$4.29
JUNE 22, 1999
34
SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
Bulk Water
Billing Charge - Per Account Per Month
$1.29
Base Facility Charge Where Lines are Available
- Per ERU
$6.19
Base Facility Charge Where Capacity is Reserved,
But Lines are not Available - Per ERU
$3.10
Volume Charge - per 1,000 gallons Water Meter Basis
$2.63
Excess Volume Surcharge - Greater than 7600 gallons per month -
Per ERU*
*Surcharge for bulk users will apply to flow exceeding total capacity
reserved by bulk user in all meters.
$4.45
Bulk Sewer -
Billing Charge - Per Account Per Month
$1.29
Base Facility Charge Where Lines are Available
- Per ERU
$13.41
Base Facility Charge Where Capacity is Reserved,
But Lines are not Available - Per ERU $6.71
Volume Charge - per 1,000 gallons Water Meter Basis $2.63
Volume Charge - per 1,000 gallons Sewer Meter Basis $2.98
Excess Volume Surcharge - Greater than 7600 gallons per month -
Per ERU*
*Surcharge for bulk users will apply to flow exceeding total
capacity reserved by bulk user in all meters. $4.45
Excess Sewage Strength Charge Sewage Charge X Ratio of Total
Dissolved Solids or Biochemical
Oxygen Demand in Milligrams
per liter/250.
Excess Sewage Strength Charge Applicable to Customers
Required to Use Greasetraps but who have obtained a
Variance due to hardship or financial unfeasibility Sewage Charge
Reclaimed water - per 1,000 gallons $0.15
Sludge and Sentaee Rates(b)
Charge per 1,000 gallons(a) $30.82
Charge per wet ton(a) $ 7.51
Notes:
(a) Recommended rates assume domestic sludge with solids
concentrations of between .5 and 2.0 percent.
(b) Costs incurred by County to sample, monitor and/or test wastes
to verify solids concentrations, metals, content, etc. or additional
costs incurred to handle or dispose of wastes with high metal
concentrations or other nondomestic waste characteristics should be
recovered from the users discharging the wastes in addition to the
above charges based on formula's available in the Department of Utility Services.
JUNE 22, 1999
35
IA
BOOK 1U 9 . FAGE J
SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
CAPACITY CHARGE
Water - Per ERU
Water Treatment
Water Transmission
Total
Sewer - Per ERU
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater Transmission
Total
Line Extension Charges
Main Extension - Water
Per foot measured along front of property served.
Main Extension Sewer and Sewer Laterals
Per foot measured along front of property served
OTHER CHARGES
Deposits - Required Upon Opening. Transferring or Reconnecting Service
Residential and Commercial - Per ERU
Hydrant Meter
Interest Rate paid on Deposits
Charge for Returned Check
Issuance of Duplicate Bill
Sewer Tap
Meter Replacement
5/8 Inch
1 Inch
1-1/2 Inch
2 Inch or larger
Meter Removal
5/8 Inch
1 Inch
1 1/2 Inch and larger
Water Service Connection
5/8 Inch Meter
1 Inch Meter
1-1R Inch Meter
Larger than 1-1/2 Inch Meter
JUNE 229 1999
•
36
3
BOOK iOa PAGE 53547
$ 320.00
9$ 80.00
$1,300.00
$2,087.00
709.00
$2,796.00
$ 6.51
$15.77
$ 50.00
$345.00
.00208% per month
2.5% per year
$ 20.00
$ 1.50
Cost plus overhead
$100.00
$125.00
$300.00
Cost plus overhead
$ 30.00
$ 30.00
$ 40.00
$400.00
$460.00
$810.00
Cost plus overhead
it
•
•
SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
Sewer Service Connection
Residential
$500.00
Commercial and Other
Cost plus overhead
Paved Road Cuts
Cost plus overhead
($200 minimum)
Road Jacking and Boring
Cost plus overhead
($200.00 minimum)
Grass Restoration
Cost plus overhead
Unauthorized use of Fire Hydrants
$115.00
Other and Extraordinary Services
Cost plus overhead
Meter Installation
5/8 Inch Meter
$130.00
1 Inch Meter
$250.00
1-1/2 Inch Meter
$500.00
2 Inch Meter
Cost plus overhead
3 Inch Meter and larger
Cost plus overhead
Fire Hydrant Meter
$ 25.00
Water Service Reconnection
During Working Hours
$25.00
After Working Hours
$35.00
Meter Rereads and Leak Inspection
$20.00
Delinquency Charge
$2.00 plus 1.5% per
General Service Calls
Meter Test
5/8 Inch Meter
I Inch Meter
1-1/2 Inch Meter or larger
Damage Repair
Line Location
Eneineerin¢ Services
Site Plan Review - Under 40 Units and Without Lift Station
Site Plan Review - Over 40 Units and With Lift Station
Inspection Fee:
Water Per Connection
Sewer Per Connection
Hydrant Flow Test
JUNE 229 1999
37
4
month
Cost plus overhead
$25.00
$25.00
Cost plus overhead
Cost plus overhead
Cost plus overhead
Cost plus overhead
($50.00 minimum)
Cost per overhead
($150.00 minimum)
$ 25.00 ($50.00 after hours)
$ 25.00 ($50.00 after hours)
$ 60.00
BOOK FAUEDJ
BOOK JUJ FAGE 5
SCHEDULE OF WATER AND SEWER RATES, FEES AND CHARGES
Fire Protection Charge - per year $170.00
Utility Master Plan Revisions required by requested changes to the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan shall be paid by the Applicant
requesting the change.
FRANCHISE CHARGES
Application Fees
Establish Franchise
Franchise Name Charge
Franchise Territory Charge
Change of Ownership:
49 ERU's or Fewer
50 ERU's or More
Rate Hearing:
49 ERU's or Fewer
50 ERU's or More
Public Hearing
JS/smn
schedule/msw
5
Cost plus overhead
Cost plus overhead
$ 50.00 minimum
Cost plus overhead
$1,100.00 minimum
Cost plus overhead
$115.00 minimum
Cost plus overhead
$115.00 minimum
Cost plus overhead
$115.00 minimum
Cost plus overhead
$300.00 minimum
Cost plus overhead
$300.00 minimum
Cost plus overhead
$575.00 minimum
Cost plus overhead
$115.00 minimum
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance No. 99-016 amending Chapter 201, Water and Sewer
Services, of the Indian River County Code.
-ORDINANCE NO. 99- 16
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 201, WATER AND SEWER.
SERVICES, OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. SUBSTITUTION OF "CAPACITY CHARGE" FOR "IMPACT FEE"
Wherever in Chapter 201 the words "impact fee" or its various forms are used,
the words "capacity charge" or such various forms shall be substituted.
JUNE 229 1999
38
SECTION 2. SUBSTITUTION OF "PROTECTION" FOR "REGULATION"
Wherever in Chapter 201 the words "Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation" are used, the words "Florida Department of Environmental Protection" shall
be substituted.
SECTION 3.
Section 201.01.D., which reads:
"Water is water from the County water supply system."
is amended to read as follows:
"Water is water from the County water supply system. Reclaimed water is
water as specifically provided for under Chapter 202 of the County Code
and Chapter 62-610, Florida Administrative Code."
SECTION 4.
Section 201.01.G., which reads:
"Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is the amount of water used or
wastewater produced by a typical residential unit, which water use ranges
from zero to three hundred gallons per day on a maximum day basis or
two hundred fifty gallons per day on a maximum month basis."
is amended to read as follows:
"Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is the amount of water used or
wastewater produced by a typical residential unit, which water use ranges
from zero to three hundred gallons per day on a maximum day basis or
zero to two hundred fifty gallons per day on a maximum month basis. For
manufactured home communities (MHC) or department -qualified, multi-
family designation (grouped units without exterior water usage, generally
master -metered) a factor of 0.85 will be applied to purchased residential
ERUs."
SECTION 5.
Section 201.07.1., which reads:
"Single-family home including modular and prefabricated .. = 1."
is amended to read as follows:
"Single-family Designation. A category of dwelling units including
multiplex, modular and prefabricated, on individually -owned lots. Per unit
= 1."
SECTION 6.
Section 201.07.3, which reads:
"Apartment. A living unit within a building or group of buildings containing
sleeping room accommodations with a bath and offered for rent or lease
for one month or longer, per living unit. = 1."
JUNE 229 1999
M
BOOK ul 19 PAGE lJ`'�
BOOK 109 PAGE 6JJ
is amended to read as follows:
"Multi -Family Designation. A category of grouped dwelling units generally
master -metered, in which the owner's or tenant's personal property use
privilege is limited to interior areas only; and ownership, cost and use of
common areas is shared with other owners and/or tenants; and individual
units have no exterior water usage. Per unit = 0.85."
SECTION 7.
Section 201.07.6, which reads:
"Condominium. That form of ownership of property, under which units or
improvements are subject to ownership by one or more owners, and there
is appurtenant to each unit as part thereof an undivided share in the
common elements. Condominium property means and includes the land
in a condominium whether or not contiguous, and all improvements
thereon and all easements and rights appurtenant thereto intended for
use in connection with the condominium, per living unit ... 1"
is amended to read:
"Townhouse, villa, and other named dwellings with personal property use
of exterior areas. A category of grouped dwelling units generally
individually metered in which the owner or tenant has personal property
use of exterior areas contiguous to dwelling interior areas; and ownership,
cost and use of common areas is shared with other owners and/or
tenants; and each individual dwelling unit has the ability to have exterior
water usage. Per living unit ... 1"
SECTION 8.
Section 201.07.7, which reads:
"Mobile home, trailer. A structure which is transportable in one or more
sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and which is designed to
be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities, per living unit ...=1."
is amended to read as follows:
"Mobile home, trailer. A structure which is transportable in one or more
sections, which is built on a permanent chassis and which is designed to
be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when
connected to the required utilities, per living unit = 1."
SECTION 9.
Section 201.07.8, which reads:
"Townhouse. A one -family dwelling in a group of at least three such units
in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit
is located over another unit, and each unit is separated from any other
unit by one or more common fire resistant walls, per living unit =1.
is amended to read as follows:
"Manufactured Home Community. A community of dwellings subject to
regulation by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes, as determined by the
Department. Per unit .. = 0.85."
JUNE 229 1999
40
SECTION 10.
Section 201.27, which reads:
"In the event that a business is described in the schedule by general
classification but the particular nature of said business or structure would
result in an inequitable connection charge if the schedule were used, the
Department in its discretion, may determine that a higher or lower number
of units shall be used ...=1.°
is amended to read as follows:
"In the event that a business is described in the schedule by general
classification but the particular nature of said business or structure would
result in an inequitable connection charge if the schedule were used, the
Department in its discretion, may determine that a higher or lower number
of units shall be used, but in no case shall a retroactive payment, credit or
charge for a reclassification of use or number of units be due and payable
to the owner or resident, unless the Department, in its sole discretion,
determines that such a credit or charge is required by equitable
consideration = 1."
SECTION 11.
Section 201.08.H , which reads:
"Deposits required upon opening, transferring, reconnecting, refund
policy. The County shall require a deposit for each water and sewer
account opened, transferred to another name, or reconnected to the
system based on the number of ERUs. The deposit will be retained in an
interest bearing account, the interest on which will be paid to the customer
upon refund of the deposit. Upon discontinuance of service and rendering
of final bill, the deposit shall be refunded, less any amount remaining
unpaid. In the event any customers service is shut off for nonpayment,
prior to reconnection the customer will pay the accrued base facilities
charge plus, if at the discretion of the Department it is necessary to insure
payment, a deposit equal to twice the customer's average monthly bill in
lieu of following the schedule set forth hereafter. Customers who have not
been assessed late payment fees or been shut off for nonpayment for a
period of twenty-four months shall receive a refund of their deposit; except
that deposits of customers who are tenants or who otherwise rent or lease
the structure served by water or sewer utilities will be retained until service
is discontinued to that tenant."
is amended to read as follows:
"Deposits required upon opening, transferring, reconnecting; refund
policy. The County shall require a deposit for each water and sewer
account opened, transferred to another name, or reconnected to the
system based on the -number of ERUs. The deposit will be retained in an
interest bearing account, the interest on which will be paid to the customer
upon refund of the deposit. Upon discontinuance of service and rendering
of final bill, the deposit shall be refunded, less any amount remaining
unpaid. In the event any customer's service is shut off for nonpayment,
prior to reconnection the customer will pay the accrued base facilities
charge plus, if at the discretion of the Department it is necessary to insure
payment, a deposit equal to twice the customer's average monthly bill in
lieu of following the schedule set forth hereafter. Customers who have not
JUNE 229 1999
41
C
BOOK JLJ PAGE
r �
BOOK i0J PAGE GJ1
been assessed late payment fees or been shut off for nonpayment for a
period of twenty-four months shall receive a refund of their deposit; except
that deposits of customers who are tenants or who otherwise rent or lease
the structure served by water or sewer utilities and including all
commercial accounts will be retained until service is discontinued to that
customer."
SECTION 12.
Section 201.08.1(c), which reads:
"No franchise fee for separately billed re -use water. Notwithstanding any
contract, ordinance, or policy of the board to the contrary, the County shall
not charge any franchise fee on the portion of any utility bill for the cost of
reclaimed water usage if the charge for the re -use water usage is shown
as a separate line items on the bill."
is amended to read as follows:
"No franchise fee for separately billed reclaimed water. Notwithstanding
any contract, ordinance, or policy of the board to the contrary, the County
shall not charge any franchise fee on the portion of any utility bill for the
cost of reclaimed water usage if the charge for the reclaimed water usage
is shown as a separate line item on the utility bill."
SECTION 13.
Section 201.09.D., which reads:
"Time payment of impact fee upon showing of hardship. The county may
allow payment of the water and/or sewer impact fees in whole or in part
over a period not to exceed five years at such interest to be determined by
the board. A lien for any such amount due shall be executed in
recordable form reflecting the payment schedule and may be filed in the
public records of Indian River County, Florida. Upon all payments being
made in full, the lien shall be released of record."
is amended to read as follows:
'Time payment of capacity charges upon showing of hardship. The
county may allow payment of the water and/or sewer capacity charges in
whole or in part over a period not to exceed five years at such interest rate
to be determined by the board. This period may be extended to ten years
if the applicant can successfully demonstrate to the Department that all
other funding sources have been exhausted and provided the Department
does not have a cash flow problem. A superior lien for any such amount
due shall be executed in recordable form reflecting the payment schedule
and may be filed in the public records of Indian River County, Florida.
Upon all payments being made in full, the lien shall be released of record.
"
SECTION 14.
Section 201.09.E., which reads:
"Refund of impact fees. Any customer whose monthly water use or
sewage flow remains below the amount corresponding to the number of
ERUs assigned to such customer for a period of twenty-four months and
for which impact fees have been paid, may make application to the
Department to reduce the number of ERUs assigned and seek
corresponding reimbursement of impact fees paid. In no case will less
than one ERU per living unit be assigned. The County may refund impact
JUNE 22,1999
42
fees actually paid, without interest, based on the impact fee schedule in
effect at the time of original payment, provided the Department has resold
such ERUs. Subsequent water use or sewage flow in excess of flows
corresponding to customers number of assigned ERUs will be subject to
the excess volume surcharge stipulated in section 201.08."
is amended to read as follows:
"Refund of capacity charges. Any commercial customer whose maximum
monthly water use or sewage flow remains below the amount
corresponding to the number of ERUs assigned to such customer for a
period of twenty-four months and for which capacity charges have been
paid, may make application to the Department to reduce the number of
ERUs assigned and seek corresponding reimbursement of capacity
charges paid, as they are resold by the County. The County may refund
capacity charges actually paid, without interest, based on the capacity
charge schedule in effect at the time of original payment or at the
prevailing rate, whichever is less, provided the Department has resold
such ERUs since the capacity charge refund application was made.
Subsequent water use or sewage flow in excess of flows corresponding to
customer's number of assigned ERUs will be subject to the provisions of
this chapter."
SECTION 15.
Section D. shall be added to Section 201.22, and shall read as follows:
"Provisions of this subsection apply to rental residential complexes where
tenants are not real property owners. Its primary application is to
apartments, recreation vehicle parks and trailer parks where short-term
tenancies are the norm. Applicability of this subsection to
mobile/manufactured home communities, which generally are based on
lifetime homeowner tenancies, is subject to the constraints having been
placed upon the laws and ordinances enacted by units of local
government by Chapter 723, Florida Statutes. The state legislature's
intent and preemption of the subject matter and of state regulation of the
complex relationship which exists between manufactured home park
owners and tenants are set forth in Sections 723.004(1),(2), and (3),
which prohibit any units of local government from enacting any laws or
ordinances in conflict with Chapter 723, F.S."
SECTION 16.
Section 201.33, which reads:
"This chapter shall be effective in the entire unincorporated area of Indian
River County and in those parts of municipalities in which the county is the
provider of water or wastewater utility services."
is amended to read as follows:
"This chapter shall be effective in the entire unincorporated area of Indian
River County and in those parts of municipalities in which the county is the
provider of water or wastewater utility services or outside Indian River
County if authorized by the County."
SECTION 17.
Section 201.34.B.(2), which reads:
"Discontinuance of service and penalty fees. The County shall have the
authority to enforce the provisions of this section by the discontinuance of
water service in the event of violation hereof. All water used in violation of
JUNE 22, 1999
43
BOOK 109 PAGE GA
BOOK M PAGE
a declaration of water shortage shall be billed at three times the regular
rate."
is amended to read as follows:
"Discontinuance of service and penalty fees. The County shall have the
authority to enforce the provisions of this section by the discontinuance of
water service in the event of violation hereof. All water used in violation of
a declaration of water shortage shall be billed at three times the normal
cumulative billing."
SECTION 18. SEVERABILITY
If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no
way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
SECTION 19. EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
The ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on the 11 t h
day of June , 1999, for a public hearing to be held on the 22nd day of
u n s , 1999, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner
G i nn , seconded by Commissioner T i g a i n , and adopted by
the following vote:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
Aye
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
22nd day of June , 1999.
J. K. Barton, C.
Deputy Clerk.
PATRICIA. WRIDGELY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN ER COUNTY, ORIDA
By , . i
Kenneth R. Macht
Chairman
ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this day
of '1999.
Indo Rhe Ca Approved Deis
Admtrrt
Legal
Budgel
Dept i• 1
Risk Mgr.
JUNE 229 1999
is 0
•
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 99-059 -
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (C BG) -
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION CATEGORY - COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AUTHORIZED TO MAKE
APPLICATION - POTABLE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER
PROJECTS FOR FOUR NEIGHBORHOODS IN WABASSO AREA -
(OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION PAVING AND DRAINAGE PROJECT
REMOVED FROM CONSIDERATION)
1999:
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum. of June 15,
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D,FV4N HEAD CONCURR, NCE:
Ebert M. Keating, AI
Community Developm Dir r
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP 15741.
Chiet Long -Range Planning
FROM: Peter J. Radke' .
Economic Development Planner
DATE: June 15, 1999
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR TO MAKE APPLICATION FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION CATEGORY
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 22, 1999.
On January 19, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners, at an advertised public hearing,
authorized community development staff to apply for a Neighborhood Revitalization Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG). Also at that meeting, the Board revised and then reactivated
the county's CDBG citizen advisory task force. -
According to CDBG requirements, the Board must hold a second public hearing to obtain public
input on the county's proposed Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG application and to approve the
application for submittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). This is the
required second public hearing. At this time, the Board must formally authorize staff to submit the
application and to sign the necessary documents related to the application submittal.
Under the CDBG program, there are two groups of grant categories. The first group includes three
grant types. These are: Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, and Neighborhood
JUNE 229 1999
BOOK iOa PAGE 64JO
,
0
BOOK 109 PAGE 607
Revitalization. If awarded a grant in one of those three categories, the county may not apply for
another grant in any of those three categories until the awarded grant is closed.
As indicated previously, the Board of County Commissioners chose to apply for a Neighborhood
Revitalization Community Development Block Grant. This type of grant is primarily for potable
water and sanitary sewer installation or replacement (including hook-ups), street paving, and
drainage improvements in low/moderate income neighborhoods. Funds may also be used to
purchase and develop property as sites for low/moderate income housing. Other public
improvements to infrastructure are also eligible, but are seldom funded
Neighborhood Revitalization grants are awarded to communities on a competitive basis. All grant
applications for this category must be received by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) no
later than June 30, 1999. Following is a breakdown of the scoring system used by DCA to rank
Neighborhood Revitalization grant applications.
Table 1: Scoring Breakdown for Neighborhood Revitalization Category
Community -wide needs
250 points
Program impact, Scope of Work, I.MI Benefit
650 points
Outstanding performance in equal opportunity employment and housing
100 points
Total points
1 1,000 points
The second group consists only of the Economic Development category. This grant category is
independent of the other three categories. In the same fiscal year that Indian River County applies
for a grant in a category from the first group, the county may also choose to apply for fiords in the
Economic Development category. In fact, the county has approved an application for an Economic
Development grant in this fiscal year. A public hearing was held before the Board of County
Commissioners on April 20, 1999. At that public hearing, the county's Economic Development
CDBG application was approved for submittal to DCA.
At the January 19 public hearing, staff had indicated that the Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG
application would be for drainage and paving improvements in portions of the Oslo Park
Subdivision. Since that public hearing, the county's CDBG consultant has informed staff that a
drainage and road paving project anywhere in Indian River County will not receive a high enough
score to be fimded. This is a result of the county's low community wide needs score that is used by
DCA in its scoring system and the fact that drainage and road paving projects do not receive high
program impact scores.
To have a chance at receiving grant fiords, the county's consultant has recommended that the county
maximize its program impact score. Potable water and sanitary sewer projects receive the highest
program impact scores. Since Oslo Park Subdivision is already served by the county water system,
staff reviewed other area of the county that are in need of potable water improvements.
Staff identified four neighborhoods in the Wabasso area that are in need of potable water
improvements. These areas are identified in the following table:
Table 2: Proposed Project Area
Neighborhood
# of Possible Beneficiaries
Map
John W. Massey Jr. Subdivision
13
Attachment I
Hill Side Subdivision
23
Attachment 2
Wabasso Low's Subdivision
11
Attachment 3
An area east of 64" Avenue and north of CR 510
126
Attachment 4
Total # of Possible Beneficiaries
173
While the first three neighborhoods are platted subdivisions, the fourth neighborhood is not platted
and does not have any public rights-of-way. Easements will have to be established within that
neighborhood in order to lay county water lines in that neighborhood. County staff have already
initiated the process to establish the necessary utility easements.
JUNE 229 1999
46
0
The county's consultant has prepared the proposed Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG application.
A copy of the application is on file in the Board of County Commissioners office. As drafted, the
CDBG application requests approval of a $750,000 grant for potable water improvements and
hookups, fire hydrants, and easement acquisition. Table 3 lists the proposed activities for which the
grant funds will be used.
Table 3 : Proposed Activities
Activity
Budget (Approximately)
Construction
$575,000
Engineering
$115,000
Administration
$60,000
TOTAL CDBG BUDGET
$750,000
Matching Funds
By contributing a financial match to the project, the county has the opportunity to improve its
application score. With the maximum match of $150,000, the county can gain 30 additional
application points and, therefore, improve the project's chances of being fimded in this fiscal year.
For the previous CDBG project in Wabasso, the county contributed funds for road paving as well
as SHIP fiords for water impact fees. During that CDBG project, staff discovered that residents of
the area were reluctant to participate in the county's SHIP program due to the requirement that a lien
be placed on their homes in exchange for an interest-free or low-interest loan, which would be used
to pay the water impact fee of $1,300. To accommodate those residents, the county agreed to waive
the lien if residents signed a promissary note to pay back the SHIP loan in monthly payments.
Using a monthly payment option for SHIP loans has produced numerous problems for county staff.
Many hours of staff time have been required to collect these monthly payments. Collecting monthly
payments requires the county to undertake activities similar to that of a financial institution, and the
county does not have the resources to be involved in such activities. For the proposed CDBG
project, the county proposes to offer SHIP grants of $1,300 to qualified households in the project
area, with the grant funds to be used to pay the county's water impact fee.
In the proposed CDBG application, the county will contribute $150,000 in SHIP funds to the
proposed project in Wabasso. Those fiords will be available to qualified households in the project
area to be used to pay the county's water impact fee.
The proposed Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG application was reviewed by the CDBG Citizen
Advisory Task Force at a meeting on June 14, 1999. Since a quorum was not present at that
meeting, a formal recommendation regarding the application could not be forwarded to the Board
of County Commissioners. Instead, the Citizen Advisory Task Force members present at the June
14 meeting came to a unanimous consensus to forward the Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG
application to the Board of County Commissioners for approval.
As part of the CDBG application process, the county is required to hold a Fair Housing Workshop
prior to submitting the grant application. The county's consultant will be present at the June 22
Board of County Commissioners meeting to conduct the Fair Housing Workshop as part of the
public hearing. An information handout has been provided as attachment 8, which will complement
the consultant's presentation on fair housing.
With respect to the proposed Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG application, the Board of County
Commissioners has three alternatives. These are:
To approve the application as proposed;
To approve the proposed application with changes; or
To reject the proposed application.
JUNE 229 1999
47
BOOK h9 PAGE GJ
I
BOOK iU9 PAGE 60- 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
► Approve the proposed application;
01 Approve a financial match to the project of $450,000 of SHIP fimds, which will be available
to qualified households in the form of $1,300 SHIP impact fee grants;
► Authorize the community development director to submit the application to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their consideration; and
► Authorize the community development director to submit any additional information and
sign subsequent forms as needed.
ATTA E MF.NT
1.) Location Map for John W. Massey Jr. Subdivision
2.) Location Map for Hill Side Subdivision
3.) Location Map for wabasso Lows Subdivision
4.) Location Map for a neighborhood east of 60 Avenue and north of CR 510.
5.) Proposed Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG application is on file at the Board of County
Commissioners office.
6-)CDBG application authorization resolution
7.) Grant Financial Information Foran
8.) Fair Housing Information Handout
Director Keating advised that Bob Massarelk of CRA Consulting, would be
presenting an overview of the application, assist in the public hearing, and do a brief fair
housing workshop as required. He further advised that when they had appeared before the
Board in January, staff talked about submitting an application for road paving in the Oslo
area. In working with the consultant, however, they determined that project would not
accumulate enough points to ensure receiving a grant: Consequently, staff changed
directions and a revised application was now before the Board. They are now proposing to
do utility installations close to where that last CDBG project was done. (The areas are
identified in the memorandum.) He then reviewed the recommendation as set out in the
memorandum.
Bob Massarelli, CRA Consulting, 6191 West Atlantic Blvd, Margate, Florida, was
pleased to be appearing before the Board once again. He described how the CDBG process
works. He advised that the Oslo paving project was extremely worthwhile, but in competing
with other projects in the state, the scoring was not high enough. The opportunities in the
Wabasso area were a better choice to rank higher/score better in competing for the CDBG
JUNE 229 1999
48
money. He pointed out the four areas in the Wabasso area which need water service and/or
fire hydrants. The residents have all been interviewed as to their income qualifications and
the area does meet the program's requirements. They also received overwhelming support
from those residents who are excited about this type of activity in their area. He reviewed
staff's recommendation and advised that he could not guarantee the application's success in
obtaining funding, but assured the Board that a lot of effort has gone into getting as many
points for the projects as possible and he hoped to obtain additional points during the
workshop. The purpose of the workshop is to get the word out to the public about the
requirements for housing in the community. Workshops are held with the public and the
lenders about prevention cif discrimination. He advised that the Fair Housing Rights say
the following about discrimination: you cannot be prevented from viewing or renting an
apartment, from viewing or purchasing a home, from applying for or securing a home loan,
or purchasing homeowner's or renter's insurance based on race, familial status, color, sex,
religion, national origin, disability, or family status. (Federal law) He gave examples of
discrimination in the case of rentals and advised that a landlord must allow structural
modifications to address handicap needs. Housing cannot be denied because of children or
pregnancy. He reviewed the criteria necessary to deny housing for families with children in
an area designed for older people. He reviewed restrictions relative to sexual harassment.
He reviewed what someone should do if they think they have been discriminated against and
stressed the importance of keeping records to help build a case. He covered the new federal
and state requirements for the handicapped in multi -family dwellings. Finally, he concurred
with staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Grin commented that she was pleased to see SHIP funds used in this
manner.
Director Keating added that these would be SHIP grants which will not be required
to be repaid as long as someone occupies the unit for at least 10 years.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in
this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing.
JUNE 229 1999
49
BOOK FACE.
BOOK i0a FAGE �
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved staff's
recommendation as set out in the Memorandum and adopted
Resolution No. 99-059 authorizing the Community
Development Director to make application to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for a Neighborhood
Revitalization Community Development Block Grant.
ONE OF THREE ORIGINAL APPLICATION BOOKLETS IS ON FILE
IN TAE OFFICE OF TAE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION 99- 59
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT.
,r,ttr,ttt,r
WHEREAS, Indian River County is experiencing a need for physical improvements
In one or more low -to -moderate income neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners to improve the living environment in these areas; and
plan.
WHEREAS, the proposed CDBG application is consistent with the local comprehensive
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; that
SECTION 1. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is declared
to be a workable program for providing needed physical improvements in the low -to -moderate
income area(s) indicated in the proposed 1999/2000 CDBG application.
SECTION 2. The Board of County Commissioners hereby directs the County Clerk
to sign all necessary certifications for the Community Development Block Grant application.
JUNE 229 1999
50
RESOLUTION 99-5 9
SECTION 3. The Board of County Commissioners directs the Community
Development Director to execute and submit the attached application to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for state approval.
SECTION 4. The Board of County Commissioners authorizes and directs the
Community Development Director to submit additional information in a timely manner as
may be required by the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
SECTION 5. The Board of County Commissioners authorizes the Community
Development Director to sign any subsequent forms as needed for the CDBG application and
project.
SECTION 6. The Indian River County comprehensive plan is hereby adopted as the
County's community development plan.
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner A d a m c and
seconded by Commissioner T i p p i n and being put to a vote, the vote was
as follows:
Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Caroline D. Gig Ay e
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge A v e
Commissioner John W. Tippet Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 22nd day of June, 1999.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF I=ennP-
R CO
VAlsb h1. W Aoowa Dere BY:
Adnyn Macht,
Legal W
8uaget
De0l
Rlsk MW. ATTEST BY(:��i�
u\pelcdbg\waba=11aPp_reawpcl 6111 Jeffrey
K. Barton, Clerk
JUNE 229 1999
51
BOOK 1U9 FADE 612
r
BOOK iOa FAGE �1
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM -.APPEAL BY HOME &
PATIO. INC. OF A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENIAL OF A
REQUEST FORA 10.6' FRONT YARD VARIANCE AND A VARIANCE
FROM THE CG ZONING DISTRICT MAXIMUM BUILDING
COVERAGE REQUIREMENT FOR PROPOSED BUILDING
ENCLOSURES AT 1396 US 1(quasi-Judicial)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 15, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Community DevelopmenyDirectcy
A r3
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director, Current Development
DATE: June 15, 1999
SUBJECT: Appeal by Home & Patio, Inc. of a Board of Adjustments Denial of a Request
for a 10.6' Frontyard Variance and a Variance from the CG Zoning District
Maximum Building Coverage -Requirement for Proposed Building Enclosures
at 1396 US 1
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of June 22, 1999.
• Appeal to the Board of County Commissioners
This is the first appeal of a Board of Adjustments decision to go before the Board of County
Commissioners. Until recently, staff, applicants, and members of the Board of Adjustments have
believed that the Board of Adjustments decisions were final county decisions on variance matters
and that any appeal of such decisions was a matter for the courts. However, after the Board of
Adjustments recent denial of the referenced Home & Patio variance request, the applicant's attorney
asked staff to confirm the appropriate appeal process. After reviewing the matter, the County
Attorney's Office concluded that the Board of County Commissioners must hear the appeal.
That opinion is based on the fact that the LDRs do not specifically state that appeals of Board of
Adjustments decisions go to court, and because county code section 100.06 states that decisions with
unspecified appeal procedures are heard by the Board of County Commissioners. Therefore, the
County Attorney's Office informed the applicant's attorney that he could either go directly to court
with the county waiving its "right" to a Board of County Commissioner's hearing, or he could have
his appeal heard by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant's attorney chose to have
his appeal heard by the Board of County Commissioners. Although no public hearing or notice is
•
JUNE 229 1999
52
0
I
0 0 7
required in relation to this appeal, the Board of County Commissioners is to conduct a de novo
hearing, and is to consider all the evidence and "sit" as if it were the Board of Adjustments.
• Action Being Appealed
At its May 6, 1999 meeting, the Indian River County Board of Adjustments voted 3 -1 to deny a
request for variances by Home & Patio, Inc. The variances sought were to allow proposed building
enclosures at the existing "Sandy's Furniture" (Home & Patio) store located at the southeast corner
of 14th Street and US #1. The requested variances were for a 10.6' frontyard setback variance (for
the 141 Street side of the building) and for a variance from the CG district maximum building
coverage allowance. During discussion at the hearing, members of the Board of Adjustments
indicated that there may be grounds for a variance from the 14th Street frontyard setback, because
the county's actions a few years ago created the 14th Street right-of-way and changed the applicant's
north setback from a side yard (10) to a front yard (25'). However, a majority of the Board
concluded that the proposed enclosures would result in an increase in the site's building coverage
and would, therefore, increase the site's degree of building coverage non -conformity if the variance
were granted. On that basis, the Board of Adjustments denied the variance request.
Now, the Board of County Commissioners, acting in an appeal capacity, is to consider the variance
request and approve, approve with conditions, or deny that request.
♦ Site Conditions and Proposed Development
The subject property, zoned CG (General Commercial), is located at the southeast corner of US 1
and 14th Street. The property measures approximately 90' x 300' (27,000 sq. ft.) and contains the
existing Home & Patio business. Two buildings exist on site, covering approximately 13,785 sq.
ft. or 51 % of the site. Thus, 51 % of the site is covered by enclosed building area. The CG district
maximum building coverage allowance is 40% of the site area. In addition to the building coverage
nonconformity, there are setback nonconformities, including a 10.6' encroachment into the 25'
frontyard setback along 141 Street for the westernmost building on-site.
A few years ago, the county formalized 141 Street as road right-of-way and improved it. Now, 14th
Street is a public paved road from US 1 to 61 Avenue. Thus, parcels fronting 14th Street, such as the
subject property, now have a frontyard setback along 14th Street rather than a sideyard setback.
Recently, Home & Patio, Inc. applied for site plan administrative approval to make changes to the
existing westernmost building. Although no administrative approval has been granted, it appears
that work has already been performed on-site for the proposed improvements. In fact at the Board
of Adjustments hearing, the applicant clarified this matter, stating that the old glass (now the "inside"
glass enclosure) and the new glass (now the "outermost" glass enclosure) are both in place.
According to the applicant, the new glass was installed because it had already been ordered and
delivered. As proposed, the administrative approval cannot be granted unless the variance request
appeal is granted.
The dimensions of the proposed building changes were revised by the applicant during the site plan
review process. Currently, the proposal is to remove 130 sq. ft. of enclosed display (building) area
from the western "jut" of the subject building, remove 140 sq. & of outdoor display area (covered
sidewalk area) at the northwest comer of the subject building, and to convert two outdoor display
areas (covered sidewalk or patio areas) to enclosed display building area for a total of 470 sq. & of
new enclosed building area Approximately 50 sq. ft. of the to -be -converted enclosed area would
encroach into the 25' frontyard setback along 141 Street.
JUNE 22, 1999
53
BOOK .�. PAGE G1
BOOK D9 PAGE G15
Staffs review of the application indicates that the proposal would result in 340 sq. 8. more enclosed
building area and that approval of such a proposal would increase the degree of existing building
coverage nonconformity. In addition, staff s analysis is that converting 50 sq. & of outdoor
display/covered sidewalk area to enclosed area, all within a frontyard setback, would increase the
degree of the setback nonconformity by allowing more building structure within that setback.
♦ Variance Review
It is clear from the previously described facts that there are existing nonconformities on the site of
the proposed additions/redevelopment. As such, redevelopment proposals are guided by the
county's nonconformities regulations, as well as more general development requirements.
Specifically, nonconformities section 904.05(3) pertains to "additions to, and development or
redevelopment of, establishments with site -related nonconformities." That section states that
additions/development/redevelopment of sites with nonconformities may be permitted if the
proposed changes "... do not increase the existing site related nonconformity." The proposal cannot
be permitted since it would increase the degree of building coverage nonconformity by 340 sq. ft.
and would result in 50 more square feet of enclosed building area within a required 25' setback.
The applicant maintains that the proposed display (glass) enclosed area covers pre-existing outdoor
patio display area that is over slab and under roof and that has functioned similarly to a retail area
for years. Thus, the applicant contends that there is no proposed change in use of the area to be
enclosed and that 140 sq. & of pre-existing outdoor patio display area is being removed entirely.
In essence, the applicant asserts that converting roofed -over sidewalks or patio area to building area
is no real change in circumstances and that the proposal be construed to result in a decrease in the
degree of nonconformity. In addition, the applicant contends that the county's improvement of 141
Street a few years ago has adversely affected the site's setbacks and its outdoor patio display area
and that enclosure is necessary for nuisance and security reasons.
The Board of Adjustments agreed with staff, concluding that the zoning code properly distinguishes
between roofed over sidewalk display area and enclosed conditioned building area. There is a
tangible and important difference between enclosed building area and areas historically used for
placement of outdoor patio furniture. For instance, the zoning code specifically limits the amount
of enclosed building area allowed on a site, as expressed in the maximum building coverage
requirement. Also, the Board Of Adjustments previous decision in the Landmark Motor Lodge case
from January 11, 1988 recognized the distinction between grandfathered -in, roofed -over patio area
and enclosure of that area within a setback. In the Landmark case, the Board Of Adjustments
unanimously denied a request to convert a roofed -over patio area to enclosed building area within
a frontyard setback. It should be noted that the county's improvement of 141 Street years ago did
not involve acquisition of right-of-way from the subject property, although a frontyard setback
applies along 141 Street since it is now a road right- of -way.
To grant the appeal and corresponding variance request, the Board of County Commissioners must
review the evidence in the same way as the Board of Adjustments, and conclude that the
circumstances and conditions related to the proposed project and site are unique. Such conclusions
must be guided by findings based upon review of the request in light of the eight variance criteria
contained in section 902.09(6)(a) of the land development regulations (LDRs). No variance can be
granted unless the Board of County Commissioners finds that the request satisfies all eight of the
following criteria.
1. Special Condition. That special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to
the land, structure, or building involved, and which are not applicable to other lands,
structures, or buildings in the same zoning district;
JUNE 229 1999
0
54
2. Action of Applicant. That the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the
actions of the applicant or illegal acts of previous property owners;
3. Special Privilege. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any
special privilege that is denied by the regulation to other lands, buildings, or structures in the
same zoning district,
4. Unnecessary Hardship. That literal interpretation of the provisions of the regulations
would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same
zoning district under the terms of the regulations and would constitute an unnecessary and
undue hardship upon the applicant;
5. Minimum Variance Necessary. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary in
order to make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure;
6. Purpose and Intent Compliance. That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with
the general purpose and intent of these zoning regulations and the Indian River County
comprehensive plan;
7. Detriment to Public Welfare. That such variance will not be injurious to the surrounding
area or otherwise be detrimental to the public welfare; and
8. Reasonable Use. That the property cannot be put to a reasonable use which fully complies
with the requirements of this ordinance.
It is the position of the Board of Adjustments and staff that four of the eight criteria are not satisfied
by the request.
1. Special Condition: No special conditions peculiar to the subject site exist that warrant
granting a variance from the maximum building coverage requirements. Many properties
in the county have nonconformities and are governed by the county's nonconformities
chapter. Also, many retail businesses in the county use covered sidewalk areas along
building fronts for display (e.g. supermarkets and home improvement stores). Such fairly
common circumstances do not warrant variances to allow expansion of enclosed building
area (building coverage) beyond zoning code maximums, nor do such circumstances warrant
conversion of covered sidewalk area to enclosed building area within a building setback.
2. Special Privilege: Because the Home & Patio situation is not unique, granting the variance
request would grant a special privilege denied to others. Other redevelopment projects on
nonconforming sites have not been allowed to create or increase building coverage
nonconformities (e.g. former Babcock Building Supply). Also, as previously cited, the
Board Of Adjustments has denied other requests to enclose roofed -over patio areas within
setbacks. For many years this prohibition has been applied to many owners of
nonconforming sites.
3. Purpose and Intent Compliance: Granting the variance request would be contrary to the
purpose and intent of the county land development regulations. The intent of the county's
nonconformities regulations is to allow lawful continued use of nonconformities and to
prohibit creation of new nonconformities and increases in the degree of nonconformities.
Variance regulation 902.09(4)(a) states: "No variance shall be granted which relates in any
way to a nonconforming use, except as allowed in the nonconformities section". Therefore,
because the request does not adhere to the nonconformities regulations, the variance request
cannot be approved.
JUNE 22, 1999
55
BOOK�� ��' �
dJ FADE I
BOOK iOJ FAGE Gi 7
4. Reasonable Use: The use of the property may continue as it has for many years or be
changed in ways that do not increase the degree of nonconformity. Such allowances are
reasonable and do not require variances.
It is the conclusion of the Board of Adjustments that the variance request is not justified and should
be denied.
♦ Clarifying the Appeal Process
It is the desire of staff and the Board of Adjustments (as expressed at its June 14, 1999 meeting) that
an LDR change be made to specifically state that decisions of the Board of Adjustments are appealed
directly to the courts. It is the opinion of staff and the Board of Adjustments that the Board's very
purpose is to handle technical variance matters on behalf of the county. Thus, an LDR change is
needed to "restore" the process that was thought to already be in place, and to spare the Board of
County Commissioners any "extra" duties already handled by the Board of Adjustments.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Deny Home & Patio Inc.'s appeal of the Board of Adjustments decision to deny the
variance request, and
2. Direct staff to initiate a change to the LDRs to specify that Board of Adjustments
decisions are appealed directly to the courts.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter of Appeal & Variance Application & Legal Description
2. Location Map
3. Site Graphic
4. Correspondence
5. Board of Adjustment's Minutes (Approved 6/14/99)
6. County Code Excerpts & Attorneys Office Memo
Chairman Macht was puzzled why this item appeared under public discussion items
and understood it was quasi-judicial, which County Attorney Vitunac confirmed.
County Attorney Vitunac then administered the oath to Community Development
Director Bob Keating, Planning Director Stan Boling, Attorney Ted Herzog, and his clients
(Robert Mooney and Margaret Williams) and asked that they state on the record when they
testify that they have been sworn.
Planning Director Stan Boling advised he had been sworn. He explained that before
them was a general policy issue which deals with whether or not the Board of County
Commissioners should hear appeals from the Board of Adjustment decisions and why the
issue was before them. On this issue, the recommendation is that staff be directed to make
a change to the LDRs so that Board of Adjustment decisions would be final and that appeals
JUNE 229 1999
56
0 1*
of such decisions go into the court system. He reported that the Board of Adjustment had
made a similar recommendation.
Director Boling then reviewed the specific appeal and the history and advised that the
Board of Adjustment denied a variance request from Home & Patio by a vote of 3-1. The
Board of County Commissioners is sitting like the Board of Adjustment reviewing the
evidence and is to decide whether or not a variance should be granted after listening to the
evidence.
Using exhibits displayed on the ELMO, Director Boling then proceeded with a
comprehensive review of the history of the property, what Home & Patio wished to do to
improve the property, and the governing regulations as set out in the above memorandum.
He pointed out the variance criteria found in the memorandum and recommended the appeal
be denied.
Following his presentation, Director Boling responded to questions of Commissioner
Ginn concerning front and side yard setbacks.
Vice Chairman Adams inquired about the paving of 14' Street and whether right-of-
way
ightof-
way had been purchased from or provided by Home & Patio.
Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II, who was sworn, advised of the
ownership of the property that was acquired for paving 14' Street. No right-of-way had been
purchased or obtained from Home & Patio.
Director Boling responded to a question from Commissioner Stanbridge about an
approval for an enclosure as a trade-off for parking in 1987.
Commissioner Ginn inquired about the roof line and staff yielded to the attorney for
the appellant.
Ted Herzog, attorney for the appellant, who stated he had been sworn, advised that
the footprint of the building and the roof is the same as in 1972 when it was constructed
(under old regulations) with a small modification in 1980. He proceeded to give a lengthy
presentation which has been greatly condensed in these minutes.
Mr. Herzog commented on a statement made by Director Boling concerning the
appeal process and pointed out the time and costs related to taking an appeal of this nature
to court and possibility of "failure to exhaust administrative remedies". Because the LDRs
were unclear, he brought this appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. He strongly
believed that an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners should exist as part of the
administrative process giving reasons based on extensive costs and necessary procedures
JUNE 229 1999
57
BOOK 109 FAGE
I
BOOK 100 PAGE �
related to litigation. He requested the Board consider providing an appeal process before
them. Because the Board of Adjustment meets infrequently, he believed that the Board of
County Commissioners would not be inundated with appeals of decisions.
Mr. Herzog introduced into evidence the transcript of the Board of Adjustment
hearing as well as photographs of the property. (Clerk's Note: Evidence submitted has been
filed with the backup of the meeting in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) He gave the
history and ownership of the business, using the photographs of the property showing the
original corrugated metal building which matched the character of the neighborhood at the
time. (The photos were displayed on the ELMO.)
Mr. Herzog then described the additions to the building over the years pointing out
the changes to the building on the photographs. He told of the reasons for the changes and
why the "wings" had been enclosed with glass under permits from the County. Mr. Herzog
continued that, in 1999, Home & Patio determined there was a need to improve aesthetics
in order to compete with new business and growth in the area. They made application for
renovations to include a new roof facade and anew glass enclosure. The work was permitted
and, as construction began, deterioration of the roofing structure was discovered. It was
necessary to replace beams and other skeletal structure. In order to replace the deteriorated
steel, old windows had to be removed, which were replaced with seamless glass which did
not match other glass. Materials were ordered. These events caused the necessity for an
application for a variance. The owners called in an architect for an aesthetic and structural
design which was submitted to the Building Department. In early conversations with staff,
Mr. Herzog was told there was a problem with parking. More parking was put in and then
he was advised that there were also setback and lot -coverage questions. At this point, the
new glass was installed and he instructed the owners not to have the old windows torn down
because they might need them if they were to receive a "tear down" order and they could
have the scofflaw problem. So, the old glass was also maintained and merchandise was put
in the floor spaces in between. This new glass enclosed area puts the building over the lot
coverage allowed. Legal nonconformity under the current definitions has resulted. There has
been no increase in use but, according to the regulations, that area could be screened in,
fenced in, shuttered, etc., but not enclosed. The total amount of nonconforming space, he
believed, would be approximately 200 square feet and would actually necessitate the
elimination of two panes of glass. He then reviewed the land use regulations with respect
to facility, constitutionality, legitimate purposes, lack of clarity and reasonableness, impact
JUNE 229 1999
58
•
on the public, aesthetics, and cited case law to support his arguments. He believed there
was a question of intent in Sections 904.05(1) and 902.49 and that the Board should have the
authority to make a determination in this appeal. Paving of le Street created a problem with
the length of the side parking spaces. Home & Patio worked cooperatively with the County
in getting the ownership of the street settled in order to simplify the negotiations that allowed
for the road widening.
Mr. Herzog summed up his argument on the issue and thanked the Commissioners for
their time and attention
Robert Mooney, one of the owners of the family business, who had been sworn,
testified that Mr. Herzog had represented the facts as he knew them. The family has owned
the business for a little over 30 years and they have tried to improve the business over the
years as circumstances changed. He stated that the appeals process is very important to the
public and many people are unable to go into court for appeals because of economics. If
appeal before elected officials is eliminated, it would leave many people nowhere to go
beyond staff level. There are differences of opinion in the interpretation of the regulations.
He asked, if there is a discrepancy or question, that the Board decide on behalf of the
individual before them who found the regulations very difficult to understand. He had to
move to protect the business' interests while the process was ongoing or he would have been
out of business.
The Commissioners had no questions.
Commissioner Adams recounted the facts and the question came back to the amount
of coverage and lot size. It seemed to her like a lot of fuss over a small problem. The
improvements that have been made to the properly have made abig difference in appearance
and in terms of increased taxes. The use of the property over the period of 30 years was
likely not considered when the LDRs were set. She had no problem with granting the
variance.
Commissioner Ginn stated her concerns were the basic footprint and the roof line.
She felt the glass enclosure did not change the use, but changes the use -ability. She felt the
property is unique, that the evidence supported granting the appeal, and would vote to grant
the variance. She also believed the Board should look at how the appeals are directed.
Commissioner Stanbridge pointed out that she and Commissioner Tippin had seen
JUNE 229 1999
59
•
BOOK 109 FAGEG
BOOK 109 PAGE 621
much of the history of the building and the paving of 14' Street while they served on the
Planning and Zoning Commission. She felt it was necessary to use common sense in this
issue and believed the business was upgraded and an asset to the community. She would
vote in favor of granting the variance.
Commissioner Tippin thought they should always be cautious about making
exceptions, but his years on PZC have taught him that every scenario has not been thought
of in developing regulations. He thought the property was unique and would support the
variance.
Chairman Macht could not disagree with any of the prior statements, but thought it
needed to be added that the Board of Adjustment and staff had done what they were
supposed to do; that is, the technical application of the regulations. It was the Board's job
to exercise latitude. He wanted time to think about the appeals process and asked that the
appeals process be voted on at a later time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously granted the
appeal.
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - FRANCIS M. COFFEY
COMMENT ON BEACH PRESERVATION PROJECT
Deferred at request of Mr. Coffey.
9.C.1.& 2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS
SCHEDULED FOR JULY 6.1999: CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
- 1) REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND SPECIAL
EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL AND 2) REQUEST FOR RIGHT-OF-
WAY ABANDONMENT
The Chairman read the following Memorandum of June 14,_ 1999 into the record:
JUNE 229 1999
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP / /
Community Development irector✓
A 6J.
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP- ( �►�
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: June 14, 1999
SUBJECT: Notice of Scheduled Public Hearings for the July 6, 1999 Board Meeting
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of June,S, 1999.
sz
Please be advised that the following public hearings have been scheduled for Board consideration
at its July 6, 1999 meeting.
1. Christ Presbyterian Church's Request for Conceptual Plan and Special Exception Use
Approval for a Place of Worship Located -on the North Side of CR 510 Approximately
Halfway Between US #1 and the Wabasso Causeway. (Quasi - judicial)
2. Christ Presbyterian Church's Request for Right -of -Way Abandonment to Abandon a Portion
of "Excess" 87`h Street (Bridge Blvd.) Right -of -Way, Between US #1 and CR 510.
(Legislative)
The above referenced public hearing date is provided for the Board's information. No action is
needed.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
JUNE 229 1999
61
BOOK 103FAGS
BOOK JUJ FAG- 623
11.C.1. LIBRARY AUTOMATION SYSTEM - PURCHASE FROM
GEAC COMPUTERS. INC. - (COMPUTER HARDWARE AND
SOFTWARE UPGRADE NECESSARY FOR Y2K COMPLIANCE)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 14, 1999:
Date: June 14, 1999
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Thru: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director,(
From: Mary Powell, Library Services Directol$
Subject: Automation Agreements for Upgraded Software, Equipment and Training
BACKGROUND:
This year, the Main Library received notice from Geac Computers, Inc., the software support
company, that its library automation system would not be supported due to its non-compliance
with the effect of year 2000 (Y2K). Basically, the Motorola main frame computer has to be
replaced and a software upgrade needs to be installed. A request for funding in the first of the
last five years sales tax proceeds was filed through the Budget Office. The requested amount
was $185,776. Included within this estimate was $15,000 for the fiber connection at the North
Library so that the North Library will have the same speed in Internet connection as the Main
Library and be compatible with the upgraded equipment and software being installed. The
connection is anticipated to occur in July with the installation of the fiber optics along C. K
512. At that time, a separate contract would be brought back to Board for its consideration.
Once the connection is completed, the North County's Library access will jump from 128Kbps
to 100,000Kbps!
On April 20, 1999, this matter along with several other matters associated with Y2K issues was
presented to the Board by the Office of Budget and Management, and the Board approved and
appropriated the requested $185,775 from available sales tax funds in this current fiscal year.
Geac Computers, Inc. has prepared an agreement, which calls for the specific equipment training
and software upgrades. The total price is $165,286.
ANALYSIS:
This is one of those situations where there is little choice but to move forward with the system
upgrade. Geac Computers, Inc. is the current provider, but some of the existing hardware, a
Motorola main frame computer, will no longer be compatible and needs to exchanged with
hardware that is compatible and this will also require a software upgrade. The action necessary
to enter into this agreement will also require the Board to designate Geac Computers, Inc. as a
sole source. It is the opinion of staff that this is the prudent action to be taken due to time
constraints imposed by the Y2K problem.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the purchase of the Library automation system from Geac computers, Inc. as a sole
source provider and Authorize the Chairman to execute the sales and license agreement with
Geac Computers, Inc. in the amount of $165,286.
JUNE 22, 1999
62
MOTION was made by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Stanbridge to approve staff's
recommendation.
In making the motion, Vice Chairman Adams expressed concern that this is a sole
source provider and hoped the County would not have a problem of "gouging" because of
it.
In seconding the motion, Commissioner Stanbridge expressed the same concern.
General Services Director Tom Frame reported that part of this relates to the existing
automation system; Geac was the provider of the software and the support company for that
software system. The significant change was the Y2K problem associated with the Motorola
mainframe, which was not Y2K compliant. There was no particular complaint with this
particular company. Also, there are a series of "dumb terminals" that operate the Library's
automation system. By using Geac, we will not have to change those terminals immediately.
The new software will be a Windows ®-based program but it will also run parallel on both
the personal computers and the "dumb terminals". Replacing the existing hardware ("dumb
terminals") would increase the price immediately. Eventually all the "dumb terminals" will
be phased out, but it is not being done now because of the lack of funds to make a complete
conversion.
Commissioner Ginn was concerned that it took over 100 days to bring this to the
Board's attention and now there was a rush. She was troubled by that and inquired as to the
reason.
Administrator Chandler responded that the problem had been identified several
months ago and staff had come to the Board with a proposed budget amendment. Other
potential Y2K problems were identified also and the top priorities were emergency services
and utilities. Priorities were addressed first.
Commissioner Ginn understood, but still felt this should have been moved forward
in a more timely fashion.
Director Frame apologized and added that there was some delay in having the
agreement reviewed by our legal staff.
Commissioner Ginn then asked if we had any assurance that the upgrades will work
and be Y2K compliant, and Director Frame felt confident that the upgrades would render the
JUNE 229 1999
63
BOOK . 109 FAGUE 2k
Fr- -I
BOOK ic:a1 FAU e9
system Y2K compliant.
County Attorney Vitunac reported that the only liability on behalf of Geac is for the
cost of the contract; there are no incidental costs or damages if there is a problem, which is
standard.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Authorized the purchase of the Library
automation system from Geac Computers, Inc., as a sole source
provider, and authorized the Chairman to execute the Sales and
License Agreement in the amount of $165,286.)
SALES AND LICENSE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN TBE OFFICE OF TAE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
11.C.2. MAIN LIBRARY GIFT SHOP RENTAL CHARGES -
FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 16, 1999:
Date: June 16,1999
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director -&V.OduJ•
Subject: Rental Charges at Main Library for the Friends of the Library
BACKGROUND:
The County Attorney's office received a letter from Mary Fran Galvin, President, of the Friends
of the Vero Beach Public Library. The correspondence had requested consideration to reduce
the rent payment now being paid by the "Friends" to some nominal amount rather than the
current $2.50 per square foot which generates $1,800 per year to the General Fund.
The "Friends" would prefer to see the funds, that are currently being paid to the County as rent,
paid directly for the benefit of the library in the form of a donation. In reviewing what some
other jurisdictions are currently doing, it was found that Martin County charges no rent for their
used book store; the Brevard County gift shop pays no rent; Seminole County used book store
pays $1.00 per year; and the Broward County gift shop pays $10.00 per year.
ANALYSIS:
Currently, the Friends of the Vero Beach Public Library have contributed $2,688.00 to the Main
Library as of this date. If the rent payment had been in the form of a donation, one could assume
that the contribution for this year at this time would be closer to $4,488. The General Fund
Revenue would have been reduced by $1,800.
JUNE 229 1999
10 9
•
RECOMMENDATION•
From the perspective of the Library, the benefit would be more direct if the "Friends " were to
make a donation rather that a rent payment. If the Board concurs with that philosophy, then it
should determine the amount, if any, that it would want to modify the current agreement and
charges, and direct staff to prepare the necessary agreements and resolution to accomplish the
same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously concurred
that the agreement with the Friends of the Library be modified
to a $1.00 per year charge and directed staff to prepare the
necessary documents to accomplish same.
11.E. OPTIONAL SALES TAX -THIRD FIVE YEARS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 16, 1999:
OFFICE_ OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 16, 1999
SUBJECT: OPTIONAL SALES TAX - THIRD FIVE YEARS - OMB AGENDA
FROM: James E. Chandler Yn Joseph A. Bair
County Administrator OMB Director
Background Information
Chapter 87-239 Laws ofFlorida initiated the "Local Government Infrastructure Commitment Act",
which allowed counties to levy, for a period of up to fifteen years, a one cent tax on all transactions
subject to taxation under Chapter 212.054 of the Florida statutes. In order to enact the surtax, an
ordinance must be passed by the majority of the members of the Board of County Commissioners
and then approved by a majority of votes in a referendum or passed by governing bodies of
municipalities, representing a majority of the County's population, and approved by a majority of
voters in a referendum.
The Optional Sales Tax revenues are distributed to Indian River County and to the Cities within the
County based on the same formula provided for under Chapter 218.62 Florida Statutes. This means
Indian River County and the municipalities (Vero Beach, Sebastian, Indian River Shores, Town of
Orchid and Fellsmere) shall receive a proportion of monies earmarked for distribution within the
County. The proportion each municipal government receives is computed by dividing the
population of that municipality by the sum of the total County population plus two-thirds of the
incorporated areas' population. The county's portion is computed by dividing the sum of the
unincorporated area's population plus two-thirds of the incorporated area population by the sum of
the total County population plus two-thirds of the incorporated areas' population. According to the
information provided by the State, in the 1998/99 year the revenue breakdown will be as follows:
JUNE 22,1999
65
BOOK .0 J FAGE UGLU
r �
BOOK D9 PAGE 02 7
Indian River County
*$9,053,766
Vero Beach
$1,752,663
Sebastian
- $1,425,818
Indian River Shores
$264,964
Fellsmere
$243,187
Town of Orchid
$4,434
TOTAL
$12,744,832
*We budget 95% of the estimated amount
Proceeds of the surtax may be expended on infrastructure as defined in the bill as "any fixed capital
expenditure or fixed capital costs associated with the construction, reconstruction or improvement
of public facilities which have a life expectancy of 5 or more years and any land acquisition, land
improvement, design and engineering costs related thereto."
Analysis
In the late 198Ws Indian River County found itself in an infrastructure dilemma when developing
its Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Based on the capital improvement element at that time, the
County had over $400 million of infrastructure improvements over the next twenty years and was
seeking adequate revenue sources to meet the levels of service set forth. A review was begun of
additional revenue alternatives available to fund future infrastructure needs.
Analysis - continued
After studying the alternatives, Indian River County found the Optional Sales Tax appealing for the
following reasons:
1. FAIR ALTERNATIVE - ALL USERS CONTRIBUTE - Everyone pays, including
tourists and non-residents; not just the property owners of Indian River County. The
roads and other infrastructure within the County are built for peak demand. Tourists
and non-residents use the County's roads, parks, and facilities. Optional Sales Tax
does not hit just one specific group of people, unlike user or impact fees.
2. DOLLARS GENERATED - There were no other revenue sources, besides ad valorem
taxes, that could generate approximately $7 million a year in revenues.
3. INCLUDED EXEMPTIONS - Sales tax is exempted on purchases of medicine and
food.
4. CITIES AND COUNTY SHARE - The sales tax is not just received by the County.
The Cities get a proportionate share to help them in their infrastructure needs.
5. PAY AS YOU GO - It gave Indian River County the ability to pay for capital
improvements with existing available funds, possibly augmented by short-term
borrowings. This would eliminate the need for ten or forty year debt for these type
projects and would substantially reduce overall cost of capital improvements by not
having to pay huge financing costs (interest) over a long period of time.
6. USED FOR NEEDED CAPITAL PROJECTS - Money could be used for jails, roads,
parks and health facilities which would have to be built regardless if an optional sales
tax was in place or not. This would place a burden on other resources (i.e., ad valorem
taxes).
JUNE 229 1999
•
7. MONEY CANNOT BE USED FOR OPERATING EXPENSES
8. LIMITED TIME PERIOD - It would be in affect for a maximum of fifteen years.
9. LIKELIHOOD OF STATE GIVING COUNTIES AND CITIES OTHER
ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES - The state is in the same position as the
County. It cannot keep up with capital improvements and is looking for ways to pay
for its infrastructure. In fact, the State mandates more programs to the County every
day without a revenue stream that will adequately support them.
10. MINHWU ROAD IMPACT FEE INCREASES -In 1988 the County had estimated
a shortfall of $60 million dollars to purchase right-of-way and construct roads over the
next twenty years. This cost is figured in the calculation of road impact fees adding to
the cost of construction within the County.
11. OPTIONAL SALES TAX CHARGED UP TO CAP OF $5,000-00 IN PURCHASES
(PER TRANSACTION) - (A maximum optional additional sales tax paid on each item
purchased of $50.00.)
Conclusion
The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, on January 31, 1989 passed ordinance
89-6 calling for a county -wide referendum on the levy of the one cent sales tax to be held on
Tuesday, March 14, 1989. Shortly thereafter the Optional Sales Tax was endorsed by every City
within Indian River County. The Chamber of Commerce, Taxpayers Association, Civic Association,
Gifford Progressive League, Board ofRealtors, Association of General Contractors and the Treasure
Coast Home Builders Association all endorsed the Optional Sales Tax at that time. The voters
passed .the Optional Sales Tax to go into effect June 1, 1989. (60.3% voted for the tax and 39.7%
voted against the tax.)
When promoting the Optional Sales Tax, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
put additional constraints on the use of the sales tax by promising that proceeds would be used only
for essential capital projects that the County would have used tax dollars to complete (i.e. ad
valorem, gas tax). It was also emphasized that in the future a good portion of Optional Sales Tax
would go towards the purchase of right-of-way and roads to help offset the deficit in the
Comprehensive Plan. An additional commitment was made to have a list of projects approved in
five year intervals by the Board of County Commissioners in a public hearing.
The planning of the third and final five year list of projects has been initiated (actually only 4 %2
years remain October 1, 1999 to May 31, 2000). The Budget Office requested a list of major
projects from each department with the estimated cost, the year it will be needed, beginning
construction date, length of construction time and estimated annual operating costs for five years
after project completion.
On November 10, 1998 staff presented the Board of County Commissioners with a list of projects
for preliminary planning purposes. As expected, more projects were submitted than there was money
available. A total of over $95 million in projects were submitted with only slightly over $50 million
in estimated revenues for the final five year period. Staff has reviewed the requests and has
recommended projects that were felt to be consistent with the original plan. During the review
process, a significant emphasis was placed on the projects' affect on the County's operating budget.
Factors such as other potential revenue sources were taken into consideration when determining to
fund the project from Optional Sales Tax. Examples of this are the Roads and Bridges where staff
looked at the other revenue sources such as County Gas Tax, Constitutional Gas Tax, Optional Gas
Tax and Road Impact Fees.
JUNE 229 1999
67
BOOK 1PAGE UP
i0j
BOOK
FADE
Attached is a list of the projects for the Board of County Commissioners to consider funding from
Optional Sales Tax for the third five years. The Board of County Commissioners must also set a
date for the Public Hearing.
Attachments
BOOKLET WITH DETAILS ON THIS MATTER
IS ON FILE WITH THE BACK UP FOR THIS MEETING
Administrator Chandler introduced the item and advised that it was up to the
Commissioners how they wished to proceed with this item.
Vice Chairman Adams preferred to set a public hearing date and hold comments until
that time.
Chairman Macht agreed that was the reasonable thing to do as long as the public was
aware of what is contained in it.
Commissioner Stanbridge added that this would allow time for the public to obtain
the information and review it before commenting.
Budget Director Joseph A. Baird advised that copies of the budget summary sheets
are available for the public in the Chambers. His department had already distributed about
15 copies of the whole budget and more will be made available in the Budget Office for
anyone who wishes to have a copy.
Following a brief discussion of dates, there was CONSENSUS to schedule the public
hearing for July 6, 1999.
11.G.1. COUNTY ROAD 512 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION -
JOHN A. KING PARCEL
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 10, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
AND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P.E., County Engin
7
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA, County Right -of --Way A t
SUBJECT: _ CR 512 Right -of -Way Acquisition - John A King Parcel
DATE: June 10, 1999
JUNE 229 1999
68
•
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
An additional 27 foot wide right-of-way is needed on the South side of CR 512. The property owner
is willing to sell the parcel to the County for $15,000 ($2.72 per square foot). The property is
commercially zoned in the City of Sebastian. _
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The County previously made improvements upon the property to be purchased in order to properly
improve access and drainage, and constructed a sidewalk on the parcel. Extensive title work and
survey revealed that the improvements made on the property are outside of the County owned right-
of-way.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the attached contract to purchase the additional 27 feet of right-of-way
and requests the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Contract For Sale and
Purchase. Funding in the amount of $15,000 is to be from account # 101-153-541-067.71.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Contract For Sale and Purchase
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved
the purchase of additional 27' right-of-way from John A.
King for $15,000 and authorized the Chairman to execute the
Contract for Sale and Purchase, as recommended in the
Memorandum.
COPY OF CONTRACT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
11.G.2. ARTIFICIAL REEF PROJECT - McCULLY MARINE
SERVICES. INC. - FINAL PAYMENT FOR CONTRACT #9056
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 10, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Jeffrey R. Tabar,
Coastal Engineer
JUNE 220 1999
M.
BOOK 109 FAUt
•
r �
BOOK i0a Fn
E
SUBJECT: Final Payment for Contract #9056
McCully Marine Services, Inc.
Artificial Reef Project
DATE: June 10, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 11, 1999 during the Board of County Commission regular
meeting, the Board awarded bid #9056 to McCully Marine Services,
Inc. for professional services to deploy three (3) artificial
reefs. The work has been completed in accordance with the contract
and accepted by the County Project Manager.
RECONNaMATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the final payment of $29,900 be released to the
contractor. Funding is from the Beach Restoration Fund 128-144-
572.
ATTACHMENT
Contract #9056 with Change Order No. 1
Final Certificate
Invoice # 1338 for $29,900
ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED
BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
release of final payment in the amount of $29,900 to McCully
Marine Services, Inc., as recommended in the memorandum.
Vice Chairman Adams congratulated staff for having done a good job on this grant
project.
COPY OF EXECUTED INVOICE IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.3. 44TH AVENUE AND 19TH STREET DRAINAGE
RETENTION SITE - 43RD AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS (8TH TO 26TH
STREETS) - PARCEL NO. 126W - ETHEL_ L. MATHIS - COUNTY
PROJECT NO. 9601
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 27, 1999:
JUNE 229 1999
70
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directoc
Terry B. Thompson, P.
Capital Projects Mana(,
FROM: William M. Napier, SRPA, SRAA/-f,ti1
Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: W Avenue & le Street Drainage Retention Site
43°' Avenue Improvements/81th Street to 26"' Street
County Project No. 9601/Parcel No. 126W, Ethel L Mathis
DATE: May 27, 1999
In conjunction with the 43 d Avenue Improvement Project, drainage improvements are
planned for the 40 Avenue/19th Street area. A site is needed for drainage retention in
relation to these plans. The property owner has executed a contract at a price of $1.42
per square foot for the RS -3 zoned parcel. This price per square foot is a negotiated price
which is in line with other similar parcels the County has acquired.
The total Contract Price is $21,000.00 based upon a total area of 14,750 square feet.
There are no appraisal or attorney fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the $21,000.00
purchase, and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract.
Funding will be from Account #315-214-5414066.12.
ATTACHMENT
1) Contract
2) Legal Description -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the
purchase of the parcel from Ethel L. Mathis, in the amount of
$21,000, as recommended in the Memorandum.
JUNE 229 1999
COPY OF CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE IS ON FIGS
IN TIS OFFICE OF TIE CLERK TO THE BOARD
71
BOOK FAGS W
r �
BOOK i0j FA'UE
11.GA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FAIRGROUNDS
AGRICULTURAL ARENA/EXHIBIT BUILDING - DESIGNBUILD
CONTRACT - BARTH CONSTRUCTION, INC. - PART H
AGREEMENT - AMENDMENT #1 - FINAL DESIGN. PERMITTING
AND CONSTRUCTION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 11, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Indian River County Agricultural Arena/Exhibit Building
Design/Build Contract with Barth Construction, Inc.
Part II Agreement
DATE: June 11, 1999
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Contractor/Engineer for the Fairgrounds Agricultural Building
project at the County Fairground site (7965 58th Avenue)has
completed the Part 1 Agreement services under the Design/Build
Contract. A Preliminary Design Development Report has been
prepared which includes the following:
1. A recommended design of the building as described in the
"Indian River County Agricultural Arena/Exhibit Building Scope
of Work by Phase and General Specifications" dated May 6, 1999
as prepared by Barth Construction, Inc. after County review
dated June 4, 1999.
2. A maximum guaranteed cost of $ 1,007,854 for the work. This
includes building construction, engineering and architectural
design, plans, meetings, construction observation, permit
fees, material testing, etc. The building pad fill and
compaction are not included.
3. A completion schedule of 270 calendar days to construct.
At this time, approval of the report is requested, and
authorization to proceed with Part II Design/Build Services is
requested. If approved, the Contractor/Engineer shall proceed with
Final Design, permitting, and construction.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Public Works Department staff reviewed the scope of work and
has negotiated a few changes. By the Road and Bridge Division
JUNE 229 1999
72
0
C.
performing the site preparation work and the Contractor
reconsidering, the cost was reduced to $ 1,007,854. Staff offers
the following alternatives:
Alternative # 1 .
Approve the Scope of Work and authorize execution of the
Part II Agreement by the Chairman.
Alternative #2
Deny approval and renegotiate.
RECOMKENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends Alternative #1 whereby the Scope of Work is
approved and the Chairman is authorized to execute the Part II
agreement. Funding to be as follows:
State of Florida Grants
State of Florida Dept. of Agric. Budget
IRC - LOST(Local Option Sales Tax)
Scope of Work
Part II Agreement
MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Adams,
SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge to approve staffs
recommendation (Alternative No. 1).
$329,000
$200,000
$478,854
There was a question about the restrooms, and Public Works Director James Davis
responded that they were included under Alternative No. 1, but the site work as described
on page 194 of the backup is not included.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried unanimously. (Approved the Scope of Work for Phase
HbyBarth Construction, Inc., up to $1,007,854, and authorized
the Chairman to execute the agreement.)
JUNE 229 1999
AMENDMENT # 1 TO PART 2 AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN TBE OFFICE OF TBE CLERK TO TBE BOARD
73
BOOK U` PA'GE�
E'er �
BOOK .� FAGE►.�c�
11.G.5. 8TH STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND
COUNTY DEED FOR 250 SQUARE FEET - HSG PROPERTIES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 1521999:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
Terry B. Thompson, P.E. j
Capital Projects Manag
FROM: William M. Napier, SRPA, SRA, jM/v
Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition/8th Street
HSG Properties
DATE: June 15, 1999
In conjunction with a planned subdivision development north of a Street, east of 431d
Avenue, the County needs to acquire thirty feet of additional right-of-way along the north
side of 8'' Street Twenty feet, totaling 5,284 square feet (Exhibit °A"), is to be purchased.
The owners have executed a contract at a price of $4,950.00 or $.94 per square foot for
the RS -6 zoned land. This price per square foot is in line with other similar parcels the
County has purchased, based upon appraisals or evaluations. There are no attorney or
appraisal fees.
Ten feet (Exhibit "B") will be dedicated to the County without compensation, per the County
Code minor right-of-way requirement.
A parcel of land containing 250 square feet (Exhibit "C"), lying on the east side of 43 Id
Avenue in the western part of the property is to be deeded from the County to the owner
without compensation. This parcel was deeded to the County by the prior owner, without
compensation in anticipation of a future driveway connection which is no longer desired
in this area.
Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the $4,950.00 purchase,
and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract and the County Deed for the property
described on Exhibit "C".
Funding will be from Account #315-214-541-M.12.
a
1) Contract
2) Legal Descriptions
3) County Deed for Exhibit "C" Property
JUNE 229 1999
74
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the right-
of-way purchase from HSG Properties in the amount of $4,950
and authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for Sale
and Purchase as well as the County Deed for a 250 square foot
parcel which had been deeded to the County in anticipation of
a future driveway connection which is no longer desired, as
recommended in the Memorandum.
COPY OF CONTRACT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE AND COPY OF DEED IS ON FILE
IN TAE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.H.1. WELTON CONVENIENCE STORE - LONE CABBAGE
TRADING COMPANY - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - WATER
MAIN CONSTRUCTION - US 1 AND 53RD STREET
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 11, 1999:
DATE: JUNE 11, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADM MSTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. t
DIRECTOR OF UTILPTY SERVICES
PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTH= SERVICES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FOR WELTON CONVENIENCE STORE
WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION
BACKGROUND
Welton Convenience Store is a proposed commercial development located at the northwest corner of U.S.
Highway 1 and 53`d Street. A 12" master planned water main is scheduled to be constructed along the south
property line on an as -needed basis driven by development (see attached copy of master plan map). Lone
Cabbage Trading Company has agreed to enter into a cost sharing agreement with the County to construct
the master planned water main in conjunction with their site development.
Attached is a proposed developer's agreement with Lone Cabbage Trading Company for reimbursement of
a portion of the subject water main.
ANALYSIS
As shown in Exhibit A of the attached agreement, the estimated cost sharing between the developer and the
County is as follows:
JUNE 229 1999
75
8OOK FAGE UBS
I
0
BOOK iO a FAGE 6_.
Developer's Share
$4,950.00
County's Share
$27,750.00
Total Project Cost
$32,700.00
The developer has paid a total of $4,205.00 in water connection fees. Construction of the water main will
allow the County to coordinate expansion of the water distribution system with development of the site. The
County's share of $27,750.00 will be fimded from the impact fee fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached developer's agreement as presented, and authorize the Chairman to execute the same.
Account No. Account Name Amount
472-000-169-370.00 Utility Impact Fee Fund $27,750.00
MCH/c
Attachments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the
developer's agreement with Lone Cabbage Trading Company
for Welton Convenience Store and authorized the Chairman to
execute same, as recommended in the Memorandum.
10 11 I • • 0,I a 14 M LOB0;1 -101T.1 kA •
11.H.2. REVISED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF
FELLSMERE -WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT
SERVICES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 9, 1999:
DATE: JUNE 9, 1999
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SER S
SUBJECT: REVISED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
FELLSMERE AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR THE PROVISION OF
WASTEWATER TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT SERVICES
BACKGROUND
In late 1997, the City of Fellsmere initiated discussions with the County regarding Utility Service
provision to the City of Fellsmere. In March of 1998, the County responded with a willingness to
service the City of Fellsmere under limited conditions (please see attached correspondence). Due
JUNE 22,1999
76
0
to a lack of available funding the City retained a consultant to apply for a CDBG Economic
Development grant. Among many items, the Department of Community Affairs asked that an
interlocal agreement between Indian River County and the City of Fellsmere for the transmission
and treatment of wastewater be executed. County staff then circulated several drafts of the
interlocal agreement for Departmental comment, incorporating all comments as received and on
August 25, 1998 the Board of County Commissioners approved the interlocal agreement with the
City of Fellsmere for wastewater transmission and treatment services (see attached agenda and
meeting minutes).
Early this year the City of Fellsmere contacted the Department of Utility Services expressing
concerns over certain provisions contained within the agreement, that may have been construed as
limiting the City of Fellsmere's wastewater service area. Revised language was proposed by the
City of Fellsmere and on March 3, 1999, the County responded (see attached correspondence).
After circulating the changes through the Departments and incorporating relevant comment, two
originals of the final version were transmitted to the City of Fellsmere. On June 3, 1999, during
their regular council meeting, the City council authorized the mayor to execute the agreements
for return to the County.
ANALYSIS
The attached interlocal agreements requires no funding by the County. Among other provisions,
the interlocal agreement provides for:
• Sewer service area which matched the City of Fellsmere's municipal limits, as shown in the
attached Exhibit I.
• The ability for the City of Fellsmere to expand it's service area.
• Ownership and operation defining individual responsibilities of the entities.
• Metering and associated capacity and commodity charges; the agreement provides for
recovery of cost as per Chapter 201 of the Indian River County Code as amended, and
specifically requires that all ERU reserves be paid in advance of connection to the County
system.
• Maintenance of the system; the agreement provides for prescribed maintenance of the City
system.
• Facility expansion; the City acknowledges that future expansion may trigger master plan
improvements that may or may not be funded.
• Escape clause; should the County not be able to accommodate City expansion in a timely
manner, the City may go it's separate way and provide it's own wastewater services but in no
case is a refund of capacity charges due the City.
• Termination of Service; should obligations of the agreement not be fulfilled.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Indian River County Department of Utility Services recommends that the BCC
approve the revised attached interlocal agreement between the City of Fellmsere and Indian River
County and authorize the Chairman to execute same.
JUNE 229 1999
77
t� tee,
900K FADE �1=
BOOK 109 PAGE •,
Vice Chairman Adams announced a conflict and that she would abstain from voting
on this matter. (CLERK'S NOTE: Memorandum of Voting Conflict has been filed with the
office of the Clerk to the Board.)
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Grin, SECONDED
by Commissioner Tippin, to approve staffs recommendation.
Commissioner Stanbridge asked if the proposed wastewater transmission and
treatment services would be sufficient for the area in Fellsmere being considered for
annexation.
Director of Utility Services Donald Hubbs advised that the agreement was originally
negotiated in August 1998; it was renegotiated earlier this year and has been executed by the
City of Fellsmere. Some of the new language in the agreement has to do with service area
and the County also added language concerning expansion which lets the County or the City
out of the agreement and allows the City to develop its own wastewater system.
The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion
carried . animously (4-0, Vice Chairman Adams abstained).
(Approved the revised interlocal agreement with the City of
Fellsmere and authorized the Chairman to execute same.)
IIUMMOCAL AGREENI M IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
U.B. VICE CHAIRMAN ADAMS - SHARED TITLE UPDATE -
CONFERENCE IN ORLANDO
Vice Chairman Adams reported there was a Shared Title Workshop scheduled July
14' in Orlando. She noted there was another meeting in Orlando on that date for which
representatives of the water management districts, Department of Environmental Protection,
and interested counties would already be there. She suggested the Countyhost the workshop
and requested an expenditure of up -to -$500 to cover costs.
Commissioner Stanbridge supported the request by saying the workshop was very
important, since our county initiated the shared title concept, to make sure that DEP and
LAMAC understand we are very serious about it.
JUNE 229 1999
78
0 .0
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Stanbridge, the Boardunanimously approvedup-
to-$500 to host a workshop in Orlando on July 14, 1999
concerning shared title.
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the meeting, the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners for the Solid Waste Disposal
District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
DOCUMENTS MADE PART OF THE RECORD
1) NOTICE THAT CITY OF FELLSMERE INTENDS TO HOLD A
PUBLIC HEARING ON ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY CONSISTING
OF APPROXIMATELY 27 ACRES
A copy of Notice to the Public on Fellsmere's Ordinance 99-01 is filed in the office
of the Clerk to the Board. (See Annexations)
2) DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY AND LARRY DREW (DEVELOPER) FOR INITIAL OR
FINAL CONCURRENCE REVIEW WHEN WATER/WASTEWATER
PLANT CAPACITY AND/OR DISTRIBUTION/COLLECTION
FACILITIES ARE NOT AVAILABLE (ADMINISTRATIVELY
APPROVED)
JUNE 229 1999
RECORDED DOCUMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
79
BOOK i0 PAGE 01°10
r 1
BOOKi0JFADEG
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 12:28 p.m.
ATTEST:
Je .Barton, Clerk Kenneth R Macht, Chairman
Minutes approve 4 1,, � - ,,,
JUNE 229 1999
80