The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7/20/1999� MINUTES ATTACHED 40 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY9 FLORIDA A G E N D A TUESDAY, JULY 20,1999 - 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) 9:00 am. 1. CALL TO ORDER James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board BACKUP 2. INVOCATION Pastor Linda Howard PAGES The Special Gathering 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac 4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Add Item 7.G., Crew Cab Truck for Traffic Engineering to replace Fleet #381 (Ed Morse Chevrolet). 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation and Retirement Certificate to Alice White Upon Her Retirement from Indian River County 1 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular meeting of June 22, 1999 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated July 8,1999) 2-8 B. Request for Board Approval of a One -Year Contract Extension with FloridAffinity, Inc., for Professional Services Relating to Environmental Land Acquisition (memorandum dated June 23, 1999) 9-12 C. Upgrade of Voice Mail Systems for Courthouse (memorandum dated July 8, 1999) 13-14 D. Bid Award: IRC #9063, Slope Mower Attachment (memorandum dated July 12,1999) 15-17 E. Bid Award: IRC #9067 Concession Services County Administration Building (memorandum dated July 12,1999) 18-22 BOOK iJJ f�1GE t BOOK i0J PAGE d�� BACKUP 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.: 'PAGES F. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs (memorandum dated July 12,1999) 23-24 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 • TEFRA (Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act) Resolution Authorizing St. Edward's School Inc. to Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Not to Exceed $18,000,000 (memorandum dated July 7,1999) 25-37 2. Joan Cain's request for PD special exception use for an agricultural planned development to be known as Pine Hammock. (Quasi -Judicial) (memorandum dated July 12, 1999) 38-49 3. Brad Springer's request for Planned Development Special Exception use for an Agricultural Planned Development to be known as Walking Fox Farms (Quasi -Judicial) (memorandum dated July 12, 1999) 50-62 4. I.R. Courts Limited Partnership's Request for Conceptual Special Exception Planned Develop- ment Approval for a Single and Multi -Family Development. (Quasi Judicial) (memorandum dated July 12, 1999) 63-77 B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Funding Sources and Financing Plan for Beach Preservation Plan (Phase II) (memorandum dated July 13, 1999) 78-79 2. Request from John H. Dean re: Gifford Youth Activities Center (letter dated July 8, 1999) 80-81 3. Request by Bibble Irvin to Discuss Sand Pumping (no backup provided) 4. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROHIBIT[NG PLACEMENT OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN SELF-SERVICE DIS- Pi.AVC ArrFCcmLF TO NSNORa; pROX Dym R IG FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE 82-84 C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS Public Hearings Scheduled for July 27,1999: 1. John Dean's Request for Special Exception Use Approval for an Office Annex for the Samaritan Center Residential Center. The subject property is located at 3650 41' St immediately north of the St. Helen's Head Start facility (Quasi-judicial) • i BACKUP 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.) C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS (cout'd.: PAGES Public Hearings Scheduled for July 27,1999:(cont'd) 2. Larry & Pamela Canady's Request for Planned Development Special Exception Use and Pre- liminary PD Plan/Plat JApproval for an Agricul- tural PD to be Known as Canady Planned Deve- lopment. The subject site is a 15.18 acre parcel located on the north side of 49' St. between 66* Ave. and Vh Ave. (Quasi-judicial) 3. Submittal by the Community Development Dept. of a proposed application for an FY 1998/99 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 Mass Transit Capital and Operating Assistance Grant. The grant (in the total amount of $1,096,957) will be used to con- tinue and expand the Indian River County Council on Aging's Community Coach fixed route/dial-a-ride public transportation services (Legislative) (memorandum dated July 13,1999) 85 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development Comprehensive Plan Objective 18 (TNDs) Update (memorandum dated July 12, 1999) 86-90 B. Emergency Services None C. General Services None D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget None F. Personnel None G. Public Works None H. Utilities None I. Human Services None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht BOOK .�.' PAGE A 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.): B. Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams C. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge E. Commissioner John W. Tippin BOOK ..0j F'AGt did BACKUP PAGES 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS A. Emergency Services District 1. Approval of minutes - meeting of 7/6/99 2. Approval to accept Four (4) Surplus Vehicles from the Sheriff s Dept. for Use by the Fire and EMS Divisions and Declare as Surplus Three District Vehicles (memorandum dated July 6,1999) 91 3. Approval of Owner and Contractor Agreement for Renovation of Fire/EMS Station #8 (memorandum dated July 7, 1999) 92-101 4. Approval of Owner and Contractor Agreement for Construction of Fire/EMS Station #11 (memorandum dated July 7, 1999) 102-110 B. Solid Waste Disposal District Residential Recycling Collection Services (memorandum dated June 11, 1999) 111-117 C. Environmental Control Board None 15. ADJOURNMENT Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based: -- Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times throughout the week Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening • INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JULY 20,1999 1. CALL TO ORDER . .............................................1- 2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1- 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ...................................... .1- 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA .................................. .1- 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation and Retirement Certificate to Alice White upon her Retirement from Indian River County ................................ 1- 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ....................................... .4- 7. CONSENT AGENDA ........................................... .4- 7.A. List of Warrants ........................................... .4- 7.B. FloridAffinity, Inc. - Professional Services Relating to Environmental Land Acquisition - One -Year Contract Extension ....................... 9- 7.C. Courthouse Voice Mail Systems Upgrade - BellSouth - InterTel AXXESS ...................................................... .10- 7.D. Bid #9063 - Slope Mower Attachment - Sunrise Tractor & Equipment ...................................................... .12- 7.E. Bid #9067 - Concession Services for County Administration Building - Shawn Smith/Super Dip & Sub .............................. .13- 7.F. Payments to Vendors of Court -Related Costs ................... .14- 7.G. Crew Cab Truck for Traffic Engineering to replace Fleet #381 (Ed Morse Chevrolet) . ............................................. .16 - JULY 209 1999 -1- BOOK 0 PAGE63 A BOOK 109 PAGE &3 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - TEFRA (TAX EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT) RESOLUTION 99-066 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $18,000,000 (ST. EDWARD'S SCHOOL, INC.) .................................... .17- 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - JOAN CAIN - PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS PINE HAMMOCK (Quasi -Judicial) .................................... .25- 9.A.3. PUBLIC BEARING - BRAD SPRINGER - PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS WALKING FOX FARMS (Quasi -Judicial) .......................... .30- 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - INDIAN RIVER COURTS LIM= PARTNERSHIP - CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR SINGLE AND MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (Quasi- Judicial)..................................................... .34- 9.13.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BEACH PRESERVATION PLAN, PHASE Il - FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCING - APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, INC. (1¢ Optional Sales Tax) ...................... .41- 9.13.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTER - JOHN H. DEAN (1¢ Optional Sales Tax) ............................ .50- 9.13.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BIBBLE IRVIN - REQUEST TO DISCUSS SAND PUMPING ............................................. .52- 9.13.4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PLACEMENT OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN SELF-SERVICE DISPLAYS ACCESSIBLE TO - MINORS - STUDENTS WORKING AGAINST TOBACCO & TOBACCO FREE PARTNERSHIP ............... ................................. .52 - JULY 209 1999 9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 27, 1999: ....................................................... .55- 1. John Dean - Request for Special Exception Use Approval for Office Annex for Samaritan Center Residential Center located at 3650 41" Street, immediately north of St. Helen's HeadStart facility (Quasi -Judicial) 2. Larry and Pamela Canady - Request for PD Special Exception Use and Preliminary PD Plan/Plat [Approval for Agricultural PD to be known as Candy Planned Development] for 15.18 acre parcel located on the north side of 49t` Street between 666 Avenue and 7e Avenue (Quasi -Judicial) 3. Community Development Department - Submission of Proposed Application for FY 1998-99 USC Chapter 53, Section 5307, Mass Transit Capital and Operating Assistance Grant in the total amount of $1,096,957 to be used to continue and expand Indian River County Council on Aging Community Coach Fixed-Route/Dial-A-Ride Public Transportation Services (Legislative) ...................................... .55- 1 LA. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVE 18 (TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT) UPDATE ..................... .56- 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ............................. .60- 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............................ .60 - JULY 20,1999 -3- 600K i PAGE July 20, 1999 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday,. July 20, 1999, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; John W. Tippin; Caroline D. Ginn; and Ruth Stanbridge. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator, Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia "PT' Jones, Deputy Clerk. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Macht called the meeting to order. 2. INVOCATION Pastor Linda Howard of The Special Gathering delivered the Invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE County Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Chairman Macht requested the addition of Item 7.G., Crew Cab Truck for Traffic Engineering to replace Fleet #3281 (Ed Morse Chevrolct). JULY 209 1999 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously added the above item to the Agenda. -1- BOOK iO3 PAGES, BOOK 100 PAGE M 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS PRESENTATION OFPROCLAMATIONAND RETIREMENT CERTIFICATE TO ALICE WHITE UPONHER RETIREMENT FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Chairman Macht presented the following Proclamation and Retirement Certificate to Alice White: PROCLAMATION ....:::...:::. HONORING ALICE E. WHITE ON HER RETIREMENT ' FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EFFECTIVE JULY 22,1999 «.: 1. WHEREAS,ALICEE.ViEMbasannouncedherretiremantasFxe+cutiveAidetodwBoardofl=rmnii'ver : County Commissioners effexive July 22,1999; and WHEREAS, ALICE has always been employed in die Board of County Goers Office si000 . wa '•;µ first hired as a Clerk Typist on May 18, 1981. Through the years Alice has advanced fnam a Senior Secaeta<y, :. Administrative Assismat, Admioisdative Soaetary, Admimstiati ve Aide. and Administrative Secretary II:" With die ; retirement ofLiz Forlani on April 30,1993 Alice was pramotodto the position of Executive Aide to the Boardm May of 1993, which is the position she holds today, and M:'r :lam • ; •. WHEREAS, ALICE has beenthe recording secretary forthe Anand Cantral Committee, Beach Pn avatim and Restoration Committee, Blue Ribbon Ad Hoc Committee. Board of Zoning Adjustment, Building. Ad Hoc Committm CoutityPublicSafety Coordinating Cauncil,Cou diouao yCammittea,EmorgencyModicidServices Council, Fairgrounds Advisory Corm ittoe, Firearms Range Com, Golf Course Feasibility Study Committee;`` Marine Advisory Committee, Manu Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee, Mdmpditan_Pla-mg.. Organization, Mobile Home Ad Hoc Advisory Committee, Parks and Recreation Committee, Planning aoa Zoning - Commission and the Transportation Planning Com. ' $; 5:; • > . WHEREAS, ALICE has been very dedicated to governmental service and under her ' .�2;"�f` maintained a well-informed, reliable osis sta$ she has assisted, guided and advised County Commissiooas with wisdom and good humor helping to make their Comgnission work and comandoo assignments run more smogthly and efficiently, and ., WHEREAS, ALICE has been most effective in umdenstandimg due problems ofte citizens ofthis county, and has exhibited high integrity►, knowledge and caring in helping de citizens deal with decor problems; and WHEREAS, ALICE E. WHITE, more fondly known as "Maine Alice to her friends and coworic M will ; . be remembered for her home -baked goodies and Christmas Rum Balls, !� capricaaws sense of In and liar alk- ' awmnpassing hugs. 3 'Zii$•q +� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAMM BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board expresses its deep appreciation fi ALICE E. WHITE has given to Indian Riven County over die past 18 years; and The Board and office staff wish to express their appreciation to Alice fi)r an outstanding local government and extend our Inesrtfelt wishes for lar success in her figure endeavors. Adopted tis 201° day o0uly,1999. JULY 209 1999 • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.'"'' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA '- ; �,•;�,;„;� -2- • _I ��T �Y, .r[✓.....�. ��X-GAJ�..V'.ir(J ,�o`t �k�_ � ;:` yr ✓ :. y �, ,.f i. ' � �/ '.. `rAf C114to is ` 1 artifJ %\ . t is ` 1 pustubb Irtiremut Awarb b; 1 1 � :� =zi , f for- yeare1strairt 1is 22' I J 1 f } \ 'A"ja OUR" &wW4 A Add Oc' t 11 . 1 • 1 . 11 1 ' 1 11 . 1 - / 1 1 / 1 � � / ' � 1 1 1 - • _ 1 f 1 1 1 r BOOK 10.j PAGE &� 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 1999. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 1999, as written. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Macht asked that Item 7.F. be pulled for discussion. 7.A. LIST OF WARRANTS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 8, 1999: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: JULY 8,1999 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 warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the time period of July 7 to July 8, 1999. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period from July 7, 1999 through July 8, 1999, as recommended by staff. JULY 209 1999 _I CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0020052 KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE 1999-07-07 138.50 0020053 BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF THE 1999-07-07 963.04 0020054 ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF THE 1999-07-07 135.20 0020055 ST LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF THE ' '1999-07-07 724,98 0020056 VELASQUEZ, MERIDA 1999-07-07 200.00 0020057 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK OF 1999-07-07 3,376.47 0020058 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF 1999-07-07 120.39 0020059 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 1999-07-07 400.00 0020060 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 1999-07-07 75.00 0020061 VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. 1999-07-07 1,980.00 0020062 INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT 1999-07-07 84,555.65 0020063 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 1999-07-07 257.69 0020064 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE 1999-07-07 189.52 0020065 UNITED WAY OF INDIAN RIVER CTY 1999-07-07 1,784.90 0020066 NACO/SOUTHEAST 1999-07-07 6,127.49 0020067 SALEM TRUST COMPANY 1999-07-07 587.94 0020068 OKEECHOBEE CO., PMTS DOMES REL 1999-07-07 167.25 0020069 WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS 1999-07-07 23.08 0265318 A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC 1999-07-08 430.85 0265319 ACE PLUMBING, INC 1999-07-08 48.00 0265320 AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1999-07-08 1,166.11 0265321 AIRBORNE EXPRESS 1999-07-08 24.75 0265322 AMERICAN CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, 1999-07-08 1,125.00 0265323 ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE 1999-07-08 453.50 0265324 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 1999-07-08 788.49 0265325 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 1999-07-08 2,361.98 0265326 ABS PUMPS, INC 1999-07-08 3,173.88 0265327 ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED 1999-07-08 91.60 0265328 A A ELECTRIC SE, INC 1999-07-08 38.41 0265329 ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING 1999-07-08 56.25 0265330 ADDISON OIL CO 1999-07-08 420.06 0265331 ADAMS, FRAN B 1999-07-08 71.00 0265332 AUTODESK INC 1999-07-08 556.00 0265333 A T & T 1999-07-08 183.28 0265334 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 1999-07-08 31,495.28 0265335 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 1999-07-08 56.00 0265336 ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO 1999-07-08 4,995.00 0265337 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 1999-07-08 35:80 0265338 AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC 1999-07-08 1,541.15 0265339 ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS 1999-07-08 233.66 0265340 ARCH PAGING 1999-07-08 456.50 0265341 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 1999-07-08 1;027.00 0265342 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 1999-07-08 59,00 0265343 A T & T 1999-07-08 45.50 0265344 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 1999-07-08 56.00 0265345 BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO 1999-07-08 114.19 0265346 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 1999-07-08 3,648.00 0265347 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1999-07-08 6,590.68 0265348 BIO -SERVICES OF VERO, INC 1999-07-08 120.00 0265349 BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC 1999-07-08 1,966.50 0265350 BARER & TAYLOR INC 1999-07-08 823,72 0265351 BRODART CO 1999-07-08 80.89 0265352 BLAIS ELECTRIC, INC 1999-07-08 552.00 0265353 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 1999-07-08 544.00 0265354 BELLSOUTH MOBILITY 1999-07-08 59.40 0265355 BOBBY'S PLUMBING 1999-07-08 1,120.00 0265356 BEAZER smas, INC 1999-07-08 11000.00 0265357 BETTER COPY CENTER, A 1999-07-08 561.10 0265358 BMG 1999-07-08 8,16 0265359 BELL, MICHAEL D MD 1999-07-08 1,162.50 0265360 BOETEFUER, ALAN 1999-07-08 1,372.10 0265361 BEUTTELL, LILIAN N. 1999-07-08 500.00 0265362 BROWN, CHARLES BEN 1999-07-08 100.46 0265363 BANANA RIVER SYSTEMS INC 1999-07-08 26.45 0265364 BELLSOUTH 1999-07-08 152.46 0265365 CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC 1999-07-08 26,772.00 0265366 COLLINS, WILLIAM G II 1999-07-08 8,12 0265367 CONGRESSIONAL QUART-&RLY BOOKS 1999-07-08 153.05 0265368 CARTER & VERPLANCK 1999-07-08 1,760.00 0265369 CLIFF BERRY ENVIRONMENTAL 1999-07-08 157.50 0265370 COOGAN, MAUREEN 1999-07-08 774.56 0265371 CUES, INC 1999-07-08 42.13 0265372 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 1999-07-08 94.25 0265373 CYBERGUYS 1999-07-08 88.49 0265374 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 1999-07-08 400.00 0265375 COPYCO, INC 1999-07-08 50.92 0265376 CORRADO, STEFANIE 1999-07-08 206.00 0265377 CLAYMAN ENTERPRISES 1999-07-08 16.00 0265378 CARRIAGE ASSOC OF AMERICA 1999-07-08 15.00 0265379 COLEMAN, BONNIE J 1999-07-08 .6.00 JULY 2091999 BOOK PAGEb -I Book ' 00 PAGE 841 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0265380 CARRYING CAPACITY NETWORK 1999-07-08 15.00 0265381 CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONING & 1999-07-08 255.04 0265382 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 1999-07-08 114.30 0265383 DAVIS, JAMES 1999-07-08 105.90 0265384 DELTA SUPPLY CO 1999-07-08 577.51 0265385 DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC 1999-07-08 1,078.38 0265386 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 1999-07-08 220.89 0265387 DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC 1999-07-08 381.83 0265388 DIVE RESCUE INT'L, INC 1999-07-08 1,360.77 0265389 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 1999-07-08 1,250.00 0265390 DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE 1999-07-08 625.00 0265391 DUNRELSERGER ENGINEERING & 1999-07-08 10,545.75 0265392 DADE PAPER COMPANY 1999-07-08 427.42 0265393 DILnRD, CASSIS 1999-07-08 15.45 0265394 DOCTORS' CLINIC 1999-07-08 631.00 0265395 DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING ASSOC 1999-07-08 84.75 0265396 DOBSON, EUSTACIA 1999-07-08 25.75 0265397 ELLIS R PHELPS AND CO, INC 1999-07-08 55,661.40 0265398 ERCILDOUNE BOWLING LANES 1999-07-08 246.00 0265399 ELPEX, INC 1999-07-08 3,558.38 0265400 EMERGENCY LINEN SUPPLY CO 1999-07-08 1,124.50 0265401 ERICSSON, INC 1999-07-08 7,951.07 0265402 ELWILL ASSOCIATES INC 1999-07-08 14,198.40 0265403 FERE% 1999-07-08 21.75 0265404 FLORIDA BAR, THE 1999-07-08 220.00 0265405 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1999-07-08 13,282.67 0265406 FLOWERS BARING COMPANY OF 1999-07-08 42.04 0265407 FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC 1999-07-08 564.00 0265408 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 1999-07-08 4,225.61 0265409 FLORIDAFFINITY, INC 1999-07-08 31,015.00 0265410 FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER 1999-07-08 38.62 0265411 FELLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999-07-08 25.00 0265412 FINKLIN, WILLIE JR 1999-07-08 51.50 0265413 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH 1999-07-08 39.95 0265414 FERNANDER, THOMAS 1999-07-08 1,417.00 0265415 FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL 1999-07-08 25.00 0265416 GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC 1999-07-08 44.68 0265417 GENE'S AUTO GLASS 1999-07-08 230.00 0265418 GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE 1999-07-08 43.85 0265419 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 1999-07-08 120.09 0265420 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 1999-07-08 358.17 0265421 GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION 1999-07-08 138.60 0265422 GULFCOAST FIRE & SAFETY 00 INC 1999-07-08 421.85 0265423 GRUND GUIDE 1999-07-08 1,193.35 0265424 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE SERVICES 1999-07-08 345.00 0265425 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES 1999-07-08 97.94 0265426 HERITAGE BOOKS, INC 1999-07-08 515.50 0265427 HOMETOWN PET CARE CENTER 1999-07-08 130.50 0265428 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 1999-07-08 1,000.00 0265429 HARWELL, ROBERT B. 1999-07-08 342.47 0265430 HOWARD JOHNSON EXPRESS INN 1999-07-08 47.00 0265431 HENRY PRATT CO 1999-07-08 3,088.00 0265432 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-07-08 25.00 0265433 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC 1999-07-08 77.90 0265434 INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC 1999-07-08 116.34 0265435 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 1999-07-08 107.22 0265436 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES 1999-07-08 104.21 0265437 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1999-07-08 1,300.00 0265438 INSURANCE SERVICING & 1999=07-08 300.00 0265439 INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC 1999-07-08 117.27 0265440 ISCO, INC 1999-07-08 7,515.34 0265441 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 1999-07-08 345.00 0265442 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING 1999-07-08 1,113.00 0265443 IRVING, ATAWA 1999-07-08 195.00 0265444 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT 1999-07-08 29.03 0265445 JACOBS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR 1999-07-08 26.40 0265446 JANET'S AUTO TRIM & GLASS 1999-07-08 250.00 0265447 JOHNSTON, BOB & MARIAN 1999-07-08 500.00 0265448 JORDAN, MIRA 1999-07-08 1,558.79 0265449 KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC 1999-07-08 252.87 0265450 KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT 1999-07-08 208.89 0265451 KLINK, RICHARD =- 1999-07-08 946.00 0265452 R & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 1999-07-08 9.79 0265453 KIPP, BILLY C 1999-07-08 203.42 0265454 KELLEY, MICHAEL I 1999-07-08 1,392.00 0265455 R -MART 07294 1999-07-08 32.08 0265456 LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE 1999-07-08 9,052.66 0265457 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC 1999-07-08 1,086.52 0265458 LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS 1999-07-08 282.50 JULY 209 1999 • CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK SER DATE AMOUNT 0265459 LAKESHORE LEARNING MTERLS 1999-07-08 18.49 0265460 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 1999-07-08 3,630.05 0265461 LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE 1999-07-08 10,000.00 0265462 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC 1999-07-08 176.82 0265463 LITURGICAL PRESS 1999-07-08 48.29 0265464 LAQVINTA INN 1999-07-08 79.00 0265465 MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY 1999-07-08 624.14 0265466 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 1999-07-08 226.65 0265467 MICROFORMS MANAGEMENT CORP 1999-07-08 230.00 0265468 MIKES GARAGE 1999-07-08 70.00 0265469 MORRIS, DANE 1999-07-08 509.33 0265470 MARTIN'S LAMAR UNIFORMS 1999-07-08 2,386.60 0265471 MAC PAPERS, INC 1999-07-08 950.34 0265472 MCDADE WATERWORKS, INC 1999-07-08 117,050.58 0265473 MELROE 1999-07-08 28,040.00 0265474 MAGNUM ENIVRONMENTAL SERVICES 1999-07-08 140.00 0265475 MOB CONSTRUCTION INC 1999-07-08 500.00 0265476 MUSIC IN MOTION 1999-07-08 82.90 0265477 MARSH-MCSIRNEY, INC 1999-07-08 3,155.85 0265478 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING 1999-07-08 344.85 0265479 NEFF MACHINERY, INC 1999-07-08 100.00 0265480 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 1999-07-08 99.00 0265481 NAPIER, WILLIAM M 1999-07-08 49.59 0265482 N E C BUSINESS NETWORK 1999-07-08 3,192.00 0265483 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE 1999-07-08 1,341.98 0265484 PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 1999-07-08 43.00 0265485 PERKINS DRUG, INC 1999-07-08 99.44 0265486 PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION 1999-07-08 500.00 0265487 PROFESSIONAL TITLE OF 1999-07-08 15,000.00 0265488 PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC 1999-07-08 570.00 0265489 PANGSURN, TERRI 1999-07-08 24.00 0265490 PIONEER SCREEN 1999-07-08 15.00 0265491 PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES, INC 1999-07-08 500.00 0265492 PROMEDI% CORP 1999-07-08 1,906.75 0265493 PERSONNEL PLUS INC 1999-07-08 307.85 0265494 PROFORMA 1999-07-08 115.25 0265495 RADIOSHACK 1999-07-08 49.00 0265496 RELIABLE SEPTIC AND SERVICES 1999-07-08 2,586.00 0265497 RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC 1999-07-08 6,298.80 0265498 ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC 1999-07-08 255.34 0265499 REDSTONE, MICHAEL 1999-07-08 341.67 0265500 ROD DENBERRY, WALLACE E (GENE) 1999-07-08 310.00 0265501 R & G SOD FARMS 1999-07-08 160.00 0265502 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE 1999-07-08 83.10 0265503 RIGER, JACOB M 1999-07-08 212.12 0265504 RSR 1999-07-08 208.12 0265505 ROBERT WILSON ASSOC 1999-07-08 900.00 0265506 RAPP, PAMELA 1999-07-08 48.00 0265507 RASMUSSEN, ASHLEIGH 1999-07-08 357.92 0265508 ROMANO, CHRISTINA 1999-07-08 38.62 0265509 RUTLEDGE, JOHN R 1999-07-08 500.00 0265510 ROMANO, CHRISTINA 1999-07-08 57.93 0265511 ROTHROCK, COLLEEN 1999-07-08 117.18 0265512 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 1999-07-08 404.75 0265513 SCOTTY'S, INC 1999-07-08 365.38 0265514 SEBASTIAN BUSINESS SUPPLY, INC 1999-07-08 16.18 0265515 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC 1999 -0? -08 238.34 0265516 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING, 1999-07-08 30.00 0265517 SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1999-07-08 292.56 0265518 ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC 1999-07-08 197.61 0265519 STATE OF FLORIDA 1999-07-08 4,460.36 0265520 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 1999-07-08 153.52 0265521 ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC 1999-07-08 2,192.64 0265522 STEIL, HOLLY 1999-07-08 43.21 0265523 STRUNK FUNERAL HOME 1999-07-08 800.00 0265524 SIMON & SCHUSTER 1999-07-08 1,004.18 0265525 SOUTHERN HISTORICAL PRESS & 1999-07-08 33.50 0265526 SCRANTON GILLETTE COMMUNITY 1999-07-08 40.00 0265527 SHADY OAK ANIMAL CLINIC 1999-07-08 119.00 0265528 SUN BELT MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC 1999-07-08 63.40 0265529 STEVENS BROTHERS FUNERAL HOME 1999-07-08 900.00 0265530 SOLINET 1999-07-08 420.42 0265531 SUPERIOR PRINTING 1999-07-08 325.95 0265532 SAFECO, INC 1999-07-08 187.50 0265533 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF 1999-07-08 395.46 0265534 STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC 1999-07-08 840.67 0265535 SEBASTIAN, CITY OF 1999-07-08 4,515.74 0265536 SMITH, DAVID W 1999-07-08 10.50 0265537 SARAH BRYSON INDUSTRIES 1999-07-08 12.70 0265538 STANBRIDGE, RUTH 1999-07-08 125.72 0265539 SUNET DIRECT 1999-07-08 425.85 0265540 SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF 1999-07-08 933.00 JULY 2091999 • -7 BOOK 1.0 J PAGE 8120 r BOOK i0J PAGE CHECK NAME NUMBER CHECK CHECK DATE AMOUNT 0265541 SULLIVAN, RACHEL 0265542 SHIELDS, VANESSA 1999-07-08 383.67 0265543 SCHWEy, PAUL MATT 1999-07-08 19.31 0265544 SALTENSTALL, MYRNA 1999-07-08 56.00 0265545 SMITH ' RTION LISA 1999-07-08 121.02 0265546 SETTS, CH CHRIS 1999-07-08 487.50 0265547 SLAUGHTER, TIMOTHY p, 1999-07-08 257.50 0265548 SHELL FLEET CARD 1999-07-08 25.00 0265549 SEBASTIAN POWERCENTER RENTAL 1999-07-08 829.93 0265550 STEWART, SARAH LYNN 1999-07-08 75.88 0265551 SOUTHWESTERN SUPPLIERS INC 1999-07-08 96.55 0265552 TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC 1999-07-08 21,495.95 0265553 TITLEIST DRAWER 1999-07-08 113.94 0265554 TROY FAIN INSURANCE INC 1999-07-08 1,538.88 1999-07-08 162.99 0265555 TRANSPROTECTIVE SYSTEMS 1999 -07 -OB 0265556 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 1999-07-08 487.00 0265557 TRADEWINDS 1999-07-08 25.00 0265558 TRAVEL By PEGASUS 1,515.00 02655591999-07-08 US FILTER/WALLACE & TIERNAN 1999-07-08 931.00 0265560 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 1999-07-08 13,550.00 0265561 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS'INC 1999-07-08 27,044.31 0265562 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC 1999-07-08 78.35 0265563 VERU MARINE CENTER, INC 1999-07-08 423.55 0265564 VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER 1999-07-08 31.30 0265565 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 1999-07-08 22.00 0265566 VERO BOWL 135.00 0265567 VERO RADIATOR WORKS 1999-07-08 326.40 0265568 VERO HEARING & BOLT 1999-07-08 200.00 0265569 VOLUNTEER ACTION COMMITTEE 1999-07-08 29.94 0265570 VIDEO SAMPLER, THE 1999-07-08 1999-07-08 50.00 0265571 WAL- MART STORES, INC 1999-07-08 801.40 0265572 WILLO PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC 1999-07-08 609.07 0265573 W W GRAINGER, INC 1999-07-08 435.80 0268574 WAL- MART STORES, INC 1999-07-08 232.97 0265575 WINS DIXIE 273.171999-07-08 0265576 WAL-MART PHARMACY INC 370.97 0265577 WILLHOFF, PATSY 1999-07-08 100.00 0265578 WILLIAM TRIES & SONS, INC130.00 1999-07-08 1999-07-08 0265579 WORLD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1999'07-08 192.50 0265580 WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC 35.00 02655811999-07-08 WALGREENS PHARMACY #4642 1999-07-08 145.99 0265582 WELLINGTON HOMES30.00 1999-07-08 0265583 WOLFE, ERIN 2999-07-08 500.00 0265584 WASHINGTON ALUMINUM COMPANY 1999-07-08 50.20 0265585 WILLIAMS, GENEVA MCALPIN 1999-07-08 47,640.60 0265586 WILSON, SUSAN BARNES 1999-07-08 350.00 0265587 WITHERow' DESATS 1999-07-08 206.00 0265588 WOLIN, S F ,SANDY 1999-07-08 500.00 0265589 WINN DIXIE 1999-07-08 50.00 0265590 WALMART STORES 1999-07-08 29.46 0265591 XEROX CORPORATION 1999-07-08 2,500.00 0265592 YOUTH GUIDANCE 1999-07-08 513.00 0265593 VISTA IV 1999-07-08 656.03 0265594 YAMPOLSKI, MIKE 1999-07-08 500.00 0265595 ZIMMERMANN, KARL 570.00 0265596 ZEPHYRHILLS NATURAL SPRING 1999-07-08 1999-07-08 121.56 0265597 CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST 1999-07-08 23.50 0265598 HEISLER, IDA L 1999-07-08 105.03 52.52 742,968.07 JULY 20, 1999 • ZB. FLORIDAFFINITY. INC -PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAND ACQUISITION- ONE-YEAR CONTRACT EXTENSION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 23, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D NT HEAD CONCURRENCE: r ern M.Keating, AICP Community Developm�ent t Dir FROM: Roland M. DeBlois',lo�A1CP Chiet Environmental Planning DATE: June 23, 1999 RE: Request for Board Approval of a One-year Contract Extension with FlorldA®nity, Inc., for Professional Services Relating to Environmental Land Acquisition It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 20, 1999. The Board of County Commissioners, at its regular meeting on August 2, 1994, approved a 3 -year contract with FloridAffmity, Inc., for environmental land acquisition and management planning service. Section 4.01 of the contract provides that the County, if desired, may renew the contract for one year periods up to a maximum of three years. The County has since renewed the contract twice (on July 15, 1997 and July 21, 1998). The July 21, 1998 agreement extension, currently in effect, modified the original contract to "as needed" terms, by specifying no monthly base fee and maximum hours per month of 75 hours (monthly fee not to exceed 75 hours x $85 = $6,375). Staff is now requesting that the Board renew the contract with FlondAffmity, Inc., for an additional one year period, under the current agreement terms, to allow for continuing professional services assistance for the County Environmental Lands Program. Since the County originally contracted with FloridAffmity in August 1994, the County has succeeded in acquiring (or obtaining approved purchase contracts for) 17 environmental properties (—I,118 acres, not including the —5,361 acre Carson Platt estate property). Moreover, in each of those acquisitions, the County has secured cost -share fimds from other agencies, totaling more than $12 million in matching funds. There are currently 13 properties on the County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee's (L.AAC's) annual list of acquisition sites. A number of those sites are under negotiation, including some with approved cost - share fimding agreements with state agencies (e.g., Oyster Bar Salt Marsh ). Staffs position is that renewal of the contract is important if the County is to complete currently pending acquisitions. FlmidAffinity has done a competent job in its negotiations with property owners, and in eoordimtinv with cost shsarr m"icim. inditi addition to armciti tinn services f lnridAffinity aco and its acriates have substantially assisted the County in drafting conceptual management plans for acquired properties, and there will be a need for more management planning assistance in the coming year. With reference to pending acquisitions, staff thinks there is a possibility that those projects will be completed within one year. Therefore, any potential needs for firdw contract renewal (in 2000) will depend upon the Board's decision on whether to extend the environmental land acquisition program beyond the first series bond issuance and current pending acquisitions. If the County reaches a point within one year's time fiame whereby bond fimdmg expenditure is completed, the original contract as attended allows for the County to terminate the contract at that time. JULY 209 1999 • BOOK PAGE dkA BOOK 109 PAGE Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board chairman to execute the attached one-year "Extension of Agreement for Professional Services Between Indian River County and noridAffmity, i=." ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the Extension of Agreement with F1oridAffinity, Inc. and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 7. C. COURTHOUSE VOICEMAIL SYSTEMS UPGRADE - BELLSOUTH- INTERTEL A CESS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 8, 1999: Date: July 8, 1999 To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners Through: James E. Chandler County Administrator Through: Thomas W. Frame -114 4 ceteaL-C-- Department of General Services From: Terry L. Smith, Telecommunications Manager Department of General Services -7� Subject: Upgrade of Voice Mail Systems for Courthouse BACKGROUND: In a November 2, 1998 memorandum from the Telecommunications Division to the Budget Office, the three voice maih/auto-attendant systems at the Courthouse were identified as needing an upgrade to become Year 2000 Compliant. The cost of this upgrade is $11,610. On February 24, 1999, in a meeting with Tom Frame, Director — General Services, Mr. Jeff Barton, Clerk of the Court, stated that the telephone systems at the Courthouse did not handle calling patterns well between the three different systems and requested something be done to=€nt the problem. Investigation of the Courthouse telephone system revealed that there are problems in the handling of ells, particularly the inability to transfer calls from one system to another, and that there was not sufficient capacity in the systems to consolidate them in some manner to improve tate call handling situation JULY 209 1999 � -10- � On March 29, 1999, confirmation was received from Inter -Tel, the State Contract Provider of the Courthouse telephone systems, that there were no more planned upgrades for 1999 to the software that would be needed for the voice mail systems at the Courthouse. In a memorandum from the Telecommunications Division to the Budget Office, dated that same day, the cost of the upgrade of the three individual systems, the time frames for the upgrade, and the ongoing investigation of a solution for the call handling problems at the Courthouse were discussed. As discussions continued with Inter -Tel on what could be done to fix the problem with call handling at the Courthouse, price quotes for a new telephone system were requested from BellSouth. The quotes from BellSouth, received April 6, 1999, put the cost of a new NEC system between $150,000 and $200,000. What drove the price of the system so high was the need to change all the telephone sets since the existing telephone sets are proprietary Inter -Tel instruments. Inter -Tel indicated th-V it m-- , be bible to vtnusee the P-"—ct!%a tPt setg with R LrWW Inter -Tel A7OCESS system, but m order to properly quote a new system, a user survey would have to be completed The user survey was completed and repand to Inter -Tel on May 4, 1999 and a field visit with representatives from Inter Tel took place on May 17, 1999. As a result of the field visit, Inter -Tel reported that there was no reasonable way to significantly improve the calling patterns at the Courthouse using the existing systems and that they would proceed with the design of one new system. The price quote of $111,181 for that system was received July 6, 1999. This system was sized only to match the current system capacities; a final system configuration would likely cost approximately $130,000. With a valid complaint on the functionality of the Courthouse telephone system, to put more money into that inadequate system may seem foolish. However, to spend $130,000 to replace a system that is working, although not the way we wish it would, is a costly step in light of some changes on the horizon Although it is not a practical solution for the Courthouse today, IP (Internet Protocol) telephony is becoming more popular and practical. Many industry analysts believe IP telephony will become the norm in a couple of years and will be a more economical solution than what is offered with the traditional circuit switched technology. Although not confirmed, more competitive pricing on NEC products may be available in the future to government agencies through a contract being negotiated with Broward County. An NEC switch in the Courthouse with CCIS (Common Channel Interface Signaling) would be a step toward a countywide numbering plan with increased redundancy, greater configuration flexibility, and improved i true- icy connectivity. RECOMMENDATION: Although the best solution for the commuunicatiions problems at the Courthouse would be one new system, staff recommends spending $11,610 to have Inter -Tel upgrade the three existing individual voice mail/au to -attendant systems. Funds to accomplish this upgrade were a part of Budget Amendment 014 which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on April 20, 1999. This will fix the Y2K problem but not the call handling problems. Staff plans to monitor industry trends and evaluate possible solutions with the goal of proposing a fix for the Courthouse communications system in the future. JULY 209 1999 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,- SECONDED dams,SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the expenditure of $11,610 to have Inter -Tel upgrade the 3 existing individual voice mail/auto-attendant systems, as recommended by staff. -11- BOOK PAGE /:Li r BOOK iOi FAGE 6 21• 7.D. Bm #9063 - SLOPE MOWER ATTACHMENT - SUNRISE TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999: DATE: July 12,1999 To: BOARD OF COUNTY CONSMONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator Thomas Fume, Genend Services Director -'r FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager SUBJECT: Bid Award: MC 119063 Slope Mower Auachmeot Public Worksatoad & Bridge BACKGROUND IIVFORMATION BID PRICE Bid Opening Date: July 2,1999 at 2:00 PM Advertising Dates June 18, and 25, 1999 Advertises Mailed to: Nineteen (19) Vendors Replies: Two (2) Vendors No Bid Response Two (2) Vendors BID TABULATION VENDOR BID PRICE *OPTION "A" PRICE LESS TRADE-IN PURCHASE PRICE Sunrise Tractor Equipment 58,738.00 $195.00 (55,500.00) $3,433.00 Fort Pierce, Florida Robinson Equipment $13,612.00 $298.00 ($10,000.00) $3,910.00 Mims, Florida *Note: Option A is for a hitch attachmeflt TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $3,433.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS Heavy Equipment-Whxl Track Account:111-214-541-066.43 ESIA-- 7EDBUDGET $4,000.00 a r-1ClGC RECONIlNENDATION Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Sunrise Tractor and Equi as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See Department Memo.) ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #9063 for a slope mower attachment to Sunrise Tractor and Equipment in the amount of $3,433, as recommended by staff. BID DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED JULY 209 1999 C 7.E. BID #9067- CONCESSIONSERUCES FOR COUNTYADMEMTRATION BUILDING - SHA WNSMITH/SUPER DIP & SUB The Board reviewed a Memorandum of -July 12, 1999: DATE: July 12, IM TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Tom Frame, General Services Director�— SUBJECT: Bid Award: IRC #9067 Concession Services Countv Administration Building BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bid Opening Date: June 30, 1999 at 2:OD PM Advertising Dates: June 3, 10, 1999 Specifications Mailed to: Thirty (30) Vendors Pre -Bid Conference Held: June 14,1999 at 10:00 A.M. Replies: Five (5) Vendors Responses were receive( from the following interested bidders: • Ophelia's Restaurant Proposal Incomplete Did not include operational plan • Super Dip & Subs Proposal Complete • Catherine Goldstein Proposal Incomplete Did not include operational pian • Mike's Place' Proposal Complete • Brenda Smith & Phyllis Proposal Complete Smith On July 8, 1999 the following bidders were invited to meet with the review committee. Super Dip & Subs Shawn Smith, Owner Attended Mike's Place Michael McGuire, Owner Declined to attend (verbally withdrew) Brenda Smith & Phyllis Smith Sole Proprietors Attended RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Shawn Smith, owner of Soper Dip & Sub be awarded the contract to provide concession services for the cafe area of the Administration Building as outlined in the specifications of the Invitation to Bid. JULY 209 1999 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #9067 for concession services in the County Administration Building to Shawn Smith/Super Dip & Sub, as recommended by staff. LICENSE FOR USE OF COUNTY PROPERTY IS ON FILE IN TBE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -13- • �a BOOK P�Gk Ce' L BOOK i0j PAGE 1 ZF. PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT -RELATED COSTS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999: JULY 209 1999 10 0 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attomeyv-pD DATE: July 12, 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 June 14, 1999 through July 12, 1999. Listed below are the vendors names and the amount of each court related costs. Ralph More, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 Barbara G. Schopp Transcription 73.50 Henry W. Cook, Clerk State Attorney Costs 6.00 Sandy Crawford State Attorney Costs 4.00 Olga Linda R PhUli s Li Furl Interpreter 37.50 Edward J. Abare, III, Esq. Public De8tion fe der Costs .70 8.70 Barbara J. Schopp Transcription 59.50 Barbara J. Schopp Transcription 98.00 Linda R. Phillips Transcription 108.50 Celeste L Hartsfield Transcription 602.00 Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 Karen M. Orlando Transcription 35.00 Gregory C. Landrum, Psy.D. Clinical Evaluation 450.00 Fred J. Petrilla, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 650.00 Michael C. Riordan, Psy.D. Expert Witness 675.00 H. Hooshmand, M.D. Expert Witness 500.00 Linda R. Phillips Transcription 227.50 NationsBank State Attorney Costs 5.45 Unishippers State Attorney Costs 19.50 Sheila I. Flinn Transcription 161.00 Celeste L Hartsfield Transcription 234.50 �v Janet C. Prosper Transcription 56,00 Robert J. Brugnoll, Ph.D. Linda Clinical Evaluation 5Q0.00 P:1 P O Copeland Ralph Mora, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation Clinical Evaluation 45.50 � � Esquire Reporting, Inc. Court Reporter 500.00 40a 00 .,� g American Keporting Court Reporter 167.00 Sheldon H. Rffidn, Ph.D. Sheila 1. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 Flinn Peter R. Aldan, M.D., PA Transcription Expert Witness 136.50 200.00 Yc)Cn Jiffy Photo Public Defender Costs 17.00 c Karen M. Orlando Transcription 31.50 Ri Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 21.00 z O Sheila i. Flinn Transcription 17.50 { -1 Janet Prosper Transcription 35.00 %0 `0 Floyd Evans Celeste L Hartsfield Public Defender Costs 12.50 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription Transcription 73.50 80.50 D Airborne Express State Attorney Costs 14.00 Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph. D. Clinical Evaluation 750,00 JULY 209 1999 10 0 J. R Reporting Transcription 423.50 Marsha Stiller, Martin Co.Clerk State Attorney Costs 68,00 Karen Orlando Transcription 84.00 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 122,50 Medical Record Services, Inc. Public Defender Costs 18.01 Medical Record Services, Inc. Public Defender Costs 19.01 Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation J00.00 Floyd Evans Court Interpreter 12.50 Karen Orlando Transcription 35,00 Karen Orlando Transcription 150,50 Janet Prosper Transcription 84,00 Floyd Evans Transcription 12.50 Janet Prosper Transcription 28,00 Janet Prosper Transcription 31.50 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 24,50 Sheldon H. Ritkin, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 450,00 Sandy Crawford, Clerk State Attorney Coats 5,00 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 122.50 Barbara G. Sc Kopp Transcription 269.50 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 35.00 Floyd Evans Transcription 12.50 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 84,00 Hammond pSmith, PA Indigent Dependency Cases 3,800,00 Janet Prosper ig�pti 234.50 Patricia B. Held Transcription 80,50 Patricia B. Held Transcription 17,50 Deaf Service Center of the TC Court Interpreter 212.50 Celeste L. Hartsfield Transcription 77.00 Interim Court Reporting Transcription 133.00 Olga Mas Court Interpreter 200,00. Floyd Evans Court Interpreter 12.50 Patricia B. Held Transcription 63.00 Nations Bank State Attorney Costs 10.75 SunTrust Bank of South Fla State Attorney Costs 562.95 James G. Harpring, Esq. Public Defender Conflict 49.569.25 Total $68,130.12 Chairman Macht questioned the justification for payments to some of the professionals listed, and County Attorney Vitanac noted that doctors often charge a great deal more per hour than other professionals. These fees, however, are set by the Court and many have been negotiated by Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien. Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien stated that some of the doctors reduce their hourly fees for indigent cases but they are all pretty much in the same ballpark. Chief Judge Kanarek is setting up a meeting soon to discuss this matter, but at the present time, our circuit does not have a cap on fees. NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TARN. JULY 20,1999 -15-��. BOOK PAGES �g — BOOK UJ PAGE &'J Z G. CREW CAB TRUCKFOR TRAFFICENGINEEMNG TO REPLACE FLEET #381 (ED MoRsE CHEyROLETj The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 19, 1999: DATE: July 19, 1999 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THRU: Joe Baird, Office of Management & Budget Director Tom Frame, General Services Director,ti.a��c.' FROM: Fran Boynton -Powell, Purchasing Manager'll- J SUBJECT: Direct Purchase of a Crew Cab Truck for Traffic Engineering Division BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION Traffic Engineering submitted a requisition for the purchase of a one ton crew cab truck to be used to transport the marking crew and haul a trailer with marking equipment to various job sites throughout the County. This truck will be replacing Fleet #381, a 1988 Dodge pick-up truck, used by this division. Funds in the amount of $30,000 are appropriated in the current year budget (Account # 111-245-541-066-42) for this purchase. Both the Sheriffs contract and the current state contract for trucks have expired and will not be awarded until late October for the new year models. Due to current market demands and manufacturer's 1999 balance out on trucks, dealers are unable to bid on a 1999 vehicle and in addition the 2000 year model is not yet available for ordering. Staff called all of the local and state contract vendors trying to locate a crew cab truck that closely meets the division's specifications. Ed Morse Chevrolet Inc. of Lake Park, Florida was the only dealer that has a 1999 crew cab available and is holding it for us pending board action. The purchase price for the 1999 Crew Cab Fleetside pickup truck is $27,247.06 (Ref. Purchase Order 88409). As a point of comparison, the expired state contract price for a truck with the same specifications was $25,442.00 Staff recommends that the Board waive the bidding requirements for the purchase of this truck and authorize the release of purchase order 88409 to Ed Morse Chevrolet Inc of Lake Park, Florida for one (1)1999 Crew Cab Fleetside pickup trick in the amount of $27,247.06 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously waived the bidding requirements for the purchase of this truck and authorized the release of purchase order 88409 to Ed Morse Chevrolet, Inc. of Lake Park for one 1999 Crew Cab Fleetside pickup truck in the amount of $27,247.06, as recommended by staff. JULY 209 1999 -16 0 - 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - TEFRA (TAX EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AMRESOLUTION 99-066 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $18,000,000 (ST. EDWARD'S SCHOOL, INC.) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN TAE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 7, 1999: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 7, 1999 SUBJECT: TEFRA (TAX EQUITY FISCAL RESPONSIBELX17Y ACT) PUBLIC HEARING AND PXSOLUTION AUTHORIZING SAINT EDWARD'S SCHOOL INCORPORATED TO ISSUE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS NOT TO EXCEED $18,000,000.00. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET AGENDA ITEM FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 18, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved an Inducement Resolution and Memorandum of Agreement that authorized Saint Edward's School, Inc. to issue up to $18,000,000.00 in Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. A requirement of Industrial Revenue Bonds is that a TEFRA (Tax Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act) public hearing must be held. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve and have the Chairman sign the Bond Resolution. ADO 'L /*S Ie' 11iEsti /AJ Zee The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. JULY 209 1999 -17- s��p BOOK iOJ PAGE C: BOOK WJ PAGE ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 99-066 pertaining to the issuance of the Industrial Development Revenue Bonds in compliance with Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; authorizing the issuance of the Indian River County, Florida variable rate demand revenue bonds (Saint Edward's School, Incorporated Project), Series 1999. TRUST AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 99- 6 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS REFERENCED BELOW IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 10S(a) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, VARIABLE RATE DEMAND REVENUE BONDS (SAINT EDWARD'S SCHOOL, INCORPORATED PROJECT), SERIES 1999, IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF NOT EXCEEDING $18,000,000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A LOAN OF FUNDS TO SAINT EDWARD'S SCHOOL, INCORPORATED IN ORDER TO FINANCE OR REFINANCE THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; PROVIDING THAT SUCH REVENUE BONDS SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A DEBT, LIABILITY OR OBLIGATION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY OR THE STATE OF FLORIDA OR ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF, BUT SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE REVENUES HEREIN PROVIDED; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LOAN AGREEMENT WITH SAINT EDWARD'S SCHOOL, INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR SUCH BONDS, AND FOR OTHER MATTERS THEREIN PROVIDED; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF TRUST AGREEMENT; APPOINTING FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK AS INITIAL TRUSTEE THEREUNDER; APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A LOAN AGREEMENT AND CERTAIN OTHER DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE FOREGOING; AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN OR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO AWARD THE SALE OF THE BONDS TO FIRST UNION CAPITAL MARKETS, CORP. AND APPROVING THE CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA OF SUCH SALE; APPROVING THE FORM- OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A REMARTING AGREEMENT; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF AN OFFERING STATEMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS; APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY JULY 209 1999 • 1 • OF A TENDER AGENCY AGREEMENT, DESIGNATING A REMARKETING AGENT AND A TENDER AGENT AND MAKING CERTAIN OTHER APPOINTMENTS; AND PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER DETAILS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. BE IT RESOLVED by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMM (the "Board") of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (the "Issuer") that: SECTION 1. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the Constitution of the State of Florida, Part Il of Chapter 159, Florida Statutes, as amended, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, as amended, and other applicable provisions of law (collectively, the "Act"). SECTION 2. "Chairman" as used herein refers to both the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board, unless specifically indicated otherwise. Throughout this document when reference is made to "Chairman", the Chairman or Vice Chairman may act independently and interchangeably in performing the duties and functions resolved herein. All other terms used herein in capitalized form, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the same meanings as ascribed to them in the Resolution pertaining to the Bonds referenced below (the "Inducement Resolution"), adopted by the Board on May 18, 1999. SECTIONS. The Board hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. In the Inducement Resolution, the Board authorized the issuance of industrial development revenue bonds (the "Bonds") in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $18,000,000 upon various conditions named therein, in order to loan funds to Saint Edward's School, Incorporated (the "Borrower") to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction and equipping of educational facilities of the Borrower in Indian River County, Florida more particularly described in Schedule I attached hereto (the "Project"). B. Pursuant to the Inducement Resolution, the Borrower has now arranged for the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project and the refinancing of portions thereof C. The Issuer is authorized under the Act to finance the Project as herein contemplated and to fully perform the obligations of the Issuer in connection therewith in order to promote the industrial economy of Indian River County, and the State of Florida, increasing and preserving opportunities for gainful employment and purchasing power, improving the prosperity and welfare of the State of Florida and its inhabitants, and otherwise contribute to the prosperity, health and welfare of Indian River County, the State of Florida and the inhabitants thereof. D. The Issuer, as required by the Act, has initially determined that the interest on the Bonds will be excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes under Section 103(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and applicable regulations thereunder (the "Code"), based in part on a certificate to be obtained from the Borrower, and the Bonds will not be issued unless the Issuer has received a satisfactory opinion of bond counsel regarding the fact that the interest on such Bonds will be excluded from gross income at the time of the delivery of the Bonds. E. The Project constitutes "educational facilities," and a `project" within the meaning and contemplation of the Act, is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of, and shall make a significant contribution to the economic growth of Indian River County, Florida, shall provide or preserve gainful employment and shall serve a public purpose by advancing the economic prosperity and the general welfare of the State of Florida and its people and by improving living conditions within the State of Florida. F. Indian River County, Florida, will be able to cope satisfactorily with the impact of the Project and will be able to provide, or cause to be provided when needed, the public facilities, including utilities and public services, that will be necessary for the construction, operation, repair and maintenance of the Project and on account of any increases in population or other circumstances resulting therefrom. JULY 209 1999 BOOK �� FAGEir F, BOOK J0 MUE G. The availability of financing by means of industrial development revenue bonds was and is an important inducement to the Borrower to proceed with the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project and the refinancing thereof. H. Adequate provision has been made in the documents attached hereto for a loan by the Issuer to the Borrower (the "Loan"), to finance the acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project and the refinancing thereof and thereafter for the operation, repair and maintenance of the Project at the expense of the Borrower and for the repayment by the Borrower of the Loan in installments sufficient to pay the principal of and the interest on the Bonds and all costs and expenses relating thereto in the amounts and at the times required. I. The Borrower and First Union National Bank (the "Bank"), which will issue the Letter of Credit, as that term is hereinafter defined, are financially responsible based on the criteria established by the Act, the Borrower is fully capable and willing to fulfill its obligations under the Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") between the Borrower and the Issuer, including the obligation to repay the Loan in installments in the amounts and at the times required, the obligation to operate, repair and maintain the Project at the Borrower's own expense and such other obligations and responsibilities as are imposed under the Agreement. The payments to be made by the Borrower to the Issuer and the other security provided by the Agreement, the Trust Agreement and the Letter of Credit, as those terms are hereinafter defined, are adequate within the meaning of the Act for the security of the Bonds. J. The Issuer is not obligated to pay the Bonds except from the proceeds derived from the repayment of the Loan by the Borrower, or from the other security pledged therefor or from draws under the Letter of Credit, as hereinafter defined, and neither the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Issuer or the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof, is pledged to the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, or the interest on the Bonds. K. The Issuer and the Borrower will concurrently with the issuance of the Bonds execute the documentation required for the financing of the Project as contemplated hereby. L. A negotiated sale of the Bonds is required and necessary and is in the best interest of the Issuer for the following reasons: the Bonds will be special and limited obligations of the Issuer payable out of moneys derived by the Issuer from the Borrower's operation of the Project or as otherwise provided herein and will be secured by funds of the Borrower; the Borrower will be required to pay all costs of the Issuer in connection with the financing, the cost of issuance of the Bonds, which must be borne directly or indirectly by the Borrower would most likely be greater if the Bonds are sold at public sale by competitive bids than if the bonds are sold at negotiated sale, and there is no basis, considering prevailing market conditions, for any expectation that the terms and conditions of a sale of the Bonds at public sale by competitive bids would be any more favorable than at negotiated sale; because prevailing market conditions are uncertain, it is desirable to sell the Bonds at a predetermined price; and industrial development revenue bonds having the characteristics of the Bonds are typically sold at negotiated sale under prevailing market conditions. M. First Union Capital Markets, Corp. (the "Underwriter'), has provided, or prior to the issuance of the Bonds will provide, to the Issuer a disclosure statement containing the information required by Section 218.385(6), Florida Statutes. Said disclosure shall be acceptable to the Issuer and the Issuer will not require any further disclosure from the Underwriter. N. The Underwriter has submitted a proposal to place the Bonds pursuant to the terms of the "Bond Purchase Agreement hereinafter more particularly described (the "Bond Purchase Agreement'. O. The purposes of the Act will be more effectively served by awarding, or causing to be awarded, contracts for the construction, improvement, installation and equipping of the Project upon a negotiated basis rather than by awarding, or causing to be awarded, such contracts based on competitive bids. JULY 209 1999 -20- I P. The costs of the Project will be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds in accordance with the terms of the Agreement and the Trust Agreement (as hereinafter defined), and these costs constitute costs of a "project" within the meaning of the Act. Q. A public hearing concerning the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer to finance or refinance the acquisiiaon, construction and equipping of the Project, at which comments and discussions from interested persons were solicited and heard, was held by the Issuer on the date hereof, after and pursuant to appropriate publication of notice thereof in Press -Journal, a newspaper of general circulation in Indian River County, Florida, a reasonable period of time in advance of said hearing. R. Following such public hearing, issuance of the Bonds is hereby approved by the Board, and the Board hereby finds that the issuance of the Bonds to finance or refinance the Project will have a substantial public benefit. The Board is the elected legislative body of the Issuer and has jurisdiction over the entire area in which the Project is located. S. All conditions precedent to the acquisition, renovation, construction, financing and refinancing of the Project set forth in the Inducement Resolution have been satisfied, or will be satisfied prior to the delivery of the Bonds, and the proposal will otherwise comply with all of the provisions of the Act. T. It is in the best interest of the Issuer to award the sale of the Bonds to the original purchaser or purchasers designated by the Underwriter pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreement and approved by the Chairman pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Bond Purchase Agreement. SECTION 4. All actions taken by the Board in connection with its May 18, 1999, meeting, pertaining to the adoption of the Inducement Resolution and the execution of the Memorandum of Agreement referred to therein (the "Memorandum of Agreement") are hereby ratified and confirmed in all respects. SECTION 5. The acquisition, construction, improvement and equipping of the Project and the refinancing thereof is hereby authorized. SECTION 6. For the purpose of paying the cost of the Project, subject and pursuant to the provisions hereof, the issuance of revenue bonds of the Issuer under the authority of the Act in the original aggregate principal amount of $18,000,000, or in such lesser amount as hereinafter provided, is hereby authorized. Such Bonds shall be designated "Indian River County, Florida, Variable Rate Demand Revenue Bonds (Saint Edward's School, Incorporated Project), Series 1999," and subject to the award of the sale thereof as hereinafter provided and payment as provided in the Trust Agreement by and between the Issuer and the trustee thereunder, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (the "Trust Agreement"), shall be issued in the name of and delivered to the Underwriter or as otherwise directed by the Chairman. The sale of the Bonds to the Underwriter in an aggregate principal amount which shall not exceed $18,000,000 at the purchase price set forth in the Bond Purchase Agreement (the "Purchase Price") and at an initial rate of interest, as approved by the Chairman, of not to exceed 12% (the "Maximum Initial Rate"), is hereby authorized, the Chairman's approval of the initial rate to be conclusively evidenced by the execution by the Chairman of an order to the Trustee to authenticate and deliver the Bonds to or upon the order of the Underwriter. The Chairman is hereby authorized and directed to award the sale of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $18,000,000, at the Purchase Price, to the order of the Underwriter. The Bonds shall be dated such date, shall bear interest at such rates, shall be payable or shall mature on such date or dates, shall be issued in such denominations, shall be subject to optional, extraordinary and mandatory redemption at such time or times, and upon such terms and conditions, shall be subject to optional tender at such time or times and upon such terms and conditions, shall be payable at the place or places and in the manner, shall be executed, authenticated and delivered, shall otherwise be in such form and subject to such terms and conditions, all as provided in the Trust Agreement, as may be established by resolution of the Issuer adopted prior to the issuance of the Bonds, or as may be approved by the Chairman, and the authority to approve such matters is hereby expressly delegated to the Chairman, with such approval to be conclusively evidenced by the Chairman's execution of any documents including such terms. JULY 20,1999 • -21- BOOK PAGE G .�j , BOOK 10J PAGE 65 7 The Bonds and the premium, if any, and the interest thereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general debt, liability or obligation of the Issuer the State of Florida or of any political subdivision thereof, or a pledge of the faith and credit nor the taxing power of the Issuer, or the State of Florida or of any political subdivision thereof, but shall be payable solely from the revenues provided therefor, and the Issuer is not obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon except from the revenues and proceeds pledged therefor and neither the faith and credit of the Issuer, nor the taxing power of the State of Florida or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or the interest on the Bonds. SECTION 7. In order to secure the payment of the principal of, premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds herein authorized, according to their tenor, purport and effect, and in order to secure the performance and observance of all of the covenants, agreements and conditions in said Bonds, the execution and delivery of the Trust Agreement, a proposed form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," is hereby authorized. The form of the Trust Agreement is hereby approved, subject to such changes, insertions and omissions and such filling of blanks therein as may be approved and made in such form of Trust Agreement by either of the officers of the Issuer executing the same, in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Resolution, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval. First Union National Bank is hereby designated as the initial trustee (in such capacity, the `Trustee") under the Trust Agreement. The Chairman of the Board is hereby designated and appointed the Issuer Representative under the terms of the Trust Agreement and the Vice Chairman of the Board is hereby appointed as an alternate Issuer Representative. SECTION 8. As authorized by and in conformity with the Act, it is desirable and in the public interest that the Issuer loan funds to the Borrower to pay the costs of the Project, such loan to be evidenced by the Loan Agreement (the "Agreement") between the Issuer and the Borrower, a proposed form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B." and the execution and delivery of the Agreement is hereby authorized, and the assignment of certain rights of the Issuer under the Agreement by the Issuer to the Trustee is hereby authorized. The form of the Agreement is hereby approved, subject to such changes, insertions and omissions and such filling of blanks therein as may be approved and made in the form of the Agreement by either of the officers of the Issuer executing the same and by the Borrower, in a manner consistent with the provisions of this Resolution, such execution to be conclusive evidence of any such approval. SECTION 9. To provide additional security for the payment of the Bonds, and for the payment by the Borrower of its obligations under the Agreement, the Borrower has agreed to obtain from the Bank an Irrevocable Direct Pay Letter of Credit (the "Letter of Credit") and to enter into a Letter of Credit Agreement (the "Reimbursement Agreement") with the Bank. The form of the Letter of Credit is attached hereto as Exhibit "C," and is hereby approved, subject to such changes, insertions and omissions and such filling of blanks therein as may be approved in such form by the Borrower, the Bank and the Chairman or as may be approved by subsequent Resolution. SECTION 10. In order to evidence the undertaking of the Underwriter to purchase the Bonds with the Purchaser, and to set forth the terms and conditions of such sale, the Underwriter, the Borrower and the Issuer will enter into the Bond Purchase Agreement, a proposed form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "D." The terms of the Bond Purchase Agreement attached hereto are hereby approved, subject to such changes, insertions and omissions and such filling of blanks therein and attaching of exhibits thereto as may be approved by the officers of the Issuer executing the same, the Borrower and the Underwriter, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval. The Chairman and Clerk of the Circuit Court or any Deputy Clerk (collectively, the "Clerk") are hereby authorized to execute the Bond Purchase Agreement for and on behalf of the Issuer pursuant to the terms hereof. SECTION 11. In order to obtain the lowest possible interest rate in connection with the initial issuance of the Bonds, the Borrower has agreed to permit the Bonds to contain provisions allowing them to be tendered back to the Tender Agent, as hereinafter defined, by the bondholders and to then be remarketed, and to the extent that they cannot be remarketed, the Trustee has agreed to purchase the Bonds on behalf of the Borrower through payments from the Borrower or a draw on the Letter of Credit. In order to accommodate such plan of financing, the Borrower JULY 209 1999 • has agreed to enter into a Remarketing Agreement (the "Remarketing Agreement") with First Union Capital Markets, Corp. (the "Remarketing Agent"). There is hereby delegated by the Issuer to the Remarketing Agent under the Remarketing Agreement such authority as is necessary for the establishment of the interest rate on the Bonds pursuant to the terms of the Trust Agreement and to carry out all duties established by the Remarketing Agreement. SECTION 12. First Union National Bank (m such capacity, the "Tender Agent") is hereby appointed as the initial Tender Agent under the terms of the Trust Agreement and is hereby authorized to take all actions as such. In order to facilitate the ability, under this Resolution for bondholders to tender the Bonds back to the Tender Agent, the Borrower and the Tender Agent will enter into the Tender Agency Agreement, the execution and delivery of the Tender Agency Agreement by the Borrower and the Tender Agent is hereby approved. SECTION 13. Certain rights of the Issuer under the Agreement shall be assigned by the Issuer to the Trustee under the terms of the Trust Agreement, all as set forth in the Trust Agreement. SECTION 14. The Chairman and the Clerk are, subject to the terms hereof, hereby authorized and empowered to execute and deliver the Bonds, the Trust Agreement, the Agreement, the Bond Purchase Agreement, and all documents contemplated thereby, in each case, subject to such changes and modifications as either of such officers may approve, such execution to be conclusive evidence of any such approval, and to affix thereto or impress thereon, the seal of the Issuer. SECTION 15. The Issuer hereby approves the form and content of and authorizes the distribution of the Offering Statement relating to the Bonds in substantially the draft form attached hereto as Exhibit "EA (the "Offering Statement") in accordance with the intended purposes thereof with such changes, omissions and insertions to the Offering Statement as the Chairman may, in his discretion, approve, and the execution and delivery of the Bonds by the officers of the County as are herein authorized shall constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. SECTION 16. The Issuer and the officers, employees and agents of the Issuer acting on behalf of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute such documents, instruments and contracts, whether or not expressly contemplated hereby, and to do all acts and things required by the provisions of this Resolution and by the provisions of the Bonds, the Trust Agreement, the Agreement, the Reimbursement Agreement, the Tender Agency Agreement, the Remarketing Agreement, the Letter of Credit and the Bond Purchase Agreement authorized herein, as may be necessary for the full, punctual and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, provisions and agreements herein and therein contained, or as otherwise may be necessary or desirable to effectuate the purpose and intent of this Resolution, or as may be requested by the Underwriter, the Bank, the Remarketing Agent, the Borrower, the Trustee or the Tender Agent. The Chairman and the Clerk are hereby designated as the primary officers of the Issuer charged with the responsibility of issuing the Bonds, and the Chairman is hereby authorized to delegate to any other person any of the duties or authorizations of the Chairman or Vice Chairman or the Clerk hereunder. SECTION 17. In case any one or more of the provisions of this Resolution shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this Resolution, and this Resolution shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained herein. This Resolution is adopted and the Trust Agreement and the Agreement shall be executed, and the Bonds shall be issued, with the intent that the laws of the State of Florida shall govern their construction, except as shall otherwise be expressly provided by the terms thereof. SECTION 18. All parts of the Inducement Resolution and the other agreements- emplated thereby not in conflict with the express terms hereof are hereby reaffirmed. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 19. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. JULY 209 1999 -23-BOOK .' 0 PAGE C 0 BOOK i � PAGE Cid SCHEDULEI DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Project will consist of (a) the refinancing of the existing loan with First Union National Bank that financed a portion of the construction of the Upper School Project, described below, and (b) the completion of the Upper School Project, which includes the construction and equipping of an approximately 14,272 square foot Administration Building, an approximately 20,623 square foot Auditorium Building, an approximately 15,053 square foot Middle School Multipurpose Building, an approximately 29,783 square foot Middle School Academic Building and an approximately 20,128 square foot Fine Arts Center, and the renovation of existing Classrooms, Gymnasiums, Cafeteria/Kitchens, Locker Rooms, Athletic Building, and Library. All of the facilities described above are or will be owned and operated by the School and are or will be located at 1895 Saint Edward's Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32963. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners Of Indian River County, Florida, this 20th day of July, 1999. INDIAN R COUNTY, FLORIDA (SEAL)By: airman, oard of County Commissioners Kenneth R. Macht ATTEST: By: Clerk of the Circuit Court and ex -officio Clerk to the Boar County C 'oners JULY 209 1999 9 -24- 0 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - JOAN CAIN - PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS PINE HAMMOCK (Quasi -Judicial) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D ON HEAD CONCURRENCE: RobertM. Keating, AI Community Dev;lopmanl THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. Mcco� Senior Planner, �mmunity Development DATE: July 12,1999 SUBJECT: Joan Cain's Request for PD Special Exception Use Approval for an Agricultural Planned Development to be Known as Pine Hammock PD It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 20, 1999. Carter Associates, Inc. has submitted an application for PD (planned development) special exception use and preliminary PD plaWplat approval on behalf of Joan Cain to create seven 10 acre tracts in an agriculturally designated area. The subject property consists of a 30 and 40 acre parcel, which are located diagonally to each other (see attachment #2). The 30 acre parcel fronts on 8* Street, and the 40 acre parcel fronts on 41 Street. The total property is improved pasture with scattered pines. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit(Sacres), is located outside the Urban Service Area, and is designated AG -1 (Agricultural up to 1 unit/5acnes). The proposed 7 lot residentiaUagricultcnal subdivision is allowed in the AG -1 area, subject to the special exception use provisions of sections 911.06(4) and 911.14(2) of the county's land development regulations (see attachment #4) for residential subdivisions in agricultural areas. Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of June 24, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously (6-0) granted preliminary PD plan approval subject to Board of County Commissioners approval of the special exception use. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners grant PD special exception use approval, subject to the conditions contained in the recommendation at the end of this report. If the Board grants special exception use approval, the preliminary PD plan approval will become effective. JULY 20, 1999 BOOK :iUJ PAGE 6'55 I BOOK i0 J PAGE G • PDs in Agriculturally Designated Areas To address certain urban sprawl concerns raised by DCA during its review of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, the county adopted special policies and regulations regarding development of single-family subdivisions in agriculturally designated areas. The resulting special regulations require use of the PD process and a layout of the lots that "clusters" homesites in a manner that provides large remaining areas of open space (used for aitriculture or areservation of natural features). Therefore, the LDRs limit the maximum lot or homesite size to 1 acre, with remaining areas designated as open space (see attachment #4). Lot or homesite clustering also preserves the ability for future development of the overall property at a higher density it in the fixture, the comprehensive plan is changed and the property is re -designated for residential development. Clustering can be accomplished in different ways. One approvable concept clusters the lots in a standard subdivision layout of 1 acre or smaller lots and creates 1 large tract which could be separately owned and limited to open space (agricultural or preservation) uses until such time as the land may be re -designated. Another approvable clustering concept creates larger tracts, each with a designated buildable lot aces (homesite). Such tracts can be laid out so as to cluster the buildable lot (homesite) areas in close proximity to one another, or in close proximity to a land feature, or in close proximity to a roadway (as determined by the Board of County Commissioners during its recent discussion of agricultural PD clustering). Under such clustering designs, each tract could be individually owned and contain a single homesite. This concept has been used in the design of the proposed Pine Hammock Subdivision. Thus for the proposed project, individually owned tracts comprise the entire project site, yet residential homesites (located within tracts) are clustered in relation to one another. • PD Project Process As a PD project, the process involved in review and approval of this proposal is as follows: 1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception PZC fit BCC 2. Preliminary PD PZC 3. Land Development Permit (LDP)or Waiver Staff 4. Final PD (plat) BCC The applicant is now requesting approval of the first two steps. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant will need to obtain from public works an LDP or LDP waiver for required PD improvements. • Board of County Commissioners Consideration Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested conceptual PD plan based on the submitted PD plan and suitability of the site for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Size of PD Area: 68.96 acres Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 ams) Land Use Designation: AG -1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres) Density: Allowed: up to 20 units/am Proposed: .10 units/acre Maximum Lot/Homesite Area: Open Space: JULY 209 1999 Allowed:- Proposed: llowedProposed Required Provided 1 acre 1 acre (encompassed within a t 10 acre tract) 60% 900/0 Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Grove/A-1 South: Grove/A-1 East: Grove, Pashue/A-1 West: Vacant, Grove, HomeJA-1 S. Tree Circulation: Due to the small number of units proposed, no special traffic study and no off-site traffic improvements are required None are proposed. The northern 3 lots will share a single access/culvert crossing point to 8'h Street. A 40' marginal access easement/road is proposed that will run parallel to 811 Street and provide access to all three lots from a common canal crossing. The four southern lots will access 4'h Street directly via private, unpaved driveways as allowed by IDR section 954.10(3) for driveways in agriculturally designated areas. Due to the size and frontage of the tracts, each tract's driveway will meet the 33V local road separation distance from adjacent driveways. This driveway spacing meets applicable subdivision and traffic ordinance standards. Final driveway designs and locations will be reviewed through the right -of --way permit process with any single-family house constructed on any of the four southern lots. Traffic Engineering has no objection to PD plan approval. 9. Stormwater Management: A conceptual stormwater management plan has been reviewed by the Public Works Department Public Works will perform a more detailed drainage review in conjunction with review of the county Type "C" stormwater pemut that is required for each single-family house. Prior to the issuance of an LDP or LDP waiver, the developer will need to obtain a Type 'B" stormwater management permit for the required subdivision improvements. 10. Utilities: Because the site is located outside of the Urban Service Area, no water or sewer service is required, and none is requested. Therefore, the project will have on-site wells and septic tanks for each tract. These utility provisions have been approved by the Department of Utility Services and the Environmental Health Department 11. Dedication and Improvements: Presently, 30' of right-of-way exists for 40 Street which is classified as a minor arterial roadway on the Thoroughfare Plan. Minor arterial roadways, such as 4th Stmt, require an ultimate right-of-way of 100'. The applicant will be required to dedicate 30' of right-of-way without compensation to bring 4th Street up to the local road standard of 601. At a later date the county can acquire the remaining 40' to complete the 100' right-of-way. The county does not wish to purchase the future right-of-way at this time. The design accommodates the 30' dedication and the 100' ultimate right-of-way. Since the proposed development is a low volume traffic generator/attractor and is loci outside the Urban Service Area, the applicant is not required to pave 4'h Street or 8'h Street, and no such paving is proposed No sidewalk or bikeway improvements are required, and none are proposed. 12. Concurrency: The applicant has obtained a conditional concurrency certificate which satisfies concurrency requirements related to the special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat requests. Therefore, all concurrency requirements related to special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat approval have been satisfied. 13. Environmental Issues: The site is essentially improved pasture with some scattered, isolated wetlands. The improvements are designed to avoid any wetlands. 14. Buffers and Seffiacks: Given that the surrounding area is presently used for and is designated for agricultural purposes, no special buffering is required. Since the A-1 district 30' setbacks exceed the 25' planned development perimeter setback, the 30' A-1 district setback will control. Therefore, no special setbacks are requested, and none will apply to this projecL 15. Canbban Fruit Fly Host Plant: The county Comprehensive Plan requires that Caribbean fruit fly host plum be prohibited within PDs in agricultural areas. The applicant has indicated that he has no objection to creating a restriction that would prolu'bit host platin on the subject property. Such restrictions must be included in the project's covenants and restrictions, which will be reviewed at the time of final phut application. 16. Waivers: The applicant is not requesting any waivers through the PD process. JULY 209 1999 -27- BOOK hJ PAGES I BOOK iOJ PAGE ( Based on the above analysis, staffrecommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant PD special exception use approval with the following conditions: 1. That prior to or via the final plat: a. A restrictive covenant shall be established on the project site prohibiting Caribbean fruit fly host plants. Furthermore, as a PD special exception use condition, Caribbean finit fly host plants are prohibited within the project area, and b. That 30' of right-of-way for 4'" Street shall be dedicated without compensation to complete the local road standard of 60' for 41' Street. Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the project and noted that it is located outside the urban service area. CommissionerAdams questionedthe reasoning behind clustering, andDirectorBoling responded that clustering is an attempt to concentrate residential use within a particular area and allow large open areas. It is also an attempt to minimise conflicts between residential and agricultural properties. Commissioner Adams felt that someone with a 5 -acre parcel should be able to put their house in the middle if they so desire. She personally has a problem with the Board dictating where the houses must go. Community Development Director Bob Keating noted that "clustering" was a compromise made with the Department of Community Affairs regarding the approval of the Comprehensive Plan in an effort to preserve agricultural lands and determine how development would proceed. The process is better illustrated on larger sites but does allow agricultural activities to be carried out on the remainder of the parcel not utilized for residential development. Discussion ensued regarding future revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and subdivision of these larger sites. Director Boling noted that any subdivision of the parcels would have to come before the Board as a proposed PD. Commissioner Ginn felt the clustering requirements form an inherent conflict within the LDRs as to preservation of future development and open spaces. Commissioner Tippin commented that the DCA had originally said the County's Comp Plan was the best they had ever seen and now, 10 years later, they are telling the County that it has created "urban sprawl". There are some philosophical changes going on in Tallahassee which will, hopefully, resolve some of these conflicts. JULY 209 1999 -28- Commissioner Ginn believed this issueshould be discussed at a public workshop. Director Boling believed that clustering results in added green space which maynever be further developed. Also the Plan does not allow for a change in the density unless a proposal for a PD is brought back before the Board. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Ray Scent, 1615 71' Court, felt the plan, as proposed, leads to further subdividing and will result in the Board being directed to tell everyone exactly where they have to put their residence. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Dana Howard, project engineer, believed that clustering does not accomplish much for anyone. These parcels can be subdivided at a later date should the owner desire to do that. Commissioner Ginn felt placement of the residence should be included in covenants and restrictions on the deed to the property rather than in the County's regulations. Commissioner Adams emphasized that an amendment to the LDRs should be developed so that placement of the one -acre homesites can be flexible throughout the 10 acres of the parcel. Chairman Macht suggested that staff treat the need for a workshop as an emergency. JULY 209 1999 BOOK i00 PAGE C BOOK 1UJ PAGE 0 ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously granted a PD special exception use approval for the Agricultural Planned Development to be known as Pine Hammock PD with the condition that, prior to or via the final plat (a) a restrictive covenant shall be established on the project site prohibiting Caribbean fnut fly host plants and, furthermore, as a PD special exception use condition, Caribbean fruit fly host plants are prohibited within the project area, and (b) 30 feet of right-of-way for a Street shall be dedicated without compensation to complete the local road standard of 60 feet for 4' Street; as recommended by staff; with the caveat that staff revisit the subject matter and change the Land Development Regulations retroactive to this date regarding agriculturalplanned developments. The Board also unanimously called a Special Meeting for Wednesday, September 22, 1999 at 9:00 A.M. to workshop the Land Development Regulations regarding agricultural planned developments. 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - BRAD SPRINGER - PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE FOR AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS WALKING FOX FARMS (Quasi -Judicial) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999: JULY 209 1999 -30- 0 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D139NON HEAD CONCURRENCE: oo -Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Denlopmed Di// THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director �� FROM: John W. McCoy 1\ Senior Planner, omm % Development DATE: July 12,1999 SUBJECT: Brad Springer's Request for Planned Development (PD) Special Exception Use Approval for an Agricultural PD to be Known as Walking Fox Farms It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 20, 1999. Carter Associates, Inc. has submitted an application on half of Brad Springer for PD (planned development) special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat approval on behalf of Brad Springer to create 3 lots within an agriculturally designated area. The subject site is a 15.2 acre parcel located on the south side of 11 Street SW between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue. The site is presently in citrus groves, and one home is approved on the overall site and is under construction. The subject property is zoned A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5acres), is located outside the Urban Service Area, and is designated AG -1 (Agricultural up to 1 unit/5acres). The proposed 3 lot residential/agricultural subdivision is allowed in the AG -1 area, subject to the special exception use provisions of sections 911.06(4) and 911.14(2) of the county's land development regulations (see attachment #4) for residential subdivisions in agricultural areas. • Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of June 24,1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously (6-0) granted preliminary PD plan approval subject to Board of County Commissioners approval of the special exception use. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve the PD special exception use request, subject to the conditions contained in the recommendation at the end of this report. If the Board grunts special exception use approval, the preliminary PD plan approval will become effective. • PDs in Agriculturally Designated Areas To address certain urban sprawl concerns raised by DCA during its review of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, the county adopted special policies and regulations regarding development of single-family subdivisions in agriculturally designated areas. The resulting special regulations require use of the PD process and a layout of the lots that "clusters" homesites in a manner that provides large remaining areas of open space (used for agriculture or preservation of natural features). Therefore, the LDRs limit the maximum lot or homesite size to 1 acre, with remaining areas designated as open space (see attachment #5). Lot or homesite clustering also preserves the ability for future development of the overall property at a higher density ii; in the future, the comprehensive plan is changed and the property is re -designated for residential development Clustering can be accomplished in different ways. One approvable concept clusters the lots in a standard subdivision layout of 1 acre or smaller lots and creates 1 large tract which could be separately owned and limited to open space (agricultural or preservation) uses until such time as the land may be re -designated. Another approvable clustering concept creates larger tracts, each with a designated buildable lot area (homesite). Such tracts can be laid out so as to cluster the buildable lot (homesite) areas in close proximity to one another, or in close proximity to a land feature, or in close proximity to a roadway (as determined by the Board of County Commissioners during its resent discussion of agrimkuml PD clustering). Under such clustering designs, each tract could be individually owned and contain a single homesite. This concept has been used in the design of the proposed Walking Fox Fawns Subdivision. JULY 209 1999 -31- r: BOOK U 0, PACE 6 k _I BOOK PAGE Cid • PD Project Process The process involved in review and approval of this proposal is as follows: 1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception PZC & BCC 2. Preliminary PD PZC 3. Land Development Permit (LDP) or Waiver Staff 4. Final PD (plat) BCC The applicant is now requesting approval of the first two steps. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant will need to obtain from public works an LDP or LDP waiver for required PD improvements. • Board of County Commissioners Consideration Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested conceptual PD plan based on the submitted PD plan and suitability of the site for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. 1. Size of PD Area: 2. Zoning Classification: 3. Land Use Designation: 4. Density: 15.2 acres (including access roadway) A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres) AG -1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit per 5 acres) Allowed: PMposed:- 5. Marimnm Lot/Homesite Area: 6. Open Space: Allowed:- Proposed:. llowed:Proposed: Required: Provided: 7. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning. 0.20 units per acre 020 units per acre 1 acre 1 acre (encompassed within t 5 acre tract) 60% 80% North: Grove/A-1 South: Grove/A-1 East: Grove/A-1 West: Single -Family, Grove/A-1 S. Traffic Circulation: Due to the small number of units proposed, no special traffic study and no off-site traffic improvements are required. All of the lots will access 10 Street SW (paved) from 631' Court which will be the internal local road constructed within the proposed development. The preliminary PD plan proposes 631d Court as a stabilized, unpaved roadway within a private 60' right-of-way. The LDRs allow such a road to be unpaved, because the subdivision is private, generates less than 100 daily trips and is looted outside the Urban Service Area. The Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved the roadway layout. The proposed subdivision road (631' Court) runs along the east property line of a "not - included" parcel. Under most circumstances this would require the developer to construct a double frontage buffer to buffer the adjacent property from the proposed new roadway. However, the applicant will be providing the owner of the not -included parcel access rights to the roadway, which removes the need for the double frontage buffer. In essence, the adjacent property owner will benefit from and use 63"d Court and will not need to be buffered from it. JULY 209 1999 -32- 0 0 • 9. Stormwater Management: The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved a conceptual stormwater plan. A detailed engineering stormwater plan will be reviewed and approved as part of the land development permit or permit waiver process. The applicant will need to obtain a county Type "B" stormwater permit prior to the issuance of a land development permit. A county Type "C" permit will be required for each individual lot. 10. Utilities: Because the site is located outside of the Urban Service Area, no water or sewer service is required, and none is requested; therefore, these lots will be serviced by on-site wells and septic tanks. These utility provisions have been approved by the Department of Environmental Health and the Indian River County Department of Utility Services. 11. Waivers: As allowed through the planned development special exception use process, the applicant is allowed to request waivers from the LDRs. In this case, the applicant is not seeking any waivers. 12. Dedication and Improvements: None are required, and none are proposed. 13. Concurrency: The applicant has obtained a conditional concurrency certific8te which satisfies concurrency requirements related to the special exception use and preliminary PD plan/plat requests. Therefore, all concurrency requirements related to special exception use and preliminary PD piwiplat approval have been satisfied. 14. Environmental L"nes: Since the site is over 5 acres, the native upland set-aside requirements of section 929.05 could potentially apply. However, the site consists of a remnant grove and does not contain any native upland habitat or wetlands. Therefore, no LDR related environmental reauiremenm including the upland set-aside Tw.MMnent; apn1.Y- 15. Buffers and Setbacks: Given that the surrounding area is designated agricultural, no special buffering is required under the planned development LDRs. Since the A 1 district minimum 30' setback exceeds the 25' perimeter PD setback, the 30' A-1 district setback will control. Because the development is low density and is outside the Urban Service Area, no special residential/agncultural buffers are required, and none are proposed. 16. Caribbean Fruit Fly Host Plant: The county Comprehensive Plan regWres that Canbbean fruit fly host plants be prohibited within PDs in agricultural areas. The applicant has indicated that he has no objection to creating a restriction that would prohibit host plants on the subject property. Such restriction must be included in the project's covenants and restrictions, which will be reviewed at the time of final plat application. Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant PD special exception use approval with the following conditions: That prior to or via the final plat - a. A restrictive covenant shall be established on the project site prohibiting Caribbean fruit By host plants. Furthermore, as a PD special exception use condition, Caribbean fruit By host plants are prohibited with the project ama. b. Access rights to 63'd Court sball be provided to the owner of the not -included parcel. JULY 209 1999 • -33- BOOK PAGE C'-)'5`3 r BOOK i0i FAU Planning Director Stan Boling noted that this is a development of 1 -acre homesites clustered around an existing lake. There is also a need for a shared access arrangement with the property owner of the outparcel to the northwest. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously granted PD special exception use approval for the Agricultural PD to be known as Walking Fox Farms with the condition that, prior to or via the final plat, (a) a restrictive covenant shall be established on the project site prohibiting Caribbean fruit fly host plants; furthermore, as a PD special exception use condition, Caribbean fruit fly host plants are prohibited within the project area, and (b) access rights to 63' Court shall be provided to the owner of the not -included parcel, as recommended by stafE 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - INDIAN RIVER COURTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR SINGLE AND MULTI -FAMILY DEVELOPMENT (Quasi -Judicial) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEAWNG IS ON FME IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999: JULY 209 1999 • -34- • TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator MYRON HEAD CONCURRENCE: �— Z bortA Keating, AICP Community Development THROUGH: Stan Bol' g AICP PlanningDirector FROM: John W. Mecoy�W Senior Planner, Community Development DATE: July 12, 1999 SUBJECT: Indian River Courts Limited Partnership's Request for Conceptual Special Exception Planned Development (PD) Approval for a Single and Multi Family Development It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 20, 1999. Captec Engineering, Inc. has submitted an application for PD special exception uselconc eptual PD plan and conciurent preliminary PD plan approval on behalf of Indian River Courts Limited Partnership to construct a single-family and multi -family residential project. The subject property is loud near the northwest comer of Indian River Boulevard and 411 Street. The subject property is zoned RM -8. The conceptual and preliminary PD plans depict the construction of 200 multi family units and 36 single-family units on two tracts of land that comprise the total project area. The multi -family area is looted on the northern tract of land; the single-family lots are to be located on the southern tract. Developments on the two tracts are dependent upon each other for density proposes, and are being developed under unified control of a single PD plan, and a master homeowners association that will control the overall site. • PD Project Process As a PD project, the process involved in review and approval of this proposal is as follows: Anrnoval Needed Reviewing Bodv 1. Conceptual Plan/Special Exception PZC & BCC 2. Preliminary PD Plan PZC 3. Land Development Permit (LDP) or Waiver Staff 4. Final PD (plat) BCC The applicant is now requesting approval of the first two steps. • Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of June 24, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary PD plan subject to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the special exception use request. Also the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the special exception use with an additional condition related to buffering along Indian River Boulevard. That condition is included in the recommendation contained at the end of this report (condition a.). JULY 209 1999 -35- BOOK .J FACE r BOOK 105 PAGE d7 • Board of County Commissioners Consideration Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested conceptual PD plan based on the submitted PD plan and suitability of the site for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards nom+ to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area 1. Size of Development: Multi -Family: 19.42 acres 4S•ne 10.14 -F mils acres Overall: 29.56 acres 2. Zoning Classification: RM -8, Residential MultiFamily (up to 8 units/acre) 3. Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium Density Residential 1(up to 8 units/acre) 4. Phasing. All improvement are to be constructed at the same time. 5. Number of Units: Proposed: Multi -Family: 200 units 36 SinSje-Family: Total: units 236 units Allowed: 236 units 6. Density: Allowed: 8 units/acre Proposed 7.98 units/acre 7. Off Street Parldug. Required for the Multi -Family: 400 spaces Provided for the Multi -Family: 421 spaces Note: All single-family units will have two garage spaces provided which meets the county's two space per unit requirement. S. Impervious Area Multi -Family: 8.62 acres ,Singe-Family•54 7 acres Total: 13.19 acres 9. Open Space: Required (Multi -Family): 30% Provided (Multi -Family): 42.60/a Required (Single -Family): 30% Provided (Single -Family): 42.7% Required (Overall): 300/6 Provided (Overall): 42.60/a Note: The open space figures provided do not take credit for any lake area Lake area can be credited for up to 30% of the required open space. Therefore, the project's percentage of actual "open space", as defined in the LDRs, will be higher than indicated above. 10. Recreational Area: Required: 2.83 acres (based upon number of residential units) Provided 3.25 acres Note: Credited recreation area includes: a clubhouse, pool, and walking paths for both the multi -family and single-family areas, and teams courts for the multi -family complex. Details of the multi -family complex clubhouse and pool recreation area are included on the preliminary PD plan and will be =approved with this application. No new planning approvals are needed for the multi -family clubhouse. The location of the single family clubhouse is shown on the plan but lacks adequate detail for °site plan° approval at this time. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the single family clubhouse area, the applicant will need to provide those site plan details through the administrative approval process. JULY 209 1999 -36- • 11. Traff e: The applicant is proposing a driveway on Indian River Boulevard to serve the mul& family (200 unit) development and another driveway on 41" Street to serve the single-family (36 unit) development. The driveway on Indian River Boulevard will align with an existing median cut, which is served by an existing left -tum lane improvement. This Indian River Boulevard driveway will be a full movement driveway. The driveway on 41 a Street will also be a full movement driveway. No additional improvements are required at the 41" Street driveway entrance due to the low number of units (36) that will use this driveway. The single and multi -family portions of the development will not have a vehicular interconnection but will have an internal pedestrian interconnection. Within the multi -family ares, a looped driveway system is proposed to provide access to all of the proposed parking spaces. The single-family area is proposed to have two internal streets that terminate in cul-de-sacs. These streets will provide access to all of the individual lots. Traffic Engineering has approved the internal circulation systems. The applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis for the proposed development, and that analysis has been reviewed and approved by Traffic Engineering. The traffic impact analysis indicates that a left -tum lane is required at the project entrance on Indian River Boulevard. Since a left tum lane already exists there, no new off-site traffic improvements are required. 12. Sttormwater Management The Public Works Department has reviewed and approved the conceptual stormwater management plan. That plan proposes central, interconnected stormwater tracts in each project area (multi -family and single-family areas). Prior to the issuance of a land development permit or land development permit waiver, the applicant must obtain a county Type "B" stormwater management permit. 13. Concurrency: Long-range planning staff has indicated that a conditional concurrency certificate has been issued for the project. Thus, all concurrency requirements related to conceptual and preliminary PD plan approval have been satisfied. 14. Environmental Issues: Uplands: Since the site is over 5 acres, the native upland set-aside provisions could potemally apply to this project. However, environmental planning staff has inspected the site and verified that the site is an abandoned gmve that now mainly consists of Brazilian pepper. Staff has concluded that no native upland plant community exists. Therefore, no set-aside requirement applies to this project. Wa*uids: Environmental planning staff has inspects the site and verified that no wetlands exist; therefore, no wetland regulations apply to this development. 15. Utilities: The development will connect to county water and wastewater services. These utility provisions have been approved by the County Department of Utility Service and the County Health Department. 16. Dedication and Improvements: Sidewalks: The County's sidewalk and bikeway plan requires a 5' wide public sidewalk along the site's 41" Street frontage That sidewalk improvement will need to be constructed or bonded -out prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion. Internal sidewalks will be provided within both developments with construction of the improvements. A sidewalk will interconnect the two sidewalk systems so that pedestrians can walk throughout the entire project site. Streedights: Streetlights are required for loth developments and will be provided Indian River Boulevard and 41' Street Rights-of-way: No additional Indian River Boulevard or 411 Street right-of-way is needed from the site. 17. Landscaping and Buffering. The landscape plan meets the requirements of Chapter 926, including a 25' PD building setback from all adjacent property lines. A Type "C" buffer with a 6' opaque feature is required where the proposed multi -family active recreation area (Le. tennis courts) is adjacent to the overall site's south property line. A masonry wall is required for the 6 opaque feature unless an alternate design is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant is proposing a 3' berm with a continuous hedge on top to provide the 6 opaque feature This alternative was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and is in addition to the Type -C- buffer plants. JULY 209 1999 • 600K PAGE"0-4 7? BOOK FACE Agricultural Buffer: While the site has remnant grove adjacent to it, those groves are not active. Therefore, an agricultural buffer is not required. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that a condition be added that requires a Type "B" buffer with a 6 opaque feature along the site's Indian River Boulevard frontage. Such buffering was determined to be appropriate based on proposed net densities and existing projects in the area that front Indian River Boulevard Staff concurs with this condition and has incorporated it into the recommendation at the end of this report 18. Waivers: The applicant is not seeking any waivers for the multi -family portion of the project. The following waivers are proposed for the single-family portion of the project. (single-family area only) Lot Width: 70' 58' Lot Size: 7,000 sq. & 6,000 sq. R Chord Distance: 30' 18' (cul-de-sac frontage) Front Setback: 25' 25' (no change) Rear Setback: 25' 25' (no change) Side Setback: 10' 10' (no change) Note: Proposed Lots 18 and 19 will have only one required front yard setback. That setback will be applied to the yard with the narrower street frontage. The sideyard setback of 10' will apply to the yards with the longer street frontage. 19. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: RM-6/Old Groves South: RM-6/41st Street, Old Groves Fast: RM -6, RS-6/Old Groves, Indian River Blvd West: RM-6/Old Groves Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use and conceptual plan approval with the following conditions: a. Prior to PD plan release, the applicant shall submit and obtain planning staff approval of revised landscape plans that provide a Type "B" buffer with a 6 opaque feature along the site's Indian River Boulevard frontage. b. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for the single-family portion of the development, the 4181 Street sidewalk shall either be built or bonded -out. C. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multi -family portion of the project, the Type "C" buffer shall be completed where the recreation facility for the multi -family portion is looted adjacent to the project site's south property line. d Prior to issues of a certificate of occupancy for the multi -family portion of the project, the Type "B" buffer with a 6 opaque feature along the site's Indian River Boulevard frontage shall be completed JULY 20,1999 3s 9 0 • Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the project. Commissioner Ginn questioned the location and construction of garages. Director Boling noted that staff has no requirements in terms of type of garages. There will be some covered and some open parking. He suggested that the developer respond to the questions. Joe Captec, project engineer, stated there will be 7 garage buildings which willmatch the buildings around the perimeter. There is one garage per building and the spaces will be rented to the owners. Commissioner Ginn also questioned where children will play, and Director Boling noted there will be a clubhouse and pool, together with a pedestrian system throughout the project. There are large green spaces incorporated in the plan. Commissioner Ginn asked aboutprovisions to keep the pond inpristine condition, and Director Boling stated there will be 2 fountains in the lake. Commissioner Ginn felt we also need rules and regulations on chemical treatment and upkeep on ponds and lakes, and Commissioner Adams felt that stormwater development regulations would take care of those matters. Mr. Captec stated that they have documents that address stormwater regulations and are providing a lot of amenities for the people. The lakes will be maintained and they have provided lots of green space for the residents. Attorney Bruce Barkett, for the applicant, noted that St. Johns River Water Management District requires homeowners' associations to maintain stormwater facilities. That is a condition of the permit. Commissioner Ginn questioned where the garages are located in the single-family 58 foot lots, and Mr. Captec stated that 16 -foot garage doors are planned for each home. Commissioner Ginn expressed a desire to see how the garages look, and Commissioner Tippin felt the Board is getting beyond its purview. He believed it is not the County's business to regulate what garages look like. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, noted that the applicant has reviewed the conditions and is in agreement. .JULY 209 1999 J� -39- BOOK J PAGE 87 I BOOK �.� PAGE d d'a Ray Scent, 1615 71'a Court, charged the Board with the health, safety and welfare of the County's citizens and suggested an alternate ingress and egress in case of an emergency. He felt that was lacking in the plans. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Ginn opposed), granted special exception use and conceptual plan approval to Indian River Courts Limited Partnership for a single and multi -family development with the conditions that: (a) prior to PD plan release, the applicant shall submit and obtain planning staff approval of revised landscape plans that provide a Type `B" buffer with a 6 -foot opaque feature along the site's Indian River Boulevard frontage; (b) prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion for the single-family portion of the development, the 41' Street sidewalk shall either be built or bonded out; (c) prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multi -family portion of the project, the Type "C" buffer shall be completed where the recreation facility for the multi -family portion is located adjacent to the project site's south property line; and (d) prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the multi -family portion of the project, the Type `B" buffer with a 6 -foot opaque feature along the site's Indian River Boulevard frontage shall be completed; - all as recommended by staff. JULY 209 1999 -40- • 0 9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BEACH PRESERVATION PLAN, PHASE H - FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCING - APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT. INC. (1¢ Optional Sales Tax) (CLERK'S NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AFTER ITEM 9.B.2. AND IS COMBINED WITH ITEM 9.B.3. IT IS PRESENTED INITS REGULAR ORDER TO PRESERVE CONTRWITY.) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 13, 1999: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator TBROUM: James W. Davis, P.E.,PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM Public Works Director CP- FROM: Jeffrey R. Tabar, P. Coastal Engineer SUBJECT: Funding Sources and Financing Plan for Beach Preservation Plan (Phase II) DATE: July 13, 1999 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS County staff, with a team of consultants, has prepared a financing plan for the County's Beach Preservation Plan (BPP). The financing plan includes determining the nature and extent of benefits expected to accrue and formulates alternatives to finance the cost of the BPP. This work was completed in two phases. The Phase I report entitled "Beach Preservation Plan - Economic Analyses and Cost Allocation Plana was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on January 19, 1999 during the regular meeting. The purpose of the Phase I work was to examine the economic viability of beach restoration along five (5) planning sectors of the County's shoreline, analyze storm protection and land loss benefits, compile summer recreational beach use benefits and identify alternative sources of revenue to fund the BPP. The phase II report entitled "Beach Preservation Plan Economic Analysis - Phase II Funding Sources and Financing Plane presents data from a winter recreational beach user survey, compiles revised annual recreational benefits and formulates recommended funding sources and a financing plan. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Phase II report presented herein examines the overall economic viability of the BPP and quantifies the benefits to be received by individual groups over the 30 -year project horizon. Four primary sources of revenue are available to fund the cost of the beach restoration projects. These sources are recommended based on the funding alternatives identified and evaluated in the Phase I report. JULY 209 1999 -41- BOOK io PAGERI BOOK i0i PAGE & i �bl • State Beach Erosion Control Program (Grant) Funds • Local Tourist Development Taxes • Local Government Infrastructure Sur -tax (one cent option sales tax) • Local Special Assessments Two methods of funding are presented in the Phase II report, based on the above revenue sources, 1) State Grants, Tourist Development Taxes, and Local Option Sales Tax; 2) State Grants, Tourist Development Taxes, Local Option Sales Tax and Special Assessments. Each method and the amount of funding to be utilized is outlined in the attached report. The Phase II report was presented to the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee on June 21, 1999 during the regularly scheduled monthly meeting. on a motion by Mr. Vanatta, and Second by Mr. Carr, the Committee voted unanimously (11-0) to send Phase II of the Economic Analysis to the Board County Commissioners, with a recommendation to use $1.25 million per year from the one cent optional sales tax ($6.25 million over the next five years), along with the tourist tax and grant money, for beach renourishment, and eliminate special assessments to beachfront homeowners. Following the Beach Committee meeting, staff presented the next five years of one cent optional sales tax expenditures to the Board on July 6, 1999. It was shown during the meeting that $6.0 million over the next five years from sales tax would adequately fund the BPP rather than $6.25 million. The Board approved the $6.0 million from sales tax. RECOMME MATIONS AND YMMING The Beach and Shores Preservation Advisory Committee recommends using the one cent option sales tax, along with the tourist development tax and state grant money, for beach renourishment (to provide funding for the BPP), and eliminate special assessments to beachfront homeowners. Coastal Engineer Jeff Tabar noted that the first Phase of the Plan had been presented to the Board on January 19, 1999, outlining the benefits and including recommendations for funding from (1) grants, (2) tourist development tax, (3)1¢ option sales tax, and (4) special assessments. At that time the Board asked for a winter beach use survey and a way to reduce the assessments. Mr. Tabar then introduced Karyn Erickson of Applied Technology & Management, Inc.; Dr. Tom Curtis, economist; and Attorney George Nickerson. Karyn Erickson of Applied Technology & Management advised that the recommendations from January have been adjusted since the winter survey was done. Also JULY 209 1999 -42- 0 Sector 3 has been expanded an additional 3,000 feet pursuant to a report brought to the Beach & Shores Preservation Advisory Committee in June. As a result of the winter survey, recreational benefits increased from 50 million to 71 million dollars over the 3 0 -year project. The costs were also adjusted to include the cost of monitoring the plan and acquiring construction easements, including estimated mitigation construction. The benefit -to -cost ratio has gone up to 3 to 1 which is a very solid number. Dr. Tom Curtis, economist at the University of South Florida, reviewed the surveys taken in each project area and noted that the value of a beach day in the winter is $14.32 and $7.71 in the summer, times a 30 -year benefit. Ms. Erickson then noted that the State is funding 100% of the cost for Sector 1 of 8.7 million dollars and the projections for the tourist development tax do not account for growth. Between these 2 funding sources, 65% of the total project cost will be paid and no special assessments will be required. Ms. Erickson then reviewed the following Executive Summary: Executive Summary In July 1998, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners authorized Applied Technology and Management, Inc., to undertake economic studies and funding analyses to formulate alternative plans to finance the costs of the County's Beach Preservation Plan (BPP). This work was to be performed in two phases. The Phase I economic studies and alternative funding analyses are presented in a report titled "Beach Preservation Plan - Economic Analysis and Cost Allocation Plan" (ATM, 1998). The purpose of the Phase I economic work was to examine the economic viability of beach restoration along five (5) planning sectors of the County's shoreline, analyze storm protection and land loss benefits, compile summer recreational beach use benefits and identify alternative sources of revenue to fund the County's BPP. This report quantifies the benefits to be derived by Individual beneficiary groups over a 30 -year project horizon. This report represents the work product for Phase If. The purpose of the Phase II studies is to compile new winter recreational beach use data, revise the annual recreational benefits and formulate recommended funding sources and a financing plan. This report includes supplemental work to determine the value of the County's winter recreational beach use and the costs associated with an extension to the beach restoration project in Sector 3. JULY 209 1999 -43- 14 - ,� 'o -/';) BOOK 2.0PAGE 0 e 0 , 0 BOOR iOJ PAGE Recreational Benefit The total recreational value of the County's beaches to an individual is estimated as the average value of a day at the beach multiplied by the number of days spent on average at the beach. To determine the recreational benefits associated with the projects identified in the BPP, a beach user survey was conducted to ascertain the characteristics of beach users on the Indian River County beaches during summer and winter months. These surveys were conducted between August 13 and October 11, 1998 for the summer period and between March 26 and April 10, 1999 to determine beach user characteristics for winter months. These surveys determined that, on average, the value placed on a day at the beach by respondents to the summer survey was $11.71 and the value placed on a day at the beach by winter respondents was $ 14.32. The average value of a day at the beach was multiplied by the number on days spent on average at the beach for each beach sector to determine the total recreational benefit. The net present value of the recreational benefits over the 30 year project horizon is estimated at $71,719,063 for the entire project area. Storm Protection Benefit The storm protection benefit resulting from the beach restoration program was computed for oceanfront property within a project area. The following factors were taken into consideration: (1) anticipated land loss from erosion if the project was not completed, (2) value of land that would be lost, (3) construction cost of erosion control structures required if the project was not completed, and (4) maintenance cost of erosion control structures. The aggregate net present value of the storm protection benefit for all property abutting the project over a 30 -year project horizon is estimated at $31,106,269. Distribution of Project Benefits and Costs The initial beach restoration projects will restore and improve 8.3 miles of shoreline along the County's 22 miles of barrier island beaches. The restored beaches will be renourished at intervals of approximately 8 years throughout the 30 -year project horizon. The present value of the initial beach restoration project is approximately $16,286,567, based on a total initial project cost of $17,685,540. The total 30 -year present worth benefits associated with storm protection ($31,106,269 or 30.3 percent) and recreational use ($71,719,063 or 69.7 percent) is $102,825,332. The total 30 -year present worth cost for the County's beach restoration projects is $33,884,070, resulting in a benefit to cost ratio of 3.03 to 1 (3:1), confirming the economic importance of improving the County's beaches. Recommended Funding Sources and Financing Plan Four primary sources of revenue are available to the County to fund the cost of the initial beach restoration projects. These sources are recommended based JULY 209 1999 -44- the funding sources identified and evaluated in Phase I. As described above, initial project costs are estimated at $17,685,540 to restore 8.3 miles of shoreline. Funding sources recommended to finance these costs include: • State BECP Funds • Tourist Development Taxes • Local Government Infrastructure Surtax (local options tax) • Special Assessments Total State Grant Funds (BECP) that the County is anticipated to receive is estimated at $8,727,423 based on the following State contributions: • Sector 1 -100 percent cost share or $3,329,609 • Sector 2 - 50 percent cost share or $1,224,478 • Sector 3 - 50 percent cost share or $1,864,858 • Sector 5 - 50 percent cost share or $2,308,478 • Sector 7 - Not available Tourist Development Taxes (TDT) generate about $1.0 million annually and the County is allowed by statute to expend up to 50 percent of these revenues on beach improvement projects. Based on collections of the tourist development tax in 1998, and assuming no increase in collections over the next 5 years, this revenue source will provide $504,200 annually, or $2,827,650 over the 1999- 2004 project implementation period. The Local Government Infrastructure Surtax, also referred to as the local option sales tax, was evaluated to determine (a) the amount required to fund the remaining balance of the project cost ($6,130,467) and (b) the amount required from special assessments to pay the remaining balance if $1.0 million is dedicated from the local option sales tax. To defray the entire balance of the remaining initial project costs ($6,130,467) using the local option sales tax, the County would be required to allocate an average of $1.25 million annually from these tax collections. These collections currently provide approximately $9 million to the County on an average annual basis and provide a source of revenue available through the 1999-2004 period. Special Assessments are available as a source of revenue to fund a portion of the remaining project costs should the County determine that the required $6.13 million in local option sales tax funds are not available for this purpose. Two requirements exist for the imposition of a special assessment: (1) the property assessed must derive a special benefit from the improvement or service provided and (2) the assessment must be fairly and reasonably apportioned among the properties that receive a special benefit. The storm protection element of the project clearly provides a special benefit to coastal property and the storm protection benefits received by each parcel provide a sound basis for allocating these costs. JULY 209 1999 600K i PAGE C:��, 0 BOOK iUJ PAGE G A As an example, if the County elects to fund an average of $1,000,000 annually from the local option sales tax, special assessments as a source of revenue are proposed to fund the balance of $1,130,467 in remaining costs. If special assessments are used to fund a portion of the project costs, the assessment amounts are proposed to be based on the degree of storm protection benefits received within the project Sector, excluding government owned lands which would be paid from the County and State contributions. Examples of potential special assessments are given in Chapter 5.5 of this report for property located in each of the beach restoration project Sectors. It is recommended that the County use State BECP funds, tourist development tax funds and a portion of the local option sales tax funds to defray all project costs attributable to recreational benefits and secondly, apply the balance of these funds to pay costs attributable to storm protection benefits with the remaining costs funded by special assessments. Mrfabar continued that the Phase H report presented to the Beach & Shore Preservation Advisory Committee on June 21' recommends the use of the 1¢ option sales tax, the tourist development tax, and pursuit of state grant funding. This will eliminate the need for special assessments. Commissioner Adams commented that this has been a very long process. At the workshop last night (July 19, 1999) almost 100 people expressed their concerns for the environment which this plan will address carefully and thoroughly. This is a very sound financial policy to protect our assets. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the use of the 1¢ optional sales tax, along with the tourist development tax and state grant money for beach renourishment and eliminated special assessments to beachfront homeowners, as recommended by staff. - The Chairman then recognized Mr. Irvin. (CLERK'S NOTE: MR. IRVIN PRESENTED HIS COMN[ENTS RELATIVE TO ITEM 9.B.3 AT THIS TE1IE) Bibble Irvin commented that the workshop last night was well attended and noted that Ft. Pierce residents felt their beach restoration process was a disaster. Mr. Irvin JULY 209 1999 -46- • 0 demonstrated 2 bottles of water and sand; suggesting that one bottle contained the sand used in restoring the Ft. Pierce beaches which made the water cloudy and the other contained sand from Humiston Park which settled to the bottom, leaving the water clear. Mr. Irvin also used the ELMO to show several pictures, attempting to illustrate that the shoreline has -not been eroded and that sand restoration causes large escarpments which will have to be bulldozed. He also believed the sand would bury the offshore reefs and harm that environment. Commissioner Adams had asked Mike Blatus, a local photographer, to leave several photographs of the reef whose environment concerns all citizens. Chairman Macht stated that he is a diver and can relate that reefs are often covered with sand after a storm. That is a natural process which is temporary and the reefs are not so fragile that they are destroyed by the sand layer. Mr. Irvin asked the Board to bring this matter to a referendum and stated that he felt there had not been sufficient advertisement of the workshops regarding this matter. Commissioner Goin also demonstrated several photographs graphically illustrating the erosion at the Ocean Grill, Conn Beach, Summerplace, Crusty's and Sectors 3, 5 and 7. Commissioner Tippin stated that he did not take any pictures but has been here a long time and remembers when you could walk out to the reefs on the beaches. Bill Glynn also demonstrated several photographs, specifically of Sector 3 at Wabasso Beach, the Aquarius Hotel in Sector 5, the Ocean Grill also in Sector 5, and several other eroded areas in Wabasso. He felt that sufficient notice and study has been given to this problem. He also noted that the City of Vero Beach had relinquished its rights to the maintenance of the beaches to the County some time ago and Vero Beach will never again be the largest city in the county. He related that Martin County has spent 11 million dollars on their beach restoration project and has been hit by several storms, but the sand has not been swept away. It takes 6 months to a year to build up a natural shoreline after the restoration and the water does clear up. He also noted that there are 1,000 property owners inNorth Beach and 3,000 in South Beach. One-third of the taxes are paid by these residents, who compromise less than 9% of the taxpayers. He urged the Board to support the plan and thanked staff for a wonderful job. (CLERK'S NOTE: NO PHOTOGRAPHS WERE SUPPLIED TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE FOR FILING.) JULY 209 1999 -47- 1. 600K DJ PAGE 232 BOOK -10i PAGE 81 Frank Zorc stated he has lived in the county for 45 years and paid taxes. There is no question there is an erosion problem and something needs to be done, but he felt that two- thirds of the residents would prefer a referendum. He had 2,000 signatures to a petition asking the City not to spend money on beach restoration prior to the time the City transferred the maintenance to the County. He objected to the Board refusing funding of $50,000 to the Coalition for the Homeless while yielding to pressure from the beachfront property owners. Ray Scent, 1615 71' Court, commented that grapes will rot if you ignore them, but if you do the right things, they become very good wine. His mother and father had a hot dog stand on the beach near the Ocean Grill and that whole area was grassy. The reefs were covered with many feet of sand in those days and he hoped the Board would vote to put the beaches back like they were. Frank Coffey, 88 Cache Cay, noted that the people who attended last night's workshop had only to read the Sunday Press Journal to learn about the meetings and the topics. All meetings are open to the public and the public is free to ask questions and to talk to staff at any time. Penny Chandler, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, emphasized that the Chamber supports the efforts. She commended Jeff Tabar on a terrific job and believed that, no matter where you live, the beach is important. Art Neuberger, Mayor of the City of Vero Beach, stated that he had seen other beaches which have been restored and they look beautiful. He also noted that the Advisory Committee meetings were open to the public, as well as all Board meetings. Bob Bruce, President of Downdrift Coalition, expressed his thanks for the efforts of staff and noted that this is a County project, not a City of Vero Beach project. He also stated he would like to see the Board go after the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District for their responsibility in the beach erosion problem. Commissioner Adams thanked all -the speakers and said she is grateful for the divergent opinions. She noted that the beach erosion is really a state problem but the responsibility for curing the problem has fallen to the County and the County has accepted the responsibility. We have to move forward with the best available technology at this time. JULY 209 1999 There have been numerous workshops with good attendance and helpful input from a lot of folks who can help us guardian the environmental interests of the whole County, rather than just the specific interests in the reefs, the sand, the turtles and the birds. Commissioner Adams then OFFERED A MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REFERENDUM ON THE BEACH ISSUE. Chairman Macht ruled that the motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Adams expressed her pride in the other Commissioners for their willingness to take responsibility for the issue. Chairman Macht believed that the Legislature has used a referendum to escape what needs to be done. The County does have miles of beautiful beaches which are the economic engine of our County and one of the main reasons people come here. It is time to take the responsibility for the project and move forward. Commissioner Ginn wanted the public to be aware that the project will use only the County's portion of the 19 option sales tax. No municipalities have been asked to contribute. Commissioner Stanbridge felt that we are all in this together and, if we continue to have the participation shown today, it will make us strong together. Commissioner Adams then asked for permission to form a sub -committee of the Beach & Shore Preservation Advisory Committee to look over and "think-tank" some of the environmental issues. She felt it would be a perfect opportunity to take advantage of the knowledge of the citizens. Commissioner Tippin felt environmental issues should be addressed, but in a reasonable manner. Commissioner Ginn wanted to be sure this would not be a separate committee but would come under the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee. CONSENSUS was reached that permission be given to Commissioner Adams to form a subcommittee of the Beach & Shore Preservation Advisory Committee to handle the environmental issues. BEACH PRESERVATION PLAN, ECONOMIC ANALYSIS - PHASE II, FUNDING SOURCES AND FINANCING PLAN PREPARED BY APPLIED TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD JULY 209 1999 -49- BOOK JO J PAGE 83 I BOOK JUJPAGE u� 9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTER - JOHN H. DEAN (10 Optional Sales Tax (CLERK'S NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AFTER ITEM 9.B.4. AND IS PRESENTED IN ITS REGULAR ORDER TO PRESERVE CONTINUITY.) The Board reviewed a letter of July 8, 1999: john h. dean architect & associates, p.a., a.i.a. July 9. 1999 To: Jim Chandler Re: Gifford Youth Activittim Center Deari,11% I appreciate all that you did in regards to helping us get on the agenda for Use one cent sales tax . We would also appreciede your help in getting the six items listed on the attehed sheet on the agenda for the county c omrdselon meeting July 20th. Thank you again for ali your help in working with us on this great commurdy project. k A, -- h. dean, %b*m an Lordoos b" trs tm ery mer a van Vol bm IV Preen. to 2223 loth Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (561) 567-4907 % Fax: 569-3939 The Gifford Progressive Civic League Inc., the Gifford Youth Activities Center Board of Directors and friends, and the Gifford Aquatic Center Board Of Directors and friends, thank the Indian River County Commission for Its vital role in the development of the Gifford Park Facilities and encouragement to the Gifford Youth Activities Center and planned Gifford Aquatic Center. We at this time ask the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners to endorse and participate in our unfolding vision. Our request: 1. That our County Commission extend their leased area which the Gifford Youth Activity Center now enjoys for its facility to include the area required for its planned phase 2 addition. 2. That this County Commission consent to the addition of park site improvements to compliment the Gifford Youth Activities Center addition. 3. That this County Commission endorse the vision of Gifford Aquatic Center in Gifford Park. 4. That this County Commission accept the actual construction of the Gifford Aquatic Center as a gift from the Gifford Aquatic Center Friends to Indian River County, and that Indian River County run and JULY 20,1999 maintain the facility and grounds as part of Gifford Park and Its Indian River County recreation programs. S. That this County Commission help in the construction costs of :the site plan improvements required by the Gifford Youth Activities Center addition and the Gifford Aquatic Center. a. That this County Commiseiun endurse Via co ac;W& of tha present -Gifford Aquatic Center Board of Directors appointing an advisory board to help Indian River County -in being sensitive to the public needs and desires 'for the Gifford Aquatic Center, and when appropriate, to be permitted to Infuse the management process with their enthusiasm, creativity, and volunteer efforts. JULY 209 1999 ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (1) extended the leased area for the Gifford Youth Activity Center to include the area required for its planned Phase 2 addition; (2) consented to the addition of park site improvements to compliment the Gifford Youth Activities Center addition; (3) endorsed the vision of Gifford Aquatic Center in Gifford Park; (4) accepted the actual construction of the Gifford Aquatic Center as a gift from the Gifford Aquatic Center Friends to Indian River County, agreeing that the County will run and maintain the facility and grounds as part of Gifford Park and as part of the County recreation programs; (S) agreed to assist in the construction costs of the site plan improvements required by the Gifford Youth Activities Center addition and the Gifford Aquatic Center; and (6) endorsed the concept of the present Gifford Aquatic Center Board of Directors appointing an advisory board to help the County in being sensitive to the public needs and desires for the Gifford Aquatic Center and, when appropriate, agreed to permit the advisory board to infuse the management process with their enthusiasm, creativity and volunteer efforts. -51- GOOK � , ME CJ I BOOK i0J PAGE C`8 7 9.B.3. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - BIBBLE IRVIN - REQUEST TO DISCUSS SAND PUMPING (CLERK'S NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AFTER ITEM 9.B.2. AND COMBINED WITH ITEM 9.B.1. SEE ITEM 9.B.1. FOR MIL IRVIN'S COMMENTS.) NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. 9.B.4. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - ORDINANCE PROHIBITING PLACEMENT OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN SELF-SERVICE DISPLAYS ACCESSIBLE TO MINORS - STUDENTS WORKING AGAINST TOBACCO & TOBACCO FREE PARTNERSHIP (CLERK'S NOTE: THIS ITEM WAS HEARD AFTER ITEM 9.A.4. AND IS PRESENTED IN ITS REGULAR ORDER TO PRESERVE CONTINUITY.) The Board reviewed the following proposed Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 99 - AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROHIBITING PLACEMENT OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN SELF-SERVICE DISPLAYS ACCESSIBLE TO MINORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature has enacted laws, located In Chapter 569, Florida Statutes, that provide for increased regulation of the retail sale of tobacco products; and WHEREAS, within Chapter 569, Florida Statutes, the Florida Legislature has provided for civil, administrative, and/or criminal penalties for the sale of tobacco products to a person under the age of 18 and for the possession of such tobacco products by a person under the age of 18; and WHEREAS, the State of Florida has entered into a settlement agreement with the tobacco industry for billions of dollars to reimburse the state for some of the health care costs incurred by the state due to the prevalence of tobacco use; and WHEREAS, the settlement agreement between the State of Florida and the tobacco industry provides for a pilot program which is aimed specifically at the reduction of the use of tobacco by persons under the age of 18; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Surgeon General and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have found that a majority of those Americans who die of tobacco related diseases became addicted to tobacco products prior to reaching the legal age of consent; and JULY 209 1999 -52- WHEREAS, survey results conducted in October and December of 1998 showed that 90% of tobacco retailers have tobacco products located on, in front of, and beside the counter, and 25% of tobacco retailers have tobacco product displays and open containers located directly next to entranceways; and . WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners and the citizens of Indian River County are concerned about the use of tobacco protiums by persons under die age of 18; and _ WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners believes that a reduction in the availability, both visually and physically, of tobacco products to persons under the age of 18 will likely lead to a reduction in tobacco product use by that age group; and WHEREAS, Chapter 569, Florida Statutes, does not prohibit local governments from regulating the placement and merchandising of tobacco products; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1981), that ordinances that regulate the commercial marketing of items that may be used for illegal purposes do not violate the First Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to regulate the placement of tobacco products as it is in the best interests of the public health, safety, and welfare; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:: SECTION 1. TITLE This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "Merchandising of Tobacco Products Ordinance." SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this ordinance, the following terms shall mean: Business means any sole proprietorship, joint venture, partnership, corporation, or limited liability company or other business formed for profit making or non-profit purposes, including retail establishments where goods or services are sold. Person means any individual, partnership, cooperative association, private corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or other legal entity. Seff-service merchandising means the open display of tobacco products to which the public has access without the intervention of the vendors, store owner, or other store employee. Tobacco products include loose tobacco leaves, and products made from tobacco leaves, in whole or in part, and cigarette wrappers, which can be used for smoking, sniffing, or chewing. Tobacco retailer means any person or business that operates a store, stand, booth, concession, or other place at which sales of tobacco products are made to purchasers for consumption or use. Vendor assisted means the customer has no access to tobacco products without the assistance of the vendor, store owner, or other store employee. SECTION 3. MERCHANDISING PROHIBITED No person, business, tobacco retailer, or other establishment subject to this ordinance shall sell, permit to be sold, offer for sale, or display for sale any tobacco products by means of self-service merchandising. Only vendor assisted sales are allowed, unless access to the premises by persons under the age of 18 is prohibited by the person, business, tobacco retailer, or other establishment or prohibited by law. JULY 209 1999 -53- BOOK�,J PAGEG"S BOOK i0 J PAGE ,- . SECTION 4 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 5. EFFECTIVE DAT 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 day of , 1999, for a public hearing to be held on the day of , 1999, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner the following vote: seconded by Commissioner , and adopted by Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge Commissioner John W. Tippin The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this day of '1999. Attest: J. K. Barton, Clerk Deputy Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Kenneth R. Macht Chairman ACKNOWLEDGMENT of filing with the Department of State of the State of Florida, this day of .1999. County Attorney Vitunac noted that this item was proposed by Students Working Against Tobacco (SWAT). Another county has already passed this ordinance and legal staff thinks it is satisfactory. He introduced some members of SWAT for a quick update on their research. Leslie Cracraft of Indian River County Health Department noted that in recent surveys taken by the students, approximately 2 weeks ago, Eckerd's is displaying cigars next to school supplies and candy. Ms. Cracraft then introduced: Nancy McClain, SWAT Coordinator of the Substance Abuse Council; Joe Acquafredda and Sara Hansen of Sebastian River Middle School; Todd Fox and Jennifer Stabe of Gifford Middle School; Alisha Page and Larissa Feretti of Oslo Middle School; and Tricia Acquafredda and Chana Morales of Sebastian River Middle School. The students thanked the Board for their support and requested that the Board adopt the ordinance. JULY 20,1999 COPY OF HANDOUT PRESENTED BY SWAT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -54- COPY OF HANDOUT PRESENTED BY SWAT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously directed staff to move the proposed ordinance to public hearing. 9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 27,1999: 1. JOHNDEAN- REOUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USEAPPROVAL FOR OFFICEANNEX FOR SAMARITAN CENTER RESIDENTIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 3650 415TSTREET. IMMEDIATEL YNORTH OF ST. HELEN'S HEADSTART FACILITY (QUASI-JUDICIAL, 2. LARRYAND PAMELA CANADY- REQUEST FOR PD SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND PRELIMINARYPD PLANIPLAT LAPPROV,4L FOR AGRICULTURAL PD TO BE%NOWNAS CANADYPLANNED DEVELOPMENTI FOR 15.18 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTHSIDE OF49",STREET BETWEEN 66'ffAVENUEAND 74'ffAVENUE (QUASI- JUDICIALI 3. COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED APPLICATION FOR FY 1998-99 USC CHAPTER 53, SECTION 5307. MASS TRANSIT CAPITAL AND OPERATING ASSISTANCE GRANT IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF 51.096.957 TO BE USED TO CONTINUE AND EXPAND INDIANRIVER COUNTY COUNCIL ONAGVVG COMMUNITY COACH FIXED-ROUTE/DIAL A RIDE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATim SERVICES (LEGISLATIVE, The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 13, 1999: JULY 209 1999 -55- BOOK 100 PAGE CS_�O BOOK i0J TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: r Robert M. Keating, AI Community Development birecOr FROM: Stan Boling, CP Planning Director DATE: July 13, 1999 SUBJECT: Notice of Scheduled Public Hearings for the July 27,1999 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 July 20, 1999. � �1: 1' Y �► :►11 �►11 YY �► Please be advised that the following public hearings have been scheduled for Board consideration at its July 27, 1999 meeting. 1. John Dean's Request for Special Exception Use Approval for an Office Annex for the Samaritan Center Residential Center. The subject property is located at 3650 41" Street immediately north of the St. Helen's Head Start facility. (Quasi - judicial) 2. Larry & Pamela Candy's Request for Planned Development (PD) Special Exception Use and Preliminary PD Plan/Plat Approval for an Agricultural PD to be Known as Canady Planned Development. The subject site is a 15.18 acre parcel located on the north side of 49'h Street between 66t° Avenue and 70 Avenue. (Quasi - judicial) 3. Submittal by the Community Development Department of a proposed application for an FY 1998/99 49 USC Ch. 53, Section 5307 Mass Transit Capital and Operating Assistance Grant. The grant (in the total amount of $1,096,957) will be used to continue and expand the Indian River County Council on Aging's Community Coach fixed route/dial-a-ride public transportation services. (Legislative) The above referenced public hearing dates are provided for the Board's information. No action is needed. NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. 11.A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVE 18 (TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT UPDATE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 12, 1999: i. JULY 20, 1999 -56- TO: James L Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. Keating, CP Community Developme irector THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S W. Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel 1'JW Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: July 12,1999 RE: Comprehensive Plan Objective 18 (TNDs) Update It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of July 20, 1999. BACKGROUND On March 17,1998, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the county's Comprehensive Plan to implement the recommendations of its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). That amendment made many changes to the adopted 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Among those changes was the creation of anew Objective 18 and new Policies 18.1, 18.2, and 183 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Objective 18 and its policies, which are attached to this memorandum, set specific criteria and incentives for Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) Communities. Compared to conventional development patterns, TND communities offer several advantages to the county, including the following: • reduction of urban sprawl/efficient use of land; • reduction in number of off-site automobile trips on the county road networklefficient use of infrastructure; • promotion of innovative housing opportunities; and • provision of public open space. Because of some concerns regarding the TND standards incorporated within Objective 18 and its policies, the Board of County Commissioners, in adopting the EAR based plan amendments, instructed planning staff to report to the Board in July 1999 on the status of TND projects in the county. The Board further instructed staff to include in that report a discussion of what revisions, if any, should be made to the county's TND policies. If revisions are needed, they must be implemented through a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Since adoption of the EAR based amendments, one TND project application has been submitted. That project, known as "Pointe West," received Conceptual PD Plan approval from the Board on March 9, 1999. The developer of Pointe West has applied for but not yet received site plan and preliminary plat approval for the initial phases of the development. Planning staff anticipates that those items will be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission in August 1999. Because the initial phases of the project consist primarily of a golf course and equestrian facilities, staff does not anticipate that construction of residences and commercial areas will begin until sometime in the year 2000. Since no TND projects have yet been constructed in the county, it would not be productive to evaluate objective 18 and its policies at this time. Instead, the TND policy evaluation should be rescheduled until one or more TND projects have initiated construction. The fact that only one TND project has been approved since Objective 18 and its policies were adopted is consistent with expectations. Unlike large metropolitan areas, Indian River County has a low residential dwelling unit absorption rate. Consequently, the county cannot support many large development projects. Because TNDs contain a mix ofuses, including single-family residential, multiple -family residential, retail, office, institutional, and recreational, TND projects are generally large developments that JULY 209 1999 BOOK WJ PAGE., r BOOK iOJ PAGES,9,3 require a high level of review and take many years to complete. Pointe West, for example, will have almost twelve hundred residential units at build out, more units than are absorbed countywide in a year. Obviously, the demand driven absorption rate limits the number of large TND type projects that can be developed in the county. Large projects, like TNDs, also have a longer approval process. Pointe West, for example, was required to obtain a "Binding Letter of Interpretation" (a Development of Regional Impact type of approval) from the Florida Department of Community Affairs. When Objective 18 and its policies were adopted in Manch 1998, staff anticipated that by July 1999, Pointe West would be further along in the development process than it actually is. Several unexpected factors (primarily the design of 16te Street), however, have caused minor delays of the approval process. Nevertheless, such approvals should be forthcoming soon. Based on the county's experience with Pointe West up to now, nothing has occurred to warrant any revisions to the county's TND policies. Monitoring Pointe West through completion, however, will provide the county with a better indication of what, if any, modifications are needed to existing TND policies. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners reschedule its evaluation of the county's TND policies until December 2000, and direct staff to report back at that time. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Between January 1,1998 and January 1, 2010, ten percent of new residential development (dwelling units) occurring in unincorporated Indian River County will be located in Traditional Neighborhood Design projects. Peliu 18.1: By January 1999, the county shall adopt land development regulations that establish the TND, Traditional Neighborhood Design zoning district. The TND district shall be limited to planned developments. To qualify as a TND development, projects must meet the following criteria: 1. The minimum contiguous project land area shall be 40 acres. 2. Land shall be under unified control, planned and developed as a whole in a single development or as an approved series of developments or neighborhoods. The project shall be approved under the Planned Development (PD) rezoning process. Street Network 3. In order to disperse traffic by offering many alternative routes and connections between destinations within the project and to appropriate uses on adjacent sites, the street network shall consist of a grid or modified grid pattern and shall accommodate connections to appropriate uses on adjacent sites. 4. Not more than 10% of blocks shall have a block with a perimeter measuring more than 1,800 feet. Within commercial and mixed use areas, no block face dimension should exceed 400 feet. 5. The project shall contain a network of interconnected streets, sidewalks, and pathways. 6. Streets shall be designed to balance pedestrian and automobile needs, to discourage high automobile speeds, to effectively and efficiently accommodate transit systems, and to distribute and diffuse traffic rather than concentrate it. 7. Street trees shall be provided so as to shade sidewalk areas and buffer sidewalk areas from automobile traffic. 8. Streets and adjacent buildings shall be sited and designed to encourage interactions between the street and buildings through the use of amenities such as reduced building setbacks, "build -to" lines, front porches, stoops, rear and side yard parking lot locations, -and other means. 9. Projects shall decrease the prominence of front yard driveways, garages, and parking lots through one or more of the following: mid -block alleys, garages located toward the rear of lots, rear and side loaded garages, garages which are not the predominant architectural feature of the front elevation of buildings off-street parking at the rear of buildings, restricted driveway connections to streets, and traffic calming techniques. JULY 209 1999 -58- Cownteadve Ptah Future Land Use Element 10. The project shall be designed as a compact or clustered development. Projects may include the following mix of uses occurring together in close proximity. • single-family residential, • accessory dwelling units, • multiple -family residential, • commercial and work place, • civic and cultural, and • open space. 11. The following ratios shall apply to land uses within the project: L Community open spaces open to the public, such as squares, plazas, or parks, shall comprise a minimum of 5% of the total project area b. Civic uses, such as post offices, churches, community centers, meeting halls, schools, day care centers and cultural facilities shall comprise a minimum of 1% of the total Project area. C. Residential tees shall comprise a minimum of 5001a and a maximum of 80% of the total non -conservation and non-agricultural project area d. Commercial and office uses located on residentially or agriculturally designated land shall not exceed 10% of the total land area designated on the land use plan as residential and agricultural. 12. The vertical mixing of uses is allowed and strongly encouraged around designated town centers, main streets, mixed-use centers, and central squares and greens. renters (J ocua of Community Activitvl 13. Each project must have at least one public square, town center, or mixed use area within a %. mile walking distance from 50'/0 of the project's residential units and within h mile walking distance from 75% of the project's residential units. 14. To accommodate increased pedestrian use, 50% of sidewalks in public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas shall have a minimum unobstructed width (clear and passable for pedestrians) of at last seven feet. 15. On -street parking shall be allowed within public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas. 16. Off-street parking lots within public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas shall be provided only at the rear of buildings. 17. The center shall accommodate space for a transit stop and a civic building. 18. Project edges located outside the Urban Service Area shall be established and designed for environmental, agricultural, recreational, or other open space uses. Public Buildings 19. Public buildings, such as schools, churches, post offices, and community centers, shall be provided in prominent, accessible Dations within the project. Such locations generally are at the termination of streets, the perimeter of the neighborhood center, or the frontage along a designated main street of a neighborhood or adjacent thoroughfare plan road. Policy 192: The county shall provide incentives to develop Traditional Neighborhood Design projects within the urban service area. Those incentives shall include, but not be limited to, the following: • 100/6 density bonus for TND projects located entirely within the urban service area; • reduced building setback requirements; • reduced lot size requirements; • increased maximum impervious surface limits for individual lots; • reduced right-of-way and travel lane widths; • reduced corner radii requirements; and • reduced off-street parking requirements. JULY 209 1999 -59- BOOK . PAGE "- r- BOOK iUJ PAGE C IL]5 comprehemive Plan Future Land Use Element Policy 1 S_3: To facilitate TND projects east of I-95 that are partially outside but adjacent to the urban service area, and to continue to preserve the agricultural and natural character and function of the area, the county shall allow portions of TND projects to be located outside of the urban service area. A mii»mum of 60% of the total project density shall be derived from the portion of the project located within the urban service area Density shall be calculated and allowed based upon: • the land use designation underlying the portion of the project within the urban service area; =a • 1 unittacre for project property located outside of the urban service area ON MOTIONby Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously rescheduled evaluation of the County's TND policies until December, 2000 and directed staff to report back at that time, as recommended by staff. 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT The Chairman announced that, immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. U.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the Emergency Services District Meeting, the Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:14 p.m. ATTEST: I K. on, Clerk enneth Rach hairman Minutes Approved:' 9 9 JULY 209 1999 -60-