Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5/9/2000
0 MINUTES ATTACHED 0 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTYs FLORIDA AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2000 - 9:00 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1) Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman (District 5) Kenneth R. Macht (District 3) Ruth M. Stanbridge (District 2) John W. Tippin (District 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Terrence P. O'Brien, Acting County Attorney Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP PAGES 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. Kenneth R. Macht 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Add Item 11.H.4., Acid Tank Leak - South County RO Plant - American Compliance Technologies. 2. Add Item D.C., Homeless Shelter and Assistance Center. 3. Defer Item 11.B., Bid #2037 - South County Park Improvements, Phase 2. 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of Proclamation Designating May 19 and 20, 2000 as Relay for Life Days in Indian River County, Florida 1 B. Proclamation Designating May 14-20, 2000 as Indian River County Peace Officers' Memorial Week 2 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular meeting of March 21, 2000 B. Regular meeting of April 4, 2000 -- BDOK. ,tj FAGS 466 BOOK hJ E'AGE 2UA BACKUP 7. CONSENT AGENDA PAGES A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board: 1) Vero Lakes Water Control District Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY 1998-99 2) Florida Inland Navigation District Special District Financial Report for FY 1998-99 3) Report of Convictions, April, 2000 B. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated April 27, 2000) 3-10 C. Proclamation Designating Month of May as Civility Month in Indian River County 11 D. National Auto Truck Stop, Inc.'s Request for Final Plat Approval for Travel Centers of America Subdivision (memorandum dated May 1, 2000) 12-16 E. Pointe West of Vero Beach LTD's Request for Final Plat Approval for Pointe West Central Village (memorandum dated April 25, 2000) 17-29 F. Contract for Cable Locating Services (memorandum dated May 2, 2000) 30-45 G. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment (memorandum dated May 2, 2000) 46-48 H. Resolution Requesting Assistance from State of Florida Beach Erosion Control Program (memorandum dated May 2, 2000) 49-51 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Sheriff Gary C. Wheeler — Application of COPS Grant 52-61 (continued from 5/2/00 BCC Meeting) 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Consideration of County Participation in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Legislative (memorandum dated May 3, 2000) 62-74 BACKUP 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): PAGES A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (CORS): CHAPTER 913, SUB- DMSION; CHAPTER 914, SITE PLANS; CHAPTER 915, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; AND CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE LDR Amendments: Plan/Plat Set Submittal and Resubmittal Requirements and Setbacks Between Schools and Non-residential Sites (memorandum dated May 2, 2000) 75-97 B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development Termination of Interchange Justification Report Study and Approval of Final Consultant Payment (memorandum dated May 2, 2000) 98-104 B. Emergency Services None C. General Services None D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget None F. Personnel None L BOOK. e.J� PAGE t,' 00 BOOK 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): BACKUP G. Public Works PAGES Award of Bid No. 2037 — South County Park Improvements, Phase 2 (continued from BCC Meeting of 5/2/00) 105-143 H. Utilities 1. North County Water Treatment Plant Work Authorization No. 12 — Permitting Services (memorandum dated May 1, 2000) 144149 2. Developer's Agreement with Asset Channels Telecom, Inc. Master Planned 16 -Inch Water Main Along Indian River Blvd. (memorandum dated April 27, 2000) 150-161 3. Central Regional WWTF Expansion Indian River Industrial Contracting Inc. Contractor Pay Request No. 16 & Request for Reduction in Retainage (memorandum dated April 28, 2000) 162-180 I. Human Services None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Fran B. Adams B. Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Station #6: The importance of full ALS/EMS services for the South Beach (backup taken from "the IRC Dept. of Emergency Services: Second Draft of Proposed Strategic Plan for the Delivery of Fire and EMS Emergency Services, January 24, 2000") (postponed from 4/18/00 BCC meeting) 181-186 BACKUP 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.): PAGES C. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridee E. Commissioner John W. Tippin County Tourist Tax (no backup provided) 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS A. Emergency Services District None B. Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Approval of Minutes — meeting of 4/11/00 2. Approval of Minutes — meeting of 4/18/00 3. School/County Building Recycling Program (memorandum dated April 25, 2000) 187-199 C. Environmental Control Board None RjE`11Z11i1;7.hi I wo 0 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 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Indian River County WebSite: bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m. BOOKc! PAGE U INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY 9. 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER .............................................. .1- 2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1- 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 2- 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ................................... 2- 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ......................... 2- 5.A. Proclamation Designating May 19 and 20, 2000 as Relay for Life Days in Indian River County ........................................ 2- 5.B. Proclamation Designating May 14-20, 2000 as Indian River County Peace Officers' Memorial Week .................................... 4- 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 21, 2000 ........................ 5- 6.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 4, 2000 ......................... .6 - MAY 099 2000 -1 BOOKc� PAGEC F, BOOK J13 ME Z( 7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 6- 7.A. Reports .................................................. 6- 7.B. List of Warrants ............................................ 6- 7.C. Proclamation Designating Month of May as Civility Month in Indian River County................................................. .13- 7.D. National Auto Truck Stop, Inc. - Final Plat Approval for Travel Centers of America Subdivision (Wendy's - SR -60 and 90t` Avenue) .......... .14- 7.E. Pointe West of Vero Beach, LTD. - Final Plat Approval for Pointe West Central Village .......................................... .16- 7.F. Cable Locating Services - All Clear Locating Services (ACLS) (Contract Assigned by Nocuts) ...................................... .18- 7.G. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #011 ....................... .19- 7.H. Resolution 2000-056 Requesting Assistance from the State of Florida Beach Erosion Control Program (Department of Environmental Protection Annual Resolution) ....................................... .22- 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - SHERIFF GARY C. WHEELER - APPLICATION OF COPS GRANT ............................................................ .24- 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM - CONSIDERATION OF COUNTY PARTICIPATION (Legislative).................................................. .28 - MAY 099 2000 I • L- 9.A.2. PUBLIC BEARING - ORDINANCE 2000-015 AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 913, SUBDIVISION; CHAPTER 914, SITE PLANS; CHAPTER 915, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; AND CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES (PLAN/PLAT SET SUBMITTAL AND RESUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND NON-RESIDENTIAL SITES) (ST. PETERS CHARTER SCHOOL) ............................... .41- 11.A. TERMINATION OF INTERCHANGE JUSTIFICATION REPORT (IJR) STUDY AND APPROVAL OF FINAL CONSULTANT PAYMENT - OSLO ROAD AND I-95 INTERCHANGE - REYNOLDS, SMITH & HILLS ............... .51- 11.G. BID #2037 - SOUTH COUNTY PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 2 - BARTH CONSTRUCTION (SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION) (ADNAN INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT, INC.) ........................................ .53- 11.H.1. NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT - WORK AUTHORIZATION #12 - PERMITTING SERVICES - CAMP, DRESSER, MCKEE................................................ .53- 11.H.2. MASTER PLANNED 16 -INCH WATER MAIN ALONG INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD (FIBER OPTICS) - ASSET CHANNELS TELECOM, INC. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT ............................. .56 - MAY 09, 2000 • BOOK 113 PAGE 2C ' BOOK PAGE 4 11.H.3. CENTRAL REGIONAL WWTF EXPANSION - INDIAN RIVER INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING, INC. - CONTRACTOR PAY REQUEST #16 AND REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN RETAINAGE - CAMP, DRESSER, MCKEE (INDIAN RIVER INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS) - PROJECT 8067 ......................................... .58- 11.H.4. ACID TANK LEAK - SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT - AMERICAN COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES .......................... .60- 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN CAROLINE D. GINN - EMERGENCY SERVICES STATION #6 (101 SOUTH A1A) - DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANCE OF FULL ALS/EMS SERVICES FOR SOUTH BEACH (BACKUP TAKEN FROM "THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES; SECOND DRAFT OF PROPOSED STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE DELIVERY OF FIRE AND EMS EMERGENCY SERVICES, JANUARY 24,2000") ... -62- 13.C. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R MACHT - HOMELESS SHELTER AND ASSISTANCE CENTER ........................................ .65- 13.E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN - COUNTY TOURIST TAX ....... .67 - MAY 099 2000 • L. 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ............................. .68- 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............................ .68- 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CON'T'ROL BOARD .......................... .68 - MAY 099 2000 • BOOK ilk PAGE L42 May 9, 2000 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25'h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, May 9, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman•, Kenneth R Macht; John W. Tippin; and Ruth Stanbridge. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Terrence P. O'Brien, Acting County Attorney; and Patricia "PT' Jones, Deputy Clerk. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Adams called the meeting to order. 2. EWOCATION Commissioner Tippin delivered the Invocation. MAY 099 2000 ``�� BOOK J13 FAGE -1- BOOK iii PAGE204 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Macht led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Chairman Adams requested 2 additions to today's Agenda: 1. Item I LHA., Acid Tank Leak - South County RO Plant - American Compliance Technologies 2. Item 13.C., Homeless Shelter and Assistance Center. County Administrator Chandler requested that Item 11.G., Bid #2037 - South County Park Improvements, Phase 2, be deferred. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously made the above changes to the Agenda. 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS S.A. PROU"ATIONDESIGNATING MAY 19 AND 20 2000 AS REI.AYFOR LIFE DAYS ININDMNRiyER COUNTY The Chairman presented the following Proclamation to Dwayne Tallman: MAY 099 2000 C PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 19 AND 20, 2000, AS RELAY FOR LIFE DAYS IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, on May 19 and 20, 2000, in the Citrus Bowl at Vero Beach High School, the American Cancer Society will hold the 5t° annual Relay for Life, and WHEREAS, Relay for Life is a team effort to raise money to fight cancer and raise awareness about the progress against cancer, and WHEREAS, cancer survivors, young and old, are invited to begin the Relay by walking the survivors' victory lap around the track; and WHEREAS, a luminary ceremony is held where candles are lit in remembrance of those who have lost their battles with cancer and in honor of survivors; and WHEREAS, Relay for Life is a family-oriented team event, with participants camping out around the track and taking part in fun activities; and WHEREAS, Relay for Life provides an opportunity for expanding cancer control, advocacy, volunteerism and fimdraising; for reaching diverse populations with life saving information and for increasing. the awareness of all the programs and services offered by the American Cancer Society in co es throughout our nation; and WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society is the nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy and service; and WHEREAS, Relay for Life is about a community that takes up the fight: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIIVIED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that May 19 and 20, 2000, be designated as RELAY FOR LIFE DAYS in Indian River County, and the Board urges all citizens to participate in this worthwhile event. Adopted this 9th day of May, 2000. MAY 099 2000 BOARD OF COUNTY CONEMMIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA C1:;)Q.-1A— Fran B. Adams, Chairman 500K i�e� PAGE -3- • BOOK it PAGE ' PU 1 Dwayne Tallman, on behalf of the Indian RiverUnit of the American Cancer Society, thanked the Board for its continued support. Commissioner Macht commented that he had attended the Relay for Life last year. It was a lot of fun and there were many tugs to the heart strings. The hospital MASH unit was really great and almost $80,000 was raised. He hoped that everyone would attend this year's Relay. S.B. PROCLAMATIONDESIGNATING MAY 14-20, 2000 AS INDIANRIVER COUNTYPEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL WEEK The Chairman presented the following Proclamation to Sheriff Gary Wheeler: PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 14 - MAY 20, 2000 AS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PEACE OFFICERS' MEMORIAL WEER WHEREAS, The Congress of the United States of America has designated the week of May 15th to be dedicated as "National Police Week•; and WHEREAS, May 15th is officially "National Police Memorial Day" and there will be'a multi -agency observance on the steps of the Indian River County Courthouse at 8:30 a.m. on May 15, 2000, in memory of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 1999; and WHEREAS, the law enforcement officers are our guardians of life and property, defenders of the individual right to be free men and women, warriors in the war against crime and dedicated to the preservation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and WHEREAS, Indian River County desires to honor the valor, service and dedication of its own police officers; and �IWHEREAS, it is known that every 57 hours an American police officer will be killed in the line of duty somewhere in the United States and 187 officers will be seriously assaulted in the performance of their duties, and our community joins with other cities, towns and counties to honor all ■� peace officers everywhere: MAY 099 2000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PRoaun= BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of May 14 through May 20, 2000, be proclaimed as INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PEAcE OFFIczw MEMORIAL WEER and the Board calls upon all the citizens of this community to honor and show sincere appreciation for police officers by deed, remark and attitude. The Board further asks our citizens to make every effort to express their thanks to our men and women who make it possible for us to leave our homes and family in safety each day and to return to our homes knowing they are protected by men and women willing to sacrifice their lives if necessary, to guard our loved ones, our property and our government against all who would violate the law. Adopted this 9th day of May, 2000. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA C�U-.rte Q Fran B. Adams, Chairman 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 21, 2000 The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 21, 2000. There were none. MAY 099 2000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 21, 2000, as written. -5- BOOK hJ PAGE e`7 F, C] BOOK JjO PAGE Z�3 6.B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 4, 2000 The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2000. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2000, as written. 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. REPORTS The following reports have been received and are on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board: 1. Vero Lakes Water Control District Annual Local Government Financial Reports for FY 1998-99 2. Florida Inland Navigation District Special District Financial Report for FY 1998-99 3. Report of Convictions, April, 2000 7.B. LIST OF WARRANTS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 27, 2000: MAY 099 2000 0 To: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: APRIL 27, 2000 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all wanants issued by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes. Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the time period of April 26, 2000 to April 27, 2000. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued by the Clerk to the Board for April 26, 2000 to April 271P 2000, as recommended by staff. CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0020516 KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE 2000-04-26 138.50 0020517 BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR 2000-04-26 92.31 0020518 WI SCTF 2000-04-26 150.00 0020519 VELASQUEZ, MERIDA 2000-04-26 200.00 0020520 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF 2000-04-26 163.99 0020521 WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS 2000-04-26 23.08 0020522 FL SDU 2000-04-26 6,799.16 0020523 CAREY,PA PARTICK A. 2000-04-26 224.47 0020524 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF 2000-04-26 4.00 0020525 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 2000-04-26 225.00 0020526 IRS - ACS 2000-04-26 50.00 0020527 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 2000-04-26 521.88 0020528 INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT 2000-04-26 82,407.99 0020529 VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. 2000-04-26 2,415.00 0020530 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 2000-04-26 231.03 0020531 NACO/SOUTHEAST 2000-04-26 7,091.49 0020532 SALEM TRUST COMPANY 2000-04-26 518.85 MAY 099 2000 —7— B 0 0 K e PAGE 22 0 I MAY 099 2000 0 -8- BOOK 11' FAGE•.� oO CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0281563 ALEXANDER BATTERY COMPANY 2000-04-27 672.00 0281564 AMERICAN BUSINESS INTERIORS 2000-04-27 1,937.94 0281565 ATCO TOOL SUPPLY 2000-04-27 363.79 0281566 ATLANTIC REPORTING 2000-04-27 1,104.05 0281567 ANKENY, JOHN 2000-04-27 24.95 0281568 ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED 2000-04-27 119.80 0281569 ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING 2000-04-27 137.75 0281570 A-1 CONSTRUCTION CO, INC 2000-04-27 1,355.20 0281571 ADAMS, FRAN B 2000-04-27 639.48 0281572 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 2000-04-27 48,977.69 0281573 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 2000-04-27 35.00 0281574 AMERICAN REPORTING 2000-04-27 34.00 0281575 ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO 2000-04-27 3,860.00 0281576 ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC 2000-04-27 22.00 0281577 BARTH CONSTRUCTION 2000-04-27 130.00 0281578 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 2000-04-27 3,819.00 0281579 BAY STREET PHARMACY 2000-04-27 88.18 0281580 BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK 2000-04-27 201,159.50 0281581 BLAIS ELECTRIC, INC 2000-04-27 311.99 0281582 BETHEA, WANDA DR 2000-04-27 600.00 0281583 BELLSOUTB 2000-04-27 6,760.38 0281584 BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF 2000-04-27 16,222.28 0281585 BELLSOIITH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION 2000-04-27 35.86 0281586 BELLSOUTH 2000-04-27 1,252.25 0281587 CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC 2000-04-27 32,067.87 0281588 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC 2000-04-27 32,808.33 0281589 CITRUS MOTEL 2000-04-27 77.00 0281590 CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL 2000-04-27 .21.00 0281591 COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS 2000-04-27 91.92 0281592 COLLISON'S AUTOMOTIVE INC 2000-04-27 95.24 0281593 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC 2000-04-27 12,197.92 0281594 CONFERENCE OF COUNTY COURT 2000-04-27 400.00 0281595 COPELAND, LINDA 2000-04-27 182.00 0281596 CROSS CREEK APPAREL, INC 2000-04-27 686.08 0281597 CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC 2000-04-27 78.86 0281598 COLLINS BROWN CALDWELL BARKETT 2000-04-27 3,250.00 0281599 COUNTY VETERANS' SERVICE 2000-04-27 150.00 0281600 CLIFFORD, MIKE 2000-04-27 100.00 0281601 CHAMPION MANUFACTURING INC 2000-04-27 35.55 0281602 CSR AMERICA, INC. 2000-04-27 2,540.00 0281603 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 2000-04-27 285.00 0281604 COPYCO, LIBERTY DIV OF 2000-04-27 1,070.20 0281605 CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN 2000-04-27 6,739.14 0281606 CENTENNIAL BROADCASTING 2000-04-27 1,800.00 0281607 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 2000-04-27 346.56 0281608 DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC 2000-04-27 965.79 0281609 DOW, HOWELL, GILMORE, 2000-04-27 13,750.00 0281610 DELRAY STAKES & SHAVINGS INC 2000-04-27 356.40 0281611 DADE PAPER COMPANY 2000-04-27 491.77 0281612 DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC 2000-04-27 63.25 0281613 DOCTORS' CLINIC 2000-04-27 900.00 0281614 DARNELL, STEVE AND 2000-04-27 309.00 0281615 E-2 BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC 2000-04-27 29,75 0281616 EDLUND & DRITENBAS 2000-04-27 5,970.26 0281617 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES 2000-04-27 247.25 0281618 ENCORE BROADCAST EQUIPMENT 2000-04-27 7,543.64 0281619 FEDEX 2000-04-27 67.35 0281620 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 2000-04-27 211.20 0281621 FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO 2000-04-27 387.40 0281622 FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS 2000-04-27 50.00 0281623 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 2000-04-27 9,469.47 0281624 FLORIDA DEPT OF LABOR/EMPLOYMT 2000-04-27 2,991.12 MAY 099 2000 0 -8- CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0281625 FRASER ENGINEERING & TESTING 2000-04-27 128.00 0281626 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF 2000-04-27 97.62 0281627 FT PIERCE, CITY OF 2000-04-27 5,120.98 0281628 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 2000-04-27 4,654.49 0281629 FELLSMERE, CITY OF 2000-04-27 25.00 0281630 FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE 2000-04-27 90.00 0281631 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH 2000-04-27 8,051.80 0281632 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC 2000-04-27 31.29 0281633 GREENE, ROBERT E 2000-04-27 1,956.77 0281634 GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTE 2000-04-27 11,287.59 0281635 GREEN, PHILLIP 2000-04-27 185.40 0281636 GEORGE, PATRICK 2000-04-27 115.88 0281637 GILSON, RICHARD D PBD,CPE 2000-04-27 779.00 0281638 HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2000-04-27 15.00 0281639 HANSEN, SUSAN 2000-04-27 160.08 0281640 HAMILTON PLACE 2000-04-27 9,100.00 0281641 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2000-04-27 59,092.00 0281642 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2000-04-27 50.00 0281643 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC 2000-04-27 230.00 0281644 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2000-04-27 15.00 0281645 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 2000-04-27 65.50 0281646 INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC 2000-04-27 578.06 0281647 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING 2000-04-27 100.00 0281648 INSURANCE SERVICING & 2000-04-27 1,890.00 0281649 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION 2000-04-27 170.50 0281650 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 2000-04-27 120,338.38 0281651 IRON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 2000-04-27 311.18 0281652 INTERIM COURT REPORTING 2000-04-27 25.00 0281653 JANIE DEAN CHEVROLET, INC 2000-04-27 411.82 0281654 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA 2000-04-27 1,027.89 0281655 JEFFERSON. CHRISTOPHER A 2000-04-27 80.00 0281656 JACOBS, JEREMY 2000-04-27 38.63 0281657 KIMLEY-BORN & ASSOCIATES, INC 2000-04-27 7,170.56 0281658 KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC 2000-04-27 322.20 0281659 KOMARINETZ, ROBERT 2000-04-27 55.50 0281660 KIMBROUGH, EDWIN & JOY 2000-04-27 791.34 0281661 KIPP, BILLY C 2000-04-27 43.78 0281662 KNOWLES, CYRIL 2000-04-27 519.52 0281663 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. 2000-04-27 210.31 0281664 LANDRUM, GREGORY C PSY D 2000-04-27 750.00 0281665 L B SMITH, INC 2000-04-27 92.83 0281666 LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS 2000-04-27 256.00 0281667 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 2000-04-27 121.29 0281668 LETTS, DAVID 2000-04-27 422.00 0281669 LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING 2000-04-27 58.88 0281670 LUNA, JORGE 2000-04-27 136.48 0281671 LEWIS, BARBARA 2000-04-27 36.05 0281672 LUNA, JUVENAL 2000-04-27 97.85 0281673 MARPAN SUPPLY CO, INC 2000-04-27 1,528.50 0281674 MASSUNG, KIMBERLY E 2000-04-27 8.90 0281675 INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 2000-04-27 17,265.41 0281676 MIKES GARAGE 2000-04-27 125.00 0281677 MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS 2000-04-27 392.00 0281678 MATRX MEDICAL, INC 2000-04-27 313.90 0281679 MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC 2000-04-27 244.40 0281680 MARC INDUSTRIES 2000-04-27 496.30 0281681 MELCHIORI, NICK 2000-04-27 48.93 0281682 MOSS, ROGER 2000-04-27 -46.35 0281683 MOSS, MARY 2000-04-27 46.35 MAY 099 2000 in 600K PAGE JU 500K jli FAGE CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0281684 MAXWELL, KIMBERLY 2000-04-27 38.632000-04-27 400.00 0281685 MAYNARD, LINDA 2000-04-27 25.00 0281686 MOLINA, MARGARITA Y 2000-04-27 185,816.49 0281687 NOLTE, DAVID C 2000-04-27 1,500.00 0281688 NICOSIA, ROGER J DO 2000-04-27 49.70 0281689 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 132.85 0281690 NARUP, VOUVAKIS & ASSOCIATES 2000-04-27 40.00 0281691 NFSES 2000-04-27 2000-04-27 3,286.40 0281692 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE 1,094.50 0281693 ON GUARD 2000-04-27 519.66 0281694 OSCEOLA PHARMACY 2000-04-27 9,129.64 0281695 O'NEIL, LEE & WEST 2000-04-27 264.00 0281696 POSTMASTER 2000-04-27 7,231.00 0281697 RUSSELL PAYNE PAINTING, INC 2000-04-27 24.00 0281698 PANGBURN, TERRI 2000-04-27 69.53 0281699 PARKER, DEBBIE 2000-04-27 80.00 0281700 PAYNE, JAMES 2000-04-27 250.00 0281701 PHADA MEMBERSHIP 2000-04-27 166.07 0281702 PROFORMA 2000-04-27 250.84 0281703 RADIOSHACK 2000-04-27 255.00 0281704 R & G SOD FARMS 2000-04-27 0281705 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE 2000-04-27 22.20 0281706 RADKE, PETER 2000-04-27 20.30 0281707 ROTECH OXYGEN AND MEDICAL 2000-04-27 10.00 0281708 REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING 2000-04-27 24.85 0281709 ROMANO, CHRISTINA 2000-04-27 16.74 0281710 ROLOFF, LLOYD 2000-04-27 1,350.00 0281711 SCOTTY'S, INC 2000-04-27 32.13 0281712 SEBASTIAN, CITY OF 2000-04-27 150.00 0281713 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC 2000-04-27 220.91 0281714 SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE 2000-04-27 4,534.25 0281715 SMART CORPORATION 2000-04-27 184.90 0281716 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING, 2000-04-27 286.60 0281717 SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2000-04-27 199.30 0281718 ST FRANCIS MANOR 2000-04-27 2,396.00 0281719 ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC 2000-04-27 175.10 0281720 STATE OF FLORIDA 2000-04-27 4,913.08 0281721 SELIG CHEMICAL IND 2000-04-27 179.22 0281722 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF 2000-04-27 663.56 0281723 STAMM MANUFACTURING 2000-04-27 2,100.00 0281724 SHANDS HOSPITAL OF OF 2000-04-27 9,798.46 0281725 STANBRIDGE, RUTH 2000-04-27 337.20 0281726 SIGN PRO 2000-04-27 118.10 0281727 SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF 2000-04-27 1,328.00 0281728 SHORE -LINE FLOORING SUPPLIES 2000-04-27 .28.55 0281729 SULLIVAN, RACHEL 2000-04-27 175.10 0281730 SALTONSTALL, MYRNA 2000-04-27 159.65 0281731 SILEO, STEVEN ANDREW 2000-04-27 121.50 0281732 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH 2000-04-27 224.25 0281733 STEWART, SARAH LYNN 2000-04-27 54.08 0281734 TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC 2000-04-27 2,826.37 0281735 TEXACO CREDIT CARD CENTER 2000-04-27 3,978.29 0281736 TIPPIN, JOHN W 2000-04-27 430.30 0281737 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 2000-04-27 708.00 0281738 TREASURE COAST BRANCH APWA 2000-04-27 25.00 0281739 TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS 2000-04-27 316.50 0281740 THYSSEN MIAMI ELEVATOR 2000-04-27 1,958.00 0281741 TEDDIE TRUST, THE 2000-04-27 581.00 0281742 U S ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS 2000-04-27 27,000.00 MAY 099 2000 -10- L.J CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0281743 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC 2000-04-27 2,095.20 0281744 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2000-04-27 1,588.92 0281745 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2000-04-27 9,175.00 0281746 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC 2000-04-27 173.72 0281747 VERO TRAVEL SERVICE, INC 2000-04-27 255.00 0281748 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2000-04-27 1,683.74 0281749 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 2000-04-27 83.00 0281750 VERO BEARING & BOLT 2000-04-27 69.90 0281751 VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER 2000-04-27 25.00 0281752 WAL-MART STORES, INC 2000-04-27 458.48 0281753 W W GRAINGER, INC 2000-04-27 61.78 0281754 WINN DIXIE 2000-04-27 84.22 0281755 WILLHOFF, PATSY 2000-04-27 130.00 0281756 WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC 2000-04-27 148.50 0281757 WHEELER, GARY SHERIFF 2000-04-27 9,168.09 0281758 WILDERNESS GRAPHICS, INC 2000-04-27 2,155.00 0281759 WILSON, SUSAN BARNES 2000-04-27 169.95 0281760 WILLIAM GLOVER INC 2000-04-27 72,608.76 0281761 XEROX CORPORATION 2000-04-27 1,495.00 0281762 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 2000-04-27 106.48 0281763 ZIMMERMANN, KARL 2000-04-27 203.40 0281764 ZAMARRIPA, JAIME 2000-04-27 48.93 0281765 THOMAS, JAMES SR 2000-04-27 411.46 0281766 JOHNSON, LETISHA D 2000-04-27 494.00 0281767 HAPNER, KENNETH W 2000-04-27 1.40 0281768 TOZZOLO BROTHERS 2000-04-27 14.63 0281769 HATHORN, C C 2000-04-27 46.18 0281770 HALE, MARSHALL 2000-04-27 20.80 0281771 BRANDON CAPITAL CORP 2000-04-27 100.00 0281772 BALKIN, EMANUEL 2000-04-27 253.29 0281773 R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC 2000-04-27 57.78 0281774 LALLY, BETTY P 2000-04-27 30.54 0281775 FOULKS, RONALD H 2000-04-27 19.94 0281776 PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO, INC 2000-04-27 184.45 0281777 GREEN, ELLIS 2000-04-27 50.36 0281778 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 2000-04-27 305.04 0281779 MCPHEE, DOROTHY 2000-04-27 3.68 0281780 PICARDI, DOMENICO 2000-04-27 40.84 0281781 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY 2000-04-27 24.83 0281782 SIMONS, JOHN E 2000-04-27 39.68 0281783 JOHN LLOYD BUILDERS INC 2000-04-27 43.54 0281784 ZACKEY, MICHAEL 2000-04-27 18.97 0281785 KING, EDWARD J 2000-04-27 23.25 0281786 GHO VERO BEACH INC 2000-04-27 76.12 0281787 CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES INC 2000-04-27 61.94 0281788 MOB CONSTRUCTION INC 2000-04-27 50.00 0281789 OAK HARBOR CLUB PROPERTIES 2000-04-27 68.22 0281790 REYNOLDS, CORA LEE 2000-04-27 65.63 0281791 SHUN, ANTONIA 2000-04-27 21.53 0281792 HORIZONS -SEBASTIAN 2000-04-27 144.86 0281793 DE PIANO, RONALD 2000-04-27 38.80 0281794 BOULOOS, EDWARD S 2000-04-27 12.92 0281795 REED, JOAN & RALPH 2000-04-27 37.13 0281796 CAVIT CONSTRUCTION INC 2000-04-27 21.67 0281797 WHITE, G GEORGE 2000-04-27 13.21 0281798 CHANNELL, GEORGE 2000-04-27 74.90 0281799 GALIETTE, SUZANNE 2000-04-27 28.84 0281800 MARTZ, BARBARA 2000-04-27 13.90 0281801 FULFORD, DAWN L 2000-04-27 21.27 0281802 BARHART, ELLIE & JAMES 2000-04-27 25.26 0281803 PASSAGE ISLANAD HOMES 2000-04-27 62.33 MAY 099 2000 -11- BOOK 11 PAGE 0 J BOOK ii' Pr1GE CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0281804 AMERITREND HOMES 2000-04-27 51.64 0281805 ROMANO, WAYNE 2000-04-27 35.59 0281806 FANNING, WANDA 2000-04-27 24.28 0281807 SCHWEY, CLAYTON J 2000-04-27 6.08 0281808 REZK, DR AURORE 2000-04-27 77.56 0281809 COX, MARK R 2000-04-27 71.54 0281810 KAY, ANTHONY D & WALTER L 2000-04-27 77.77 0281811 TURNAGE, LISA J 2000-04-27 9.42 0281812 BLOOMER, GEORGE 2000-04-27 46.07 0281813 LANGDON CONSTRUCTION 2000-04-27 18.52 0281814 PRESSLEY, SHIRLEY F 2000-04-27 67.57 0281815 CORRELL, CARL 2000-04-27 56.57 0281816 GEARY, THOMAS C 2000-04-27 73.58 0281817 COMPARETTA, RAYMOND A 2000-04-27 26.47 0281818 QUEST, GEORGE W 2000-04-27 68.22 0281819 GILMORE, MIC_srrLLE 2000-04-27 4.95 0281820 SCHLITT BUILDERS INC 2000-04-27 _80.76 0281821 HINDS, ROSHANDA 2000-04-27 77.61 0281822 LOEHER, KATHLEEN 2000-04-27 51.87 0281823 COWLEY, CLETA 2000-04-27 64.85 0281824 SOLFA, LANCE W 2000-04-27 67.21 0281825 ELLIS, OLEN 0 2000-04-27 68.41 0281826 SILVA, ALTAIR J 2000-04-27 49.69 0281827 LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION, INC 2000-04-27 170.53 0281828 LUTHE, MARK 2000-04-27 12.71 0281829 BENOIT, EDITH 2000-04-27 24.30 0281830 SOUTHEAST ALLIANCE FORECLOSURE 2000-04-27 14.50 0281831 CONGER, TAMMY DEAN 2000-04-27 14.62 0281832 PATEL, JAYESH H 2000-04-27 26.06 0281833 NGUYEN, BACH 2000-04-27 100.00 0281834 SMITH, VIRGIL W 2000-04-27 52.32 0281835 CHASTAIN, JAMES D 2000-04-27 43.20 0281836 GRAHAM, WILLIAM J 2000-04-27 41.23 MAY 099 2000 0 1,172,527.41 • • 7C PROCLAMATIONDESIGNATING MONTH OFMAYAS CzvlLrrYMONTHIIV INDL4AT MyER COUNTY The following Proclamation was entered into the record: PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF MAY AS CMLITY MONTH WHEREAS, the open exchange of public discourse Is essential to the democratic system of government; and WHEREAS, as a cornerstone of democracy Americans have observed certain rules of behavior generally known as civility; and WHEREAS, civility, derived from the Latin words "civiias' meaning city and 'civic' meaning citizen, is behavior worthy of citizens living In a community or in common with others; and WHEREAS, displays of anger, rudeness, ridicule, impatience, and a lack of respect and personal attacks detract from the open exchange of Ideas, prevent fair discussion of the Issues, and can discourage individuals from participation In govemment; and WHEREAS, ci unity can assist in reaching consensus on diverse issues and allow for mutually respectful ongoing relationships; and WHEREAS, dvi ft can uplift our dally lives and make It more pleasant to live in an organized society; and WHEREAS, the City, County and Local Government Law -Section of The Florida Bar urges the adoption of a pledge of civility by all citizens in the State of Florida. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the month of May be designated as CIVILITY MONTH In Indian River County. Adopted I hLs jgp, day of May, 2000. MAY 099 2000 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Fran B. Adams, Chairman ��yy -13- BOOK i 'J PAGE Job BOOK ii"i PAGE 30 7.D. NATIONAL AUTO TRUC%STOP ING - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR TRAVEL CENTERS OFAMERmCA SUBDIVISION (WENDVS - SR -60 AND 90THAVENVE) The Board reviewed a Memorandum. of May 1, 2000: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DPRMPN HEAD CONCURRPNCE: 1101 1-11 Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Developmen Direc THROUGH: Stan BolingCP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: May 1, 2000 SUBJECT: National Auto Truck Stop, Inc.'s Request for Final Plat Approval for Travel Centers of America Subdivision It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 9, 2000. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Travel Centers of America subdivision is a 2 lot subdivision of a 2.92 acre commercially zoned parcel. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of SR 60 and 90' Avenue and is developed as a truck stop and a Wendy's restaurant. The parcel owner wants to sell off the Wendy's, and must plat in order to create a separate parcel for Wendy's since the existing 2.92 acre parcel is the result of a previous one-time parcel split. The final plat will create a separate parcel for the Wendy's and allow the desired sale. On January 27, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the Travel Centers of America subdivision. The developer. National Auto Truck Stop, Inc., is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted the following: A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. MAY 099 2000 _I The applicant is now requesting final plat approval. ANALYSIS: The truck stop and Wendy's were both developed through the site plan approval process and all the infrastructure needed to serve the two sites was constructed with the truck stop and Wendy's buildings. The proposed final plat provides legal means for both proposed lots to share common access, utility, and drainage infrastructure. There will be no new construction required in conjunction with this plat and all existing improvements will be privately dedicated; therefore, no warranty and maintenance agreements are required. All final plat requirements have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval for the Travel Centers of America subdivision. ATTACIiMENTS: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Final Plat MAY 099 2000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Grin, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval for Travel Centers of America Subdivision, as recommended by staff. -15- BOOK J PAGES) BOOK J13 PAGEcJI�� 7.E. POINTE WEST OF VERO BEACH, LTD. - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR POINTE WEST CENTRAL VILLAGE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 25, 2000: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D N HEAD CONCURRENCE: — � olt, �&& Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director , FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP WN Senior Planner, Current evelopment DATE: April 25, 2000 SUBJECT: Pointe West of Vero Beach LTD's Request for Final Plat Approval for Pointe West Central Village It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 9, 2000. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Pointe West Central Village is a part of the fust phase of the overall Pointe West development. The conceptual planned development (PD) plan for the overall Pointe West project was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 9, 1999. On October 14, 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary PD plan/plat for Phase IA of the Pointe West development. That phase allows for 165 single-family lots and 47 tracts with various uses. The proposed Central Village final plat is a sub -phase of Phase IA that is located south of 16' Street, and will establish 57 single-family lots and 21 tracts on 57.37 acres. Proposed tracts will be used for stormwater, recreation areas, and future development. The final plat covers a portion of the Pointe West development located south of 16' Street, and is consistent with the approved overall conceptual PD plan for Pointe West and the approved Phase IA preliminary PD plan/plat. MAY 099 2000 -16- • 0 • 0 ANALYSIS: The agent, Masteller, Moler & Associates, Inc., is requesting final plat approval and has submitted the following: A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PD plan/plat; and 2. An engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for the remaining required improvements; and 3. A completed Contract for Construction of Remaining Required Improvements; and 4. A letter of credit to secure the contract. None of the required subdivision improvements have been completed, although construction has commenced. As provided for in the county's land development regulations, the applicant is proposing to "bond -out" for the remaining work necessary to complete the required subdivision improvements. The Public Works and Utility Services Departments have reviewed and approved the submitted Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate and corresponding letter of credit amount. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the submitted Contract for Construction. Prior to recording the plat, the developer will submit the letter of credit, which represents 115% of the estimated cost to complete the required improvements. It should be noted that all improvements within the Pointe West development will be private, with the exception of certain utilities facilities that will be dedicated and guaranteed to Indian River County as required by the Utility Services Department. All final plat requirements have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Grant final plat approval for Point West Central Village, and 2. Authorize the Chairman to execute the submitted Contract for Construction of Remaining Required Improvements and accept the letter of credit that secures the contract. MAY 099 2000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval for Pointe West Central Village, authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for Construction of Remaining Required Improvements, and accepted the Letter of Credit securing the contract, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD A," k —17— BOOK Iii F'AGE c�U BODK iiu' OAGE -3.10 7 7. F. CABLE LOCATING SERVICES -ALL CLEAR LOCATING SERVICES (ACUS (CONTRACT ASSIGNED BYNOCffSI The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 2, 2000: Date: May 2, 2000 To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners Through: James E Chandler, County Administrator Through: Tom Frame, Director, Department of General Services From: Terry L. Smith, Telecommunications Manager Department of General Services Subject: Contract for Cable Locating Services BACKGROUND: On January 7, 1997, Indian River County signed a contract with North Carolina Utility Services, a Division of Carolina Telephone and Telegraph Company, for cable locating services. On January 1, 1997, the assets of this entity and some others had been transferred to NOCUTS, Inc. On March 7, 2000 the Board approved Amendment No. 1 to the contract as requested by NOCUTS Inc. to establish a termination date. As Amendment No. 1 went through the process for a Board approval, NOCUTS, Inc. was being acquired by Asplundh Corporation. By the time the signed Amendment No. 1 was returned from NOCUTS, the transfer had taken place and the signer of the contract for NOCUTS, Inc. voided the Amendment No. 1 by crossing through NOCUTS and writing in ACLS (All Clear Locating Services), which is the new operating entity for Asplun&s facility locating service in this area. Amendment No. 1, which has been redone to reflect the correct corporate name and proper signature blocks, needs to be signed by Indian River County. NOCUTS, Inc. and All Clear Locating Services, Inc. have developed an Assignment and Assumption of Agreement and have requested that Indian River County sign the Consent to that agreement RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Consent document and the Amendment No. 1, which has been revised to show All Clear Locating Services, Inc. instead of NOCUTS, Inc. MAY 099 2000 • ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the Consent and Amendment No. 1 with All Clear Locating Services, Inc., as recommended by staff. DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD 7.G. MISCELLANEOUSBUDGETAMENDMENT #011 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 2, 2000: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 2, 2000 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 011 THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird Assistant CountyCi,nis"lor FROM: Jason E. Brown 1 Budget Manager i The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. On October 26, 1999, the Board of Commissioners approved funding for the a of July fireworks displays for Sebastian and Vero Beach. Funding will come from the M.S.T.U. reserve for contingencies. 2. Sandridge has received reimbursement for warranty work on golf carts completed by County Staff. The attached entry appropriates these funds. 3. The County has received a Local Assistance Program (LAP) Grant for design and construction of the Jungle Trail/Pelican Island Wildlife Enhancement Project in the amount of $700,000. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has provided a grant of $50,000 for the project. The attached entry appropriates funding. MAY 099 2000 • BOOK U PaGEJ��� J BOOK i113 r'AGE s312 4. Traffic Engineering received delivery of a variable message sign board budgeted in FY 1998/99. The attached entry is needed to move these funds to the current year. 5. Indian River County libraries have received donations totaling $17,463. The attached entry appropriates the use of these funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #011, as recommended by staff. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager BUDGET AMENDMENT: 011 DATE Max 9.2000 Entry Number Fund/134,pirtmentl Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. EXPENSES MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT/ Recreation/Special Events 004108-572-041.11 $10,000 $0 MUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT/ Reserve for Contingencies 004199-581-099.91 $0 $10,000 2. REVENUES GOLF COURSE/ Miscellaneous Revenues 418-000-343-067.00 $2,000 $0 EXPENSES GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Other Operating Supplies 418-236-572-035.29 $2,000 $0 MAY 099 2000 -20- -I • • TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 011 of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. grown —1/ DATE: May 9. 2000 Budget Manager ()� Entry Fund/Diartment/ Number Account Name Account Number I increase Derxease GENERAL FUND/ Donations - Main 3. IREVENUES Library 001-000-366-095.00 $16,124 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services Grant 315-000-331-703.00 $50,000 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ FDOT Local Assistance Program Grant 315-000-334-405.00 $700,000 $0 $1,339 EXPENSES EXPENSES OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Jungle Trail/Pelican Island Project 315-214-541-067.94 $750,000 $0 Books 001-109-571-035.45 4. REVENUES GENERAL. FUND/ Main Library/ TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Cash Forward Revenues 111-000-389-040.00 $23,500 $0 $3,000 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ North County TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Traffic Engineering/ Other Equipment 111-245-541-066.49 $23,500 $0 5. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Donations - Main Library 001-000-366-095.00 $16,124 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Donations - North County Library 001-000-366-100.00 $1,339 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Books 001-109-571-035.45 $13,124 $0 GENERAL. FUND/ Main Library/ Audio -Visual 001-109-571-035.48 $3,000 $0 GENERAL FUND/ North County Library/ Elderly Books 001-112-571-038.31 $1,339 $0 MAY 099 2000 -21- 8001( .�,� c� PAGE •,, BOOK iicj PAGE ZH. RESOLUTION 2000-056 REQUESTING ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEACHEROSION CONTROL PROGRAM (DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONANNUAL RESOLUTION) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 2, 2000: TO: James E. Chandler, CONSENT AGENDA County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., May 2, 2000 Public Works Director FROM: Jeffrey R. Tabar, P.E., Coastal Engineer e> /// SUBJECT: Resolution Requesting Assistance from State of Florida Beach Erosion Control Program The State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requires an annual resolution from local governments requesting assistance through the Beach Erosion Control Program. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. MAY 099 2000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Grin, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 2000-056 requesting assistance from the State of Florida Beach Erosion Control Program. -22- RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 056 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA REQUESTING ASSISTANCE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM. WHEREAS, Indian River County has had damage to structures and/or coastal lands by storms and erosion in areas of public lands, and WHEREAS, the State of Florida has established a Beach Erosion Control Program for providing financial assistance for erosion control and preservation of the beaches within the State. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, as follows: 1. The County, hereby requests State financial assistance for implementation of coastal erosion control improvements within Indian River County. 2. The County hereby designates Jeffrey R Tabar, P.E., Coastal Engineer of Indian River County, as the Project Engineer and Agent on behalf of the County. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was offered by Commissioner --Ll _nn and seconded by Commissioner Stanhri t1gP , and, being put to a vote was as follows: Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye John W. Tippin Ayp Kenneth R. Macht Aye Ruth Stanbridge 0y_ The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 9th day of May '2000. County Attorney Approved as to Form and Legal Sufficiency s es E. Chandler, County Administrator MAY 099 2000 Indian River County, Florida Board of County Commissioners Approved -may g, 9nnn 6(9sa,"n Fran B. Adams, Chainmen -23- • BOOK PAGE B 00K .� PAGE J 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - SHERIFF GARY C. WHEELER - APPLICATION OF COPS GRANT (CLERK'S NOTE: CONTINUED FROM MAY 2, 2000 MEETING) The Board reviewed a letter of April 24, 2000: 01'1_' t�eriff 4055 41st AVENUE April 24, 2000 GARY C. WHEELER • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEMBER FLORIDA S-ER19:S ASSOCIATION MEMDER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960.1808 The Honorable Fran B. Adams, Chairman Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Chairman Adams: RHONE (561) 569-67C The Indian River County Sheriff's Office has the opportunity to request additional grant dollars for new officers funded through the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services' (COPS), Universal Hiring Program. As with the past grants offered by the COPS Office, the grant will reimburse 75% of salaries and benefits up to $75,000 per officer over the three-year grant period As we are all aware with past COPS grants, this reimbursement does not cover capital and start- up costs associated with fielding a deputy nor does it cover any salary/benefits costs in excess of the $75,000 cap per officer. However, as we continue to grow, so does the demand on available services and resources; we anticipate the added revenues generated by this growth will compensate the additional positions at the close of the grant. By taking advantage of grant dollars now, we can augment local dollars and provide needed resources at a substantial savings. We propose to add three (3) full-time MAY 0% 2000 -24- • 0 deputies with this grant. The total cost to the county in the fust year for adding three additional officers will be $120,648 to cover capital and start up costs; salary/benefits in the amount of $118.179 will receive 100% federal funding in year one to help offset these initial start up costs. In year two of the grant, we will request 75% funding reimbursement, and 10% reimbursement in year three. At the close of the grant, the positions will be provided through the normal budget process. Attached, are documents required for application, including the Request Form, Certificates, Assurances, and a sample Retention Statement; additional financial worksheets are also provided for backup. We request this item be placed on the agenda under Constitutional Officers for the Board of County Commissioners meeting scheduled for May 2, 2000. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact Sandy Shields at 97&6254. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ,4f w� Z7Wheeler, Sheriff Indian River County Sandy Shields of the Sheriff's Department noted that the original UHP (Universal Hiring Program) grant was in 1994 or 1995 and this is a continuation. This is a part of President Clinton's effort to get 100,000 additional officers on the streets. Commissioner Grin commented that is a 3.8 million dollar program and the grant is only 1.2 million dollars. Everything the federal government does has strings attached. Ms. Shields emphasized that the County's law enforcement is facing the same growth as all other services. In response to Commissioner Grin's question, Ms. Shields also noted that the SR -60 corridor would be an additional zone if they had additional officers to assign to that area. Chairman Adams believed that at budget time the Sheriff's Department had said they would not need any additional officers and questioned the number of employees. MAY 099 2000 -25-BOOT( .� �c� FAGf ""J, 800K � PAGE •..� Ms. Shields responded that there are 110 sworn officers and another 66 employees assigned to investigations, crime scene personnel, internal affairs and other divisions. Commissioner Ginn questioned whether the new officers would be sworn and whether the County would be responsible for an additional $555,000 within the next 3 years for these officers. Ms. Shields responded that Commissioner Ginn was correct. Commissioner Macht questioned the average ratio of about 2.8 sworn officers per thousand citizens and believed the County has a much higher rate. Commissioner Stanbridge hoped neighborhoods with significant problems would be able to utilize the new officers, and Commissioner Ginn expressed her concerns about the impact on the tax base and the taxpayers. Sheriff Gary Wheeler believed that failure to take advantage of the grant would constitute double taxation for the taxpayers as another agency would receive the funds. He stated that the ratio of sworn officers to citizens in Indian River County is between 1.7 and 2 per thousand citizens, including the municipal police officers. The Sheriffs Office assists some of the smaller agencies with investigations and also has sworn officers at the Courthouse and in use as school resource officers. The detectives and road patrol division constitute approximately 1.2 per thousand citizens. Commissioner Macht asked that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement be contacted to get those figures for all counties and that the Sheriff supply a copy of his master plan to the Board. Commissioner Ginn noted that the county is experiencing unprecedented growth with approximately 1600 new homes constructed recently. MAY 099 2000 -26- Assistant County Administrator Joe Baird commented that effective October 11 the county will enter a new budget year and the match for these funds has been included in the budget for next year. Chairman Adams questioned whether any sworn officers obtained through these grant funds have been moved to other positions, and Sheriff Wheeler responded that the grant positions have remained as is. Chairman Adams felt that some of the COPE programs are great but she has heard some complaints that the officers are not as visible as patrol officers. Sheriff Wheeler noted that the COPE officers are more flexible and interact with the community more. These are not officers assigned to the commercial areas and the only manned office other than the main office is the one at the Indian River Mall which is manned with volunteers. The Gifford office has moved 3 times and the neighborhoods are all supplied with pager numbers and cell phone numbers for the officers. Commissioner Tippin commented that he would support the motion but warned that there would be specific questions during the budget workshops, especially with regard to $507 for a Beretta, $46 for a flashlight and $65 for a hat. Commissioner Macht support the motion but wanted to know the exact number of sworn officers per thousand citizens and wanted to see the Sheriff s master plan. He felt that the COPE officers are very good but he also had heard complaints from community leaders. Reverend Henry Burson, 4545 38h Avenue, Northside Church of God Agape Ministries, believed that the Sheriff is trying to work with the community and expressed his appreciation to the Board for putting new officers on the streets. MAY 099 2000 -27- BOOK 113 FAGE -1 I BOOK 1101 PAGE - ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board imanimously approved the application for the COPS Grant, as requested. COPY OF GRANT APPLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDB(;) PROGRAM - CONSIDERATION OF COUNTY PARTICIPATION (Legislative 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 May 3, 2000: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator D13RSTPN HEAD CONCURRENCE: obert 1 . Keating, CP;Coa�ty Development Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning �� FROM: Peter J. Radke; Economic Development Planner .'}. DATE: May 3, 2000 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF COUNTY PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 9, 2000. BACKGROUND Recently, the FY 2000/01 application cycle opened for economic development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) fimds. In this fiscal year, the Department of Community Affairs MAY 099 2000 (DCA) has allocated approximately $9,000,000 to the economic development category for proposed projects that will increase employment opportunities for low and moderate income households in Florida. For the Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, and Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG categories, the FY 2000/01 grant application cycle is currently open and will be closing on May 31, 2000. The CDBG Program is a federal program that provides funding for housing and community development. In 1974, Congress passed the Housing and Community Development Act, Title I, and created the CDBG Program. Administered by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the program consists of two components — an entitlement program that provides funds directly to large urban areas, and a small cities program which funds rural community activities. In 1981, the law was amended to allow states to administer the program on behalf of small local governments, or non -entitlement communities. Cities with a population less than 50,000 and counties having a population less than 200,000 are eligible to participate in the Small Cities CDBG proles►• The purpose of the May 9, 2000 public hearing is for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to obtain public input regarding the county's overall community development needs and to consider applying for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). To submit a CDBG application, the Board must obtain public input on the county's proposed CDBG activities during two public hearings; the May 9'b public hearing will qualify as the first public hearing. Should an opportunity arise for using CDBG funds in this fiscal year, a second public hearing will be held, at which time a CDBG application would be presented for public comment and Board approval. The deadline for submitting a commercial revitalization, housing rehabilitation, or neighborhood revitalization CDBG application is May 31, 2000. For economic development CDBG applications, the application cycle opened on March 31, 2000. In FY 1999/2000, the Board approved two CDBG applications. One application requested funds from the economic development CDBG category and was submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in October 1999. Another application requested funds from the neighborhood revitalization CDBG category and was submitted to DCA in June 1999. Economic Development Application In the economic development application, the county requested $750,000 for an economic development project proposed by CRA Care Centers (a privately owned company) in the Wabasso area. According to the application, the funds would be lent to CRA Care Centers so that CRA Care Centers could construct an assisted living facility in the unincorporated area of the county. In return for receiving the loan from the county, CRA Care Centers had committed to create at least twenty- sixnew jobs. Of those twenty-six new jobs, fourteen jobs (51%) would be made available to persons from low to moderate income households. On January 28, 2000, DCA notified Indian River County that its economic development CDBG application was within the fimdable range for a grant award and that funds were reserved for Indian River County. To access those fiords, the county was required to submit to DCA an executed Grant Agreement and all necessary support documents by March 28, 2000. Those support documents were to be provided by CRA Care Centers. As of the date of this staff report, the county has not received the necessary support documents from CRA Care Centers and, therefore, has been unable to forward an executed Grant Agreement to DCA. MAY 099 2000 -29- BOOK I BOOK cJ PAGE•�iZ According to DCA staff the county has lost its funding reservation for the proposed economic development project, since DCA did not receive an executed Grant Agreement by March 28, 2000. An executed Grant Agreement can still be submitted by the county to DCA as long as the agreement is submitted before June 30, 2000, the last day of the 1999/2000 CDBG application cycle. Even if the referenced Grant Agreement is submitted by June 30, 2000, the proposed project will be funded only if there are unreserved funds still available at the time of submittal. On April 3, 2008, county staff received a correspondence from CRA Care Centers that serves as an update to the proposed assisted living facility project A copy of that correspondence is attachment one of this staff report. Neighborhood Revitalization Application In the neighborhood revitalization application, Indian River County requested $750,000 in grant funds. Those funds were to be used to extend the county's potable water system into an unplatted neighborhood in the Wabasso area According to the grant application, approximately 118 households would have benefitted from the project which included water line extensions, water hookups, and fire hydrant installation. On December 16, 1999, DCA informed Indian River County that its neighborhood revitalization application was not ranked in the fundable range ofprojects. As indicated in attachment two, Indian River County's proposed neigbhorhood revitalization project ranked 49' out of 49 neighborhood revitalization applications submitted in fiscal year 1999/2000. In fact, Indian River County's application missed the fundable range by 128.69 points. While Indian River County's proposed activities in Wabasso are easily justified, the current scoring system used by DCA hinders Indian River County's ability to secure neighborhood revitalization CDBG funds. One component of the current scoring system that affects Indian River County's potential score is the community -wide needs (CWN) score. Based on 1990 census data, the CWN score is a predetermined score applied to every local agency. Due in part to the county's high median income, Indian River County scores 69.20 out of a possible 250 in the CWN category. That score is further reduced to 29.20 since the county was previously awarded neighborhood revitalization fiords in 1996. As shown in attachment two, Indian River County had the lowest CWN score of the 49 local governments that applied for neighborhood revitalization funds in fiscal year 1999/2000. Under the CDBG program, four grant categories exist from which Indian River County may apply for funds. These categories are: commercial revitalization, housing rehabilitation, neighborhood revitalization, and economic development. Based on the existing program rules, Indian River County may choose to apply for a grant in one of the commercial revitalization, housing rehabilitation, or neighborhood revitalization categories. If awarded a grant in one of those three categories, the county may not apply for another grant in any of those three categories until the awarded grant is closed Following is a description of the three applicable CDBG categories: Commercial Revitalization Various improvements may be funded in commercial areas. Eligible projects include Parking facilities, drainage, street paving, sidewalks, lighting, recreation facilities, potable water services, and sanitary sewer services. This category is an extremely competitive category. MAY 099 2000 -30- Ll Housing Rehabilitation Substandard housing occupied by income eligible households may be rehabilitated to meet code requirements. Both owner occupied and rental housing may be included. Eligible recipients may be located anywhere in the jurisdiction. Dilapidated housing may be demolished and cleared, and financing is provided to the displaced occupants for replacement housing. Neighborhood Revitalization This category is primarily for potable water and sanitary sewer installation or replacement (including hook-ups), street paving, and drainage improvements in low/moderate income neighborhoods. Funds may also be used to purchase and develop property as sites for low/moderate income housing. Other public improvements to infrastructure are also eligible, but are seldom firrded. The economic development grant category is independent of the other three categories. In the same fiscal year that Indian River County applies for a grant in one of the first three categories, the county may also choose to apply for funds in the economic development category. Even if Indian River County has an open commercial revitalization, housing rehabilitation, or neighborhood revitalization grant, an economic development CDBG application may still be submitted to DCA for consideration. Following is a description of the Economic Development category: Economic Development Funds are available to local governments to provide necessary infrastructure for new businesses or business expansions. Local governments may also lend funds directly to the business for capital expenses (land, building, equipment, site development). Funds from this grant category must be utilized to create jobs or retain existing jeopardized jobs, primarily for low/moderate income persons. In the past, Indian River County has submitted CDBG applications in the neighborhood revitalization and the economic development categories. To date, Indian River County has been awarded only one grant, a neighborhood revitalization grant that funded potable water, paving, and drainage improvements in the Wabasso area. As indicated in a previous sectionof this report, the county has also had an economic development application approved for funding, Economic Dev lonm= (Ateg= To initiate the application process for economic development CDBG funds, the county must have a business that is planning to relocate to Indian River County business that is planning to expand its opfrom outside Florida, or a local erations. In either case, the participating business must be willing to create new job opportunities in Indian River County for low -to -moderate income households and must be willing to match any CDBG funds awarded with its own funds dollar for dollar. A major component of the scoring system for economic development grants is the number of jobs being created by a proposed project. As part of the economic development CDBG application, a ratio of the amount of CDBG fimds being requested per job created is calculated. If that ratio exceeds $34,999rob, the project will be ineligible for CDBG funds. Another evaluation factor for economic development CDBG applications is the investment ratio for the proposed project. The investment ratio compares the amount ofprivate funds committed for investment into the project to the amount of CDBG funds being requested. If the investment ratio is less than one, meaning the amount of private funds being invested into the project is less than the amount of CDBG funds being requested for the project, then the project will be ineligible for CDBG funds. MAY 099 2000 -31- BOOK 1 PAGE 4'J r BOOK hJ FAGE- Y An economic development CDBG project may be approved to receive funds either as a grant or as a loan. If the proposed activities involve infrastructure improvements in the public right-of-way, then the funds will be awarded as a grant to the county. If the proposed activities involve improvements on private property, then the funds will be awarded as a low-interest loan to the business. If CDBG funds are awarded in the form of a loan, the following activities may be undertaken with those funds: • Acquisition of real property; • Acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of commercial and industrial buildings and structures; • Purchase of capitalized machinery and equipment with a useful life of at least five years; • Energy conservation improvements designed to encourage the efficient use of energy resources; • Public, commercial, or industrial real property or infrastructure improvements; • Activities to remove barriers which restrict access for the elderly or handicapped to publicly owned and privately owned buildings, facilities, and improvements; and • Activities designed to provide job training and placement and/or other employment support services on behalf of the participating party. While neighborhoods within Indian River County would benefit from a neighborhood revitalization CDBG project, the current scoring system used by DCA creates a disadvantage for communities such as Indian River County with high per capita and household incomes. As previously indicated, the county's community -wide needs score greatly reduces the funding chances for any neighborhood revitalization application submitted by the county. When the 2000 census data are released, DCA will recalculate the community -wide needs scores for all local jurisdictions eligible for the Small Cities CDBG program. This recalculation will not significantly alter the county's score since the county's characteristics have not changed significantly since 1990; however, DCA will eliminate the 40 point reduction currently being applied to the county's score for previous funds awarded through the CDBG program. Indian River County has not previously applied for housing CDBG funds since the county already participates in the State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP)Program. The SHIP program is a county sponsored program that provides grants or loans to very low and low income persons to assist them in obtaining a home or rehabilitating their existing home. Indian River County has not submitted a commercial revitalization application in the past because commercial revitalization projects usually focus on downtown areas. Most applications submitted in this category are submitted by cities and towns. In fact, all of the commercial revitalization applications submitted to DCA in the last fiscal year were submitted by cities and/or towns. According to the state's CDBG program rules, up to 8% of CDBG funds awarded to a project can be utilized to cover the cost of application preparation and project administration. These functions may be done by a consultant. By using a consultant to prepare an application and administer the project, the county would get the benefit of the consultant's expertise with the program. Most consultants will prepare the application at no charge to the county, if the consultant is assured of MAY 099 2000 • administering the project if funded. If the application receives funding, the consultant would get a percentage of the project cost, ranging from 5% to 8%, for administering the project. If the project does not get funded, there would be no cost to the county for the consultant having prepared the application. If the county hires a consultant and then does not submit an application, there would be no cost to the county. As part of the CDBG program requirements, the Board of County Commissioners must establish a CDBG Citizen Advisory Task Force or activate the existing one. Attachment 3 is a copy of the membership list of the county's existing CDBG Citizens Advisory Task Force. According to DCA's CDBG rules, a public hearing to obtain citizen input is required prior to submitting any CDBG application. As structured, the hearing to be held at the May 9, 2000 Board meeting will meet that requirement. At that May 9, 2000 public hearing the Board has the following alternative actions to consider- 1.) onsider 1.) Direct staff to work with existing local businesses or new businesses wishing to relocate to the county regarding potential economic development CDBG projects and authorize staff to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant to advise staff on potential projects and prepare an application and administer the grant; 2.) Reapply for CDBG fimds to be used for potable water improvements in the Wabasso area and authorize staff to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant to prepare an application and administer the grant; 3.) Undertake both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2; or 4.) Decide not to apply for CDBG funds in this fiscal year. Based on the analysis, staff supports alternative 1. Staff has already held preliminary discussions with one local business that is considering an expansion of its operations. Due to the amount of time involved in obtaining a consultant, it would be beneficial to initiate the RFP process as soon as possible if the county intends to apply for any CDBG funds in this fiscal year. Based on the result of the neighborhood revitalization application that the county submitted in the previous fiscal year, undertaking alterative 2 would be an inefficient use of staff time. As indicated in the analysis, a neighborhood revitalization project in Indian River County cannot attain a competitive score in the CDBG program. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners choose alternative 1. Specifically, staff' recommends that the Board: Obtain public input during the public hearing regarding the county's overall community development needs; Direct staff to work with existing local businesses or new businesses wishing to relocate to the county regarding potential economic development CDBG projects; Authorize staff to initiate the process to select a consultant to prepare an economic development CDBG application and administer the grant; and MAY 0% 2000 • -33- BOOK il �, J PAGE 3215.7 r BOOK.. PAGE •.�� Activate the existing CDBG Advisory Task Force to review and comment on any proposed CDBG application. 1 •) Correspondence from William H. Bud Clark (CRA Care Centers), dated March 29, 2000 2•) FFY 1999 Neighborhood Revitalization Category Grant Application Scores 3•) CDBG Citizen Advisory Task Force Membership List MAY 099 2000 CDBG PUBLIC HEARING Purpose of this Public Hearing • Obtain public input regarding the county's overall community development needs • Consider applying for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) -34- • MAY 099 2000 CDBG Categories • Economic Development — independent application cycle — different scoring system • Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, Neighborhood Revitalization CDBG Application Cycles • Economic Development application cycle opened on March 31, 2000 • Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, and Neighborhood Revitalization application cycles close on May 31, 2000 -35- BOOK 3 PAGE 327 • F_ CDBG Program • Federal program that provides funding for housing and community development • Two components — entitlement program — small cities program • Cities with a population less than 50,000 • counties having a population less than 200,000 • Small cities program is administered by state government FY 1999/2000 Applications Two CDBG applications were approved: 1.) Economic Development Application -Requested $750,000 -Proposed for private company to construct assisted living facility and create 26 new jobs -Received Grant Agreement from DCA in January 2000 -Grant Agreement cannot be executed until private company provides support information -DCA imposed June 30th deadline for grant agreement to he executed MAY 099 2000 ,7 R BOOK ilc� PAGE �.�� J -36- • 0 • MAY 099 2000 FY 1999/2000 Applications 2.) Neighborhood Revitalization Application -Requested $750,000 -Proposed to extend the county's potable water system into an unplatted neighborhood in the Wabasso area -Proposed project was not funded by DCA Application Categories • Economic Development — infrastructure improvements — on site improvements — funds may be available in form of a grant or a loan — approval based on job creation — less competitive approval process — interested local private parties have met with staff BOOK `�°�'`�� -37- c! PAGE% 12,2 • I C� MAY 09, 2000 Application Categories Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, and Neighborhood Revitalization — competitive approval process — applications are ranked based on a scoring system — community wide needs score places Indian River County at a disadvantage Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: • Obtain public input during the public hearing regarding the county's overall community development needs; • Direct staff to work with existing local businesses or new businesses wishing to relocate to the county regarding potential economic development CDBG projects; • Authorize staff to initiate the process to select a consultant to prepare an economic development CDBG application and administer the grant; and • Activate the existing CDBG Advisory Task Force to review and comment on any proposed CDBG application. -38- BOOK 11j ME •. 3,0 • .7 Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the recommendations and noted that last year 2 grant applications were .filed. The first, for economic development, was approved. However, the funds were lost because the 3rd party applicant, CRA Care Center, did not receive their secondary grant. The other application was for a neighborhood revitalization and we did not do well there. This community does poorly because our needs are not as severe as others. The economic development grants are for infrastructure and there have been discussions with 2 applicants regarding the possibility of submitting applications. He felt it would be a waste of time and resources to apply for the community revitalization category but that situation might improve after the Census 2000 data comes in. 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. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, to approve staff s recommendation. The Chairman then reopened the public hearing. Dick Van Mele, 781 George Street, Sebastian, a member of the Advisory Committee, encouraged the Board to file the application whether or not it is accepted and recommended that Louise Hubbard from the Coalition for the Homeless be asked to serve on the Task Force. MAY 099 2000 • -39- BOOK ilJ PAGE 331 I BOOK FAGE 6`' The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS AMENDED by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, that the Board direct staff to (1) work with existing local businesses or new businesses wishing to relocate to the county regarding potential economic development CDBG projects; authorize staff to prepare a RFP to hire a consultant to advise staff on potential projects and prepare an application and administer the grant; (2) reapply for CDBG funds to be used for potable water improvements in the Wabasso area and authorize staff to prepare a RFP to hire a consultant to prepare an application and administer the grant; and (3) activate the existing CDBG Advisory Task Force to review and comment on any proposed CDBG applications; as recommended by staff; and (4) ask staff to check into the structure of the Task Force and contact Dave Pearson of Habitat for Humanity and Louise Hubbard of the Coalition for the Homeless regarding participation on the Task Force. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motionpassed unanimously. MAY 099 2000 -40- 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2000-015 AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) CHAPTER 913, SUBDIVISION; CHAPTER 914, SITE PLANS; CHAPTER 915, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; AND CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES &LAMPLAT SET SUBMITTAL AND RESUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND NON-RESIDENTIAL SITES) (ST. PETERS CHARTER SCHOOL) 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 May 2, 2000: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP / Community DevelopmentIrector FROM: Stan Boling; A1CP Planning Director DATE: May 2, 2000 SUBJECT: LDR Amendments: Plan/Plat Set Submittal and Resubmittal Requirements and Setbacks Between Schools and Non-residential Sites It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of May 9, 2000. MAY 099 2000 -41- BOOK L3 PAGE •�� BOOK U FACE � BACKGROUND: Recently, staff initiated an LDR amendment regarding plan set submittal requirements, based upon a request from the Fire Prevention Bureau, and paired that amendment with a request from the St. Peter's Charter School to change certain setbacks for schools adjacent to non-residential sites. Each of these amendments has been reviewed by the PSAC (Professional Services Advisory Committee) and PZC (Planning and Zoning Commission) and are ready for Board of County Commissioners consideration and action. Plan Set Submittal/Resubmittal Requirements Currently, the LDRs require seven (7) sets of site plan or plat drawings for each step in the submittal and resubmittal review process for subdivision, site plan, and planned development (PD) projects. Based upon a request from the Fire Bureau for an additional plan set for its initial project review (see attachment #1), staff reviewed the current plan/plat set submittal requirements for all development project types. Based upon its review of these requirements, staff is proposing changes to the number of required plat/plan set drawings to be submitted during initial reviews and re -submittal review steps of the subdivision, site plan, and PD processes. At its regular meeting of March 16, 2000, the PSAC voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed plan set submittal/resubmittal LDR amendment. Separate from the LDR amendment proposal, at the request of the PSAC, staff is again researching the issue of electronic plan submittals as an option to paper plan set submittals. In addition, staff and the PSAC are working together to make the PSAC meeting packet completely electronic: beginning this month, all PSAC packet materials will be "delivered" electronically only. At its regular meeting of March 23, 2000, the PZC voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the proposed plan set submittal/resubmittal LDR amendment (see attachment #4). Special School Setbacks St. Peter's Charter School has submitted an LDR amendment application to reduce a current requirement for school building setbacks. St Peter's is seeking the reduction to accommodate a 110' x 88' building on its site which is located in the RM -10 zoning district. The proposed IDR amendment would apply countywide where school facilities are proposed adjacent to non-residential uses that are not agricultural (e.g. commercial, industrial, office, institutional). St. Peter's is requesting an amendment to LDR section 971.14(4)(d), a section which currently requires a 100' setback from a school building to all property lines, even where a school site abuts a non-residential use. While the applicant has not proposed any specific language, the applicant does request that a setback reduction be allowed when a school building is proposed to be located adjacent to non-residential uses. To facilitate consideration of St. Peter's request, staff has proposed language similar to an existing provision in the LDRs which allows a reduction in buffer requirements when a church facility is proposed to be located adjacent to other institutional (non-residential) uses (see attachment #3). At its regular meeting of March 16, 2000, the PSAC considered the proposed LDR amendment and recommended approval. The PSAC recommendation included wording to expand the originally proposed amendment language to allow a setback reduction in situations when the adjacent property is zoned for non-residential uses (e.g. commercial zoning). Staff concurs with the PSAC's recommendation and has included wording in the currently proposed LDR amendment wording to implement the PSAC recommendation. The PZC also considered the LDR amendment and voted 6-1 to recommend that the Board adopt the special school setback LDR amendment (see attachment #4). MAY 099 2000 -42- ANALYSIS: Plan Set Submittal/Resubmittal Requirements Staff has found that initial plan/plat submittals require a broader distribution for staff review than the current 7 set requirement accommodates. Currently, pre -application conference submittals and initial (prior to TRC) submittals for subdivisions, site plans, and PDs are routed to numerous reviewing departments and sections, as follows: 1. Planning Technician 2. County Surveyor 3. County Engineer 4. Drainage Engineer 5. Traffic Engineering 6. Utilities 7. Environmental Health Under this current arrangement, neither the current development planner nor the environmental planner gets his or her own plan set for review. Instead, they share the planning technician's plan set. Likewise, the Fire Bureau staff currently come to the current development planner for a plan set to review. In addition, other agencies and surrounding property owners sometimes request review of project plans, too. Consequently, the current 7 set requirement can hamper reviews, since the planning technician, current development planner, environmental planner, and fire bureau staff are all sharing the same plan set. To alleviate this problem, staff recommends that initial development plan submittals include 10 rather than 7 plan/plat sets. Conversely, staff has found that there is no need for all 7 sets of revised plan/plat drawings as currently required for project resubmittals (after TRC). Revised plans require less review than initial submittals and are generally reviewed in a single location (e.g. site plan sign -off room) or via a limited routing (e.g. revised final plats). Thus, the current 7 set requirement for resubmittals is more than what is actually needed. Therefore, staff proposes to reduce from 7 to 5 the number of revised plan/plat sets required for resubmittals. These LDR changes are covered in items 1-9 of the attached ordinance (see attachment #5). As a final issue unrelated to plan set requirements, staff is also proposing as part of the LDR amendment that applicants provide either a written response to pre -application conference staff comments or a summary of development plan revisions when submitting formal applications for subdivisions, site plans, and PDs. In staff s opinion, such responses will aid its review and reduce TRC discrepancy letter comments. Special School Setbacks The current LDRs allow educational centers (primary and secondary schools) in the OCR, MED, CN, CL, and CG zoning districts as administrative permit uses. Administrative permit uses require approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission only. In addition, schools are classified as special exception uses in the A-1, A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -2, RS -3, RS -6, RT -6, RM -3, RM -4, RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, ROSE -4, RMH-6, RMH-8, CON -1, CON -2, and CON -3. Special exception uses require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the existing LDRs, a school located in the CG zoning district would be treated the same as a school in the RS -3 district, and would be required to provide a 100' setback from all interior property lines regardless of the school's size, or the density of the surrounding area, or the adjacent zoning or use. The proposed LDR amendment would give the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board discretion to reduce the 100' setback if the school is adjacent to a non- residential use that is located on property zoned RM -6, RM -8, RM -10, commercial or industrial. MAY 0% 2000 -43- BOOK I IJ_ PAGE 325 BOOK hJ PAGE The proposed amendment would provide the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board greater flexibility when considering appropriate setbacks for proposed school buildings. Although the county has not reviewed a great number of applications for proposed schools, it has reviewed schools that have a significant enrollment (e.g. over 300 students) on relatively large sites (e.g. over 20 acres). However, staff anticipates that, with the projected growth of the county and the advent of charter schools, the county will be reviewing more proposals for smaller schools on smaller "urban" sites. An example is St. Peter's school which currently has an enrollment of about 98 students on a 2.53 acre RM -10 zoned site that includes a church and daycare center. Furthermore, it is anticipated that schools may be proposed in a greater variety of locations, including higher density residential and non-residential zoning districts. The proposed LDR amendment would provide criteria more appropriate for smaller "neighborhood" scale school facilities, as well as for schools in more urban, higher density environments and on sites adjacent to non-residential uses. Based on the wide variety of zoning districts in which schools are allowed, the development form of a proposed school facility can vary greatly. For example, schools built within agricultural and lower density residential areas could be built on larger parcels with a large open space, campus type of design (e.g. St. Edward's, Fust Church of God). Schools built in higher density areas such as the RM -8, RM -10, or commercial zoning districts would be built within a denser environment on smaller parcels of land, where a reduction in the 100' setback would be appropriate. The proposed LDR amendment allows the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board to take these factors into account. Within the City of Vero Beach, an area which has a more urban type of setting than suburban areas of the county, the minimum setback for schools located within single-family districts is 25'. Thus, the 25' setback is consistent with a more urban, higher density environment (e.g. St. Helen's school). Under the proposed LDR amendment, neither the Planning and Zoning Commission nor the Board could reduce a school building setback to less than 25' under any circumstances. This 25' setback is equal to or greater than the standard rearyard and frontyard setbacks in the county's residential districts, and is consistent with the City of Vero Beach's school setback. Under the proposed LDR amendment, the setback could not be reduced below 50' when the proposed school project site is adjacent to a non-residential use on either single-family zoned property or a lower density multi- family zoned site. Also, the proposed amendment retains the 100' setback where a school abuts a residential or agricultural use (e.g. St. Edward's, First Church of God). These IDR changes are covered in item 10 of the attached ordinance (see attachment #5). RECObD4ENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed LDR amendments ordinance regarding plan set submittal/resubmittal requirements and school setback allowances. ATTACHMENT: 1. Memo from Fire Bureau 2. Request from St. Peter's Charter School 3. LDR Excerpts 4. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes 5. Proposed LDR Amendments Ordinance 6. Housing Impact Analysis MAY 099 2000 6 Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the amendments with the aid of the ELMO and noted that the first amendment simply adds 3 additional plan sets to the requirements. The 2' amendment relates to setbacks between schools and non-residential properties. There is a 100 -foot setback required at this time and the amendment would allow for the Board's discretion in allowing reductions in that setback to 25 feet in circumstances where it would be appropriate. 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. Commissioner Ginn asked if the minimum setback could be changed to 50 feet rather than 25. Director Boling advised that the 50 -foot amendment would not accommodate the plans of the applicant and they have asked for the 25 -foot setback. Chairman Adams was not comfortable with the 25 -foot setback and felt the impact on neighbors should be investigated. She also noted that the City of Vero Beach is now dealing with "mega buildings". Commissioner Stanbridge also felt she could not support the 25 -foot setback. MAY 099 2000 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, to approve staff's recommendations. BOOK il 3 PAGE -33 Fr- -I BOOK IiJ PAGE c11c;)'B THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion failed by a 2-3 vote (Commissioners Adams, Ginn and Stanbridge opposed). ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 2000-015 amending Land Development Regulations (LDRs): Chapter 913, Subdivision; Chapter 914, Site Plans; and Chapter 915, Planned Developments. ORDINANCE NO. 2000, 015 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 913, SUBDMSION; CHAPTER 914, SITE PLANS; AND CHAPTER 915, PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Subdivision Pre -Application Conference Submittal: The first paragraph of LDR SUBDIVISION Chapter Section 913.07(3X8) is hereby amended as follows: (B) Information required for the formal pre -application conference. The applicant will submit at least ten (10) sets of the preliminary sketch plans of the proposed subdivision to the community development department at least seven (7) working days before the scheduled date of the preapplication conference. The applicant shall supply the county with the following information: MAY 099 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 015 2. Preliminary Plat Initial (pre -TRC) Submittal: LDR SUBDIVISION Chapter Section 913.07(4)(A)l.c. is hereby amended as follows. (4) Preliminary plat application and review. (A) Submission of application. 1. Upon completion of the formal pre -application conference, the applicant may apply for preliminary plat approval. At his or her option, an applicant may simultaneously apply for preliminary plat approval and for land development permit review. No land development permit may be issued until the preliminary plat is approved. An applicant shall apply for preliminary plat approval by furnishing to the community development director: a. A complete application form, as provided by the community development department; b. The appropriate filing fee established by the board of county commissioners; C. Seven (5) eepies Ten (10) sets of the plat drawings and a written response to each item in the project's pre -application conference discrepancy letter or a written description of all revisions made to the project plans since the pre -application conference review; 3. Preliminary Plat Resubmittal (post -TRC): LDR SUBDIVISION Chapter Section 913.07(4)(F)I.e. is hereby amended as follows: e. The applicant shall respond, in writing, to each comment following receipt of the discrepancy letter and submit sevenpies five (5) sets of a revised preliminary plat if deemed necessary by the community development staff with a written response to each item in the project's TRC discrepancy letter and a written request to be placed on the planning and zoning commission's agenda for approval. 4. Final Plat Initial (pre -TRC) Submittal: LDR SUBDIVISION Chapter Section 913.07(6)(B)6 is hereby amended to read as follows: 6. Seven (9) Ten 10 copies of the final plat drawing showing required information and certifications. Staff Note: There is no need to change the final plat drawing set requirement for final plat resubmittals (post -TRC) because the final plat review procedures merely reference the preliminary plat section 913.07(4)(F) that is being amended under #3, above. Thus, the #3 amendment will reduce final plat drawing sets from 7 to 5. MAY 09, 2000 -47- BOOK c PAGE -Stj Fr- -I BOOK 113 PAGE &T ORDINANCE NO. 2000--015. S. Site Plan Pre -application Conference Submittal: LDR SITE PLAN Chapter Section 914.06(2)(d)2. is hereby amended as follows: (d) Submittal requirements. The following shall be provided by the applicant, in the appropriate written or graphic form: A complete application; 2. Sever Ten (10) plan sets (twenty-four (24) inches by thirty- six (36) inches) depicting: 6. Site Plan Initial (Pre -TRC) Submittal: LDR SITE PLAN Chapter Section 914.14(3)(b) is hereby amended as follows: (3) General submittal requirements. (a) Three (3) surveys meeting the minimum technical standards and containing the information required in section 914.14(9), are required for major site plans, and may be required by the community development director for minor site plans and administrative approvals. (b) Seven{ -?}site pin= Ten (10) plan sets containing all the information required in this section (914.14). If a formal pre -application conference was held for the project, the applicant shall submit a written response to each item in the r•nnfPx+nrrE mgerenancv letter or a written description of all revisions made to the project plans since the pre-appucauon 7. Site Plan Resubmittal (post -TRC): LDR SITE PLAN Chapter Section 914.06(5)(e) is hereby amended as follows: (e) Resubmission and scheduling major site plans for planning and zoning commission consideration. The applicant's response to the TRC comments shall consist of seven (3L) five 5 revised plan sets and an itemized letter detailing how all of the discrepancies have been adequately addressed. Once all deficiencies have been adequately addressed, all technical and informational requirements met, and the commenting members of the TRC have recommended approval or approval with conditions on the application, the application shall be scheduled for consideration before the planning and zoning commission. 8. Conceptual Site Plan Initial (pre -TRC) Submittal: LDR SITE PLAN Chapter Section 914.14(4)(b)3. is hereby amended as follows: (4) Conceptual site plans, submittal and informational requirements. (b) The following are submittal requirements for conceptual plan applications: A complete application form with the appropriate review fee. MAY 099 2000 -48- 0 • ORDINANCE NO. 2000- 015 2. Two (2) copies of the owners deed and two (2) copies of a letter of authorization from the owner if the owner is different from the applicant. 3. Seven (�F) Ten (10) plan sets to scale on twenty -four -inch by thirty- six -inch sheets at a scale of not greater than one inch equals fifty (50) feet. If a formal pre -application conference was held for the project, the applicant shall submit a written response to each pre -application conference discrepancy letter item. 9. PD Plan Pre -application Conference Submittal: LDR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Chapter Section 915.21 is hereby amended as follows. Section 915.21. Formal pre -application conference submittal requirements. To initiate the scheduling of a formal pre -application conference by staff, the applicant shall submit a completed formal pre -application conference information form (furnished by the planning division) along with se yen ( ) !2SM plan sets which shall include the following graphic and written information: 10. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 11. CODIFICATION The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. 12. SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. 13. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State. MAY 099 2000 BOOK e; PACE' �" J —49— • BOOK�.`� c� PAGE •3�:: ORDINANCE NO. 20W 015 This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 27th day of Apri 1 , 2000, for a public hearing to be held on the 9th day of May , 2000, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner—LI —nn , seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge , and adopted by the following vote; The ordinance was adopted by a vote of : Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 9th day of May .20M. Attest: J.K. Barton, Clerk Deputy Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By I C(nti 16 Fran B. Adams Chairman Filed with the Florida Department of State on the If _qday of 2000. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM William G. Collins Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Developmentirectgi Coding: Words in strike thromet type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. uWWtammVlanwwhoa setbwi=6 MAY 099 2000 11.A. TERMINATION OF INTERCHANGE JUSTIFICATION REPORTaJJ STUDY AND APPROVAL OF FINAL CONSULTANT PAYMENT - OSLO ROAD AND I-95 INTERCHANGE - REYNOLDS, SMITH & HILLS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 2, 2000: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP,`Af< Community Development Director DATE: May 2, 2000 SUBJECT: Termination of Interchange Justification Report Study and Approval of Final Consultant Payment It is requested that the information presented herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of May 9, 2000. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: One of the improvements reflected in both the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO's) long- range transportation plan and the transportation element of the County's comprehensive plan is an interchange at Oslo Road and I-95. Despite the Oslo interchange being incorporated in those local plans, that interchange project may not be initiated unless the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) determine, through approval of an interchange justification report, that the interchange is warranted. In 1998, FDOT allocated Indian River County $70,000 to prepare an. Oslo Road/I-95 Interchange Justification Report (DR). The FDOT funding allocation was formalized through a Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) which the County and FDOT entered into in February of 1998. Subsequent to execution of the JPA, County staff prepared an IJR scope of services, developed a request for proposals, and initiated consultant selection for the project. In August, 1998, the County contracted with the firm of Reynolds, Smith and HEs, Inc. (RSH) to prepare the Oslo Road UR. The contract was structured as a fixed fee agreement with a total amount of $69,963.28. MAY 09, 2000 • -51- BOOK i JJ FAGE -343 I BOOK � c� ?AGE 3:Z111' Since execution of the UR contract, RSH has worked on the project. Among the activities undertaken by the consultant were data collection, data analysis, preparation of initial interest meeting material, preparation of pre -application meeting material, attendance at two District Interchange Review Committee (DIRC) meetings, preparation of drafts of a Methodology Letter of Understanding (MLOU), travel demand forecasting, development of design hour traffic, development and analysis of alternatives, and other activities. Despite all of the work done by RSH, the analysis indicated that there is insufficient need (even in the year 2030) to justify an interchange at Oslo Road and I-95. This lack of need constitutes a fatal flaw in the project. A fatal flaw analysis is a component of many studies. The intent of such an analysis is to identify early in a study whether there are any factors which would prevent the project from proceeding to completion. In this case, the lack of need (insufficient traffic volume by 2030 to create a failure of adjacent interchanges) is a factor which would prevent FHWA from approving the UR. Based upon the identified fatal flaw, MOT recommended that the County terminate the IJR project. Although FDOT recommended project termination, FDOT suggested that the County and MPO keep the interchange in their long-range plans and that the MPO keep the interchange in its project priority list. Furthermore, FDOT committed to program (and pay for) a new UR study in the fourth year of FDOT's five year work program - with the expectation that conditions may have changed by that time to warrant justification of a new interchange. Subsequent to FDOTs recommendation to terminate the UR project, staff and Commissioner Fran Adams coordinated with FDOT to determine if any factors other than need could be used to justify approval of the Oslo UR Based upon conversations with FDOT, staff and Commissioner Adams concluded that the Oslo UR is not currently approvable. The above information was provided to the MPO at its meeting of April 12, 2000. At that time, the MPO members indicated that the county should terminate the Oslo Road UR project. Although all work tasks identified in the County/RSH UR contract scope of services were not completed, the consultant has indicated that 96% of the project work was done and has submitted a final invoice requesting 96% of the contract amount. As back-up for this invoice, the consultant has submitted the attached letter identifying out -of -scope work performed as a result of FDOT's information and analysis requests. Both County staff and FDOT staff have reviewed the information submitted by RSH to support its final invoice, and both feel that the invoice as submitted is appropriate. Based upon the above information, staff feels that the UR project should be terminated and that the final invoice should be paid. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners terminate the I-96/0slo Road UR project and approve final payment to the consultant. MAY 099 2000 -52- • ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the termination of the I- 95/Oslo Road Interchange Justification Report (IJR) project and approved final payment to Reynolds, Smith & Hills, as recommended by staff. 11.G. BID #2037 - SOUTH COUNTY PARK IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE 2 - BARTH CONSTRUCTION (SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION) (ADNAN INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT, Deferred. 11.H.1. NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT - WORK AUTHORIZATION #12 - PERMITTING SERVICES - CAMP, DRESSER, MCKEE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 1, 2000: MAY 099 2000 -53- BOOK 0 I BOOK iiJ PAGE DATE: MAY 1, 2000 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. �� DIRECTOR OF UTILI S PREPARED GENE A. RAUTH AND STAFFED OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR BY WATER AND WASTEWATER FACILITIES SUBJECT: NORTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 12 - PERMITTING SERVICES BACKGROUND The North County Water Treatment Plant was completed and started up in June 1998. Ground water is supplied by three wells constructed into the Floridan Aquifer, and is pumped to the facility and treated by reverse osmosis (nanofiltration) membranes. A byproduct of the membrane treatment process is a concentrated solution high in chlorides (salts). The facility is currently permitted to discharge up to 750,000 gallons of concentrate to the Indian River, a water body of higher chloride concentration. Toxicity testing is required by the existing permit. The current facility industrial waste permit expires on February 9, 2001. The permit and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 62-620 require that renewal applications and supporting information be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) at least 180 days prior to the expiration date. MAY 0% 2000 -54- ANALYSIS Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., (CDM) the County's continuing consultant for water treatment and distribution facilities has been involved with permitting of the County's two water facilities. CDM is currently involved with evaluation of alternative concentrate disposal options for the North County facility. The permit is necessary to maintain the current operation of the facility and allow possible alternative disposal options once fully evaluated. Timely submittal of permit documentation is required. CONCLUSION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Work Authorization No. 12 (Exhibit A) for engineering services for industrial waste permitting for the North County Water Treatment Plant to CDM for the upper limit amount of $15,000 and authorize the chair to execute same. MAY 099 2000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously approved and authorized the Chairman to execute Work Authorization No. 12 for engineering services for industrial waste permitting for the North County Water Treatment Plant to Camp, Dresser, McKee for the upper limit amount of $15,000, as recommended by staff. WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -55- BOOK .tic" PAGE •.y r, !t' 600K iiJ PAvEJr° 11.H.2. MASTER PLANNED 16 -INCH WATER MAIN ALONG INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD (FIBER OPTICS) - ASSET CHANNELS TELECOM, INC. DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 27, 2000: DATE: APRIL 27, 2000 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR , ` FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. 1l'i` DIRECTOR OF UTII..rIY PREPARED STEVEN J. DOYLE, P.E. AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER BY: SUBJECT: DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH SEI CHANNELS TELECOM INC. MASTER PLANNED 164NCH WATER MAIN ALONG INDIAN RIVER BLVD. BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS Asset Channels Telecom Inc. is a fiber optic communication company, which desires to install multiple fiber-optic communication lines along Indian River Boulevard through the City of Vero Beach. A 16 -inch Master Plan water main is scheduled for construction along Indian River Boulevard. Exhibit -A depicts the mute for the proposed water main. The I&mc h Master Plan water main is slated for construction in the year 20002001. Asset Channels Telecom Inc. has agreed to eater into an agreement with the County to construct the master planned water main along the Boulevard in conjunction with their fiber-optic conduit runs. The County's Master Plan identifies the need for a 164nch transnission water main along the enstem portion of the County's water distribution system. The proposed 164nch water main shall extend along the Boulevard from the City of Vem Beady south City Limits north to 371 Street and make connection to a 16 -inch watedm currently under construction ficin Grand Harbor. The completed 16 -inch main along the entire Boulevard will complete a major water distribution loop between the South and North County Distribution Systems. The County's water distribution system is comprised of two Reverse Osmosis (RO) Facilities, which are loomed geographically to serve tare northern and southern portions of the County. Currently the water distribution systems are interconnected with a single 20 -inch water main along 581 Avenue. This one pipeline along 581 Avenue is the only mesas of transferring drinking water between the County RO Facilities. MAY 099 2000 Completing the water main loop along Indian River Blvd. will provide a redundant feed necessary to serve the County's Water Distribution System. The greatest foreseen difficulty beyond the actual construction is the permitting of the proposed water main through the City of Vero Beach UWity Service Area. Project approvals will be necessary through multiple governmental agencies including but not limited to FDOT, FDEP, and the City of Vero Beach. The Project Costs associated with the installation of the 16 -inch Master Plan will be fimded from the caparrty charge fee fienl. (See below for account number.) RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Developer's Agreement as preset►ted, and authorize the Chairman to execute all necessary documents. LIST OF EXHIBITS: Exhibit A. Vicinity Map of Proposed 16 -inch Water Main along Indian River Boulevard Exhibit B. Developer's Agreement between Indian River County and Asset Channels Telecom, Inc. ACCOUNT NO: 472-000-169-370.00 NAME: Capacity Charge Fund MAY 099 2000 ON MOTION by Commissioner AMOUNT: $2,100,000.00 Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Chinn, the Board unanimously approved and authorized the Chairman to execute the Developer's Agreement with Asset Channels Telecom, Inc., as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -57- BOOK I iJ" PAGE ' ,!If F - BOOK i PAGE -3b u0 II.H.3. CENTRAL REGIONAL WWTF EXPANSION - INDIAN RIVER INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING,INC. - CONTRACTOR PAY REQUEST #16 AND REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN RETAINAGE - CAMP, DRESSER, MCKEE (INDIAN RIVER INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS) - PROJECT 8067 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 28, 2000: DATE: APRIL 28, 2000 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E DIRECTOR OF UTILITY PREPARED AND STEVEN J. DOYLE, P.E. � r STAFFED BY: CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER SUBJECT: CENTRAL REGIONAL WWTF ANSION INDIAN RIVER INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING INC. (CONTRACTOR) CONTRACTOR' PAY REQUEST NO. 16 & REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN RETAINAGE Construction at the Central Region Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase I Expansion Project began on October 1, 1998 by Indian River Industrial Contractors, Inc. Stipulated Contractual completion dates for the $10.6 million project was established as part of the construction documents and included three specific milestone dates for completion. On Tuesday, April 18, 2000 the Board of County Commissioners authorized a contract extension of 60 calendar days to Indian River Industrial Contractors Inc. (Contractor) to complete the work outlined in the contract documents. The revised milestone dates are presented below. a.) Partial Completion - Achieved on February 28, 2000 b.) Substantial Completion — Achieved on April 28, 2000. Walk4hru inspection has been scheduled for the I' week of May, 2000 c.) Final Completion — Scheduled for May 28, 2000. The Contractor has completed the work in general conformance with the contract documents and has achieved partial and substantial compliance with the project milestone dates. To this extent, start-up, testing and training for the major wastewater t watment facility components has been achieved. Presently raw sewage has been diverted from the old wastewater treatment plant to the new Wastewater Treatment Facility in anticipation of achieving Final Completion as outlined above. MAY 0% 2000 —58— • • ANALYSIS The Contractor (Indian River Industrial Contractors, Inc.) has requested a reduction in contract retainage pursuant to the contract documents Section 500, Article 5. Payment Procedures attached herein as Exhibit -A. The Contract documents provide for a reduction in retainage when the Contractor has made sufficient progress in the Work and there is not a specific cause to withhold greater than 5 percent (5016). The contract documents define two (2) payment procedures for allowing a reduction in retainage. The first reduction in retainage is calculated at 10% of 600/6 construction value when the Contractor has achieved in excess of 605/6 of the completed work. Since the Contractor has achieved in excess of 98% completion as of this date the request for reduction in retainage is permissible pending Board Approval. The second reduction in retainage payment allows for 95% payment (5% retainage) of the portion of the contract price when the Contractor has achieved in excess of 60% of the completed work. Again, since the Contractor has achieved in excess of 98% completion the request for reduction in retainage is permissible pending Board of County Commission Approval. a.) Original Contract Amount $10.672.415.00 b.) Net Change through Change Order No. 1(Deduct) ($4,536,811.64) c.) Contract Price with all approved Change Orders $6.135.603.36 d.) value of Work performed to Date (add) $6.049.238.61 e.) Payment for Stored Materials $5.085.56 TJ— Total Amount Famed to Date $6.054.324.17 g.) Amount Retained (100/6 of 6016 of contract value) (Deduct) ($368,136.20) h) Subtotal $5,686,187.97 iJ Amount Paid to Date by the County $5,359,876.10 IJ Payment per this Pay Request (#16) $326.311.87 1c) Total Unpaid Amount Remaining in Cc== $449.415.39 CONCLUSION It is Staffs recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners approve the following items as outlined above and presented below: a.) Release Payment #16 to Indian River Industrial Contractors Inc. in the amount of $326,311.87 (which includes the reduction in retainage). As presented in Exhibit -B. b.) Allow for a reduction in retainage (5%) on subsequent Contractor pay requests pursuant to the guidelines outlined in the contract documents, Section 500 Article 5, Progress Payments. A 5% retainage shall be held for the remainder of the Work until such time that Final Completion has been achieved and the County has approved all required documents. c.) Authorize the Chairman to execute all necessary documents. LIST OF EXHIBITS• Exhibit A. Excerpt from Contract Documents Section 500 Article 5. Progress Payments Exhibit B. Contractor's Request for Payment No. 16. MAY 099 2000 -59- 600K J PAGE .35 • r 5 0 0 K .� .� F'AGE •� ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved release of Payment #16 to Indian River Industrial Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $326,311.87, including the reduction in retainage; allowed for a reduction in retainage (51/6) on subsequent contractor pay requests pursuant to the guidelines outlined in the contract documents, Section 500, Article 5, Progress Payments, with a 5% retainage being held for the remainder of the work until such time that final completion has been achieved and the County has approved all required documents; and authorized the Chairman to execute the necessary documents; all as recommended by staff. DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD 11.HA ACID TANK LEAK - SOUTH COUNTY R.O. PLANT - AMERICAN COMPLIANCE TECHNOLOGIES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 10, 2000: MAY 099 2000 DATE: APRIL 10, 2000 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, J DIRECTOR OF UTILITY S C PREPARED AND GENE RAUTH G STAFFED BY: OPERATIONS MANAGER SUBJECT: ACID TANK LEAK, SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS WATER TREATMENT PLANT BACKGROUND On March 20, 2000, the 16,000 gallon acid bulk tank at the South County Reverse Osmoses (R.O.) Water Treatment Plant was found to be leaking. The location and size of the leak required prompt action by staff. During the potable water treatment process, acid is used to adjust the pH of both the raw and finished drinking water. ANALYSIS In order to meet regulatory requirements and provide safe drinking water, the proper pH of water must be maintained during the treatment and distribution process. Due to the urgent nature to maintain the proper pH, staff obtained a cost estimate for repairs from American Compliance Technologies, Inc. of Bartow, Florida, in the amount of $10,451.00, (see attached). American Compliance Technologies is being utilized by the utility because its affiliation with American Water Works Association and recommendations by three other municipal utilities. This cost estimate also includes the necessary labor and material required to maintain operation of the plants acid treatment system while the 16,000 gallon bulk tank is out of service for repairs. These repairs are currently on going and are scheduled for completion by the end of April 2000. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the fimding necessary to complete the repairs of the 16,000 gallon acid bulk. Funding will come from Account No. 471 Renewal and Replacement funds. MAY 0% 2000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the contract With American Compliance Technologies in the amount of $58,049 and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED -61- BOOK i I, i PAGE. F, U BOOK.. PAGE•.° 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN CAROLINE A GINN - EMERGENCY SERVICES STATION #6 (101 SOUTH AIA)- DISCUSSION OF IMPORTANCE OF FULL ALS/EMS SERVICES FOR SOUTH BEACH BACKUP TAKEN FROM "THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES; SECOND DRAFT OF PROPOSED STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE DELIVERY OF FIRE AND EMS EMERGENCY SERVICES, JANUARY 24, 2000"1 (CLERK'S NOTE: DEFERRED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 18, 2000) The Board reviewed backup submitted by Commissioner Ginn which is on file with the backup for today's meeting in the office of the Clerk to the Board together with Memoranda of April 25, 2000: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Douglas M. Wright, D� Emergency Services DATE: April 25, 2000 SUBJECT: Expense Related to Establishing an EMS ALS Transport Unit at Station #6 The initial estimated annualized expense the Emergency Services District would incur if EMS ALS staff and equipment is placed at Station #6 is as follows: ALS Transport Unit, equipment, supplies and stafrmg $537,288 (Includes seven paramedics and ambulance) MAY 099 2000 -62- If the existing fire engine at Station #6 is licensed and equipped as an ALS engine utilizing existing dual certified personnel as ALS responders, the cost is estimated to be as follows: Equipment to license the existing engine as an ALS engine $54,298 I have detailed information as to how the expenses noted above were determined if you need further information. TO: Douglas X Wright, Director Department of Emergency Services FROM: %J�amest Judge, EMS Chief ivisiof Emergency Medical Services DATE: April 25, 2000 SUBJECT: Estimated Costs to Establish Station 6 as an ALS Transport Station In order to bring Station 6 up to the level of an Advanced Life Support transport station the following would necessary: AMBULANCE and MEDICAL SUPPLIES: 1 Completely Stocked ALS Ambulance 1 Laptop Computer 1 EMSPro Software (for additional unit) 1 Cell Phone (initial cost and monthly charges) Annual Estimated Fuel and Lube Costs Annual Estimated Medical Supplies Yearly O2 Rental & Refills Insurance Licensing RADIOS: 1 EDACS LPE200 System Portable Radio 1 EDACS Orion System 1 UIQ' Orion Scan Mobile MAY 099 2000 -63- 119,118.59 2,000.00 ✓ 250.00 v 275.00 ✓ 3,000.00 7,500.00 ✓ 200.00 ✓ 550.00 25.00 ✓ 3,054.00 3,948.75 2,527.50 $132,91859 $9,530.25 BOOK s.c PAGE•ceJ I BOOK hJ PAGE -3e.:"O STATION: $7,500.00 2 Phone Lines (plus charges) 400.00 2 Bunks (box springs and mattresses) 500.00 6 Lockers 2,000.00 EMS Station Text/Training 100.00 Additional Expendable Tools 4,500.00 PARAMEDICS: $375,536.48 3 Paramedic II position salaries 178,671.28 4 Paramedic I position salaries 196,365.20 Drug Screening & Physicals 500.00 Commissioner Ginn stated that Station No. 6 has no paramedic on duty although the homeowners donated $25,000 for an enhanced level of service several years ago. Emergency Services Director Doug Wright gave a brief history of the prior enhancement and explained that the donation had been used in the amount of $24,000 for equipment, with the balance being refunded. Stations No. 6 and No. 3 are first response stations only. Adding a dual certified firefighter/paramedic would cost $54,298 at this time. Commissioner Grin emphasized that Station No. 6 has the longest response time of any station in the county. An ambulance has to be sent from another station. Chairman Adams suggested the matter be referred to the District Advisory Committee for their recommendations. Commissioner Ginn believed this to be an emergency situation and stated that this was a part of the plan for fiscal year 2000. She felt it should be addressed now and noted that she wants a full complement on south beach. She believed if the County could have an ALS station in Fellsmere and one in Sebastian, that south beach was certainly entitled to the same service. MAY 099 2000 -I Director Wright noted that it would be June 1' before we could implement the improvements and that the funds are available in the contingency fund. Commissioner Tippin supported the motion but commented that he had previously been involved in an emergency situation and was picked up by the funeral home's hearse. ON MOTION by Commissioner Grin, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the expenditure of $54,298 for equipment to license the existing engine as an ALS engine at Station No. 6, as requested. B.C. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MRCHT - HOMELESS SHELTER AND ASSISTANCE CENTER The Board reviewed a letter of May 8, 2000: MAY 099 2000 -65- BOOK hJ PAGE : '57 May 8, 2000 Mr. Jason Brown Office of the Budget Director County Administration Vero Beach, Florida Dear Mr. Brown, BOOK jjj r -AGE'. Homeless Shelter and Assistance Center 2686 North Hwy. U.S. 1 Vero Beach, Fl. 32960 ($61) 567-5537 Fax (561) 567-1454 This is to confirm your telephone conversation with Mr. VanMele this morning. We are enclosing the grant request for consideration by the Commissioners tomorrow. I would note that the breakdown of the $25000. is identified on pages 6-8. Should you have any questions, please feel fi-ee to contact us. AS' �y, Philip DeBenedictis Executive Director Chairman Adams noted that the Coalition is submitting this request for the second $25,000 which was withheld last year. The request contains approximately the same items as the first 6 month request. Commissioner Macht also noted that these are vouchered items scrutinized by the Budget Department. MAY 099 2000 ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the payment of the $25,000 to the Coalition for the Homeless, as requested. 13.E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN - COUNTY TOURIST TAX The Board reviewed a proposed ordinance and Commissioner Tippin advised that this request is simply to set a public hearing for the ordinance. Discussion ensued regarding alternatives and items submitted to the Board just prior to a meeting with no adequate time for review. Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann explained that the software to collect that tax is from Seminole County and has been operational in Seminole County for 6 or 7 years. It bears no relation to the recently developed software which had caused many of the prior problems. He had discussed the matter with a number of other tax collector's offices and was told that no audit function is necessary. The Department of Revenue has not audited this tax at all except in conjunction with a sales tax audit. Also, the software has the ability to follow up the payments. He does not have anyone on his payroll at this time to handle this £unction, but there is no prohibition to hiring a contract employee for that particular responsibility, which would be considered a parttime position due the confidential information involved. Assistant CountyAdministrator Joe Baird advised thathe had originallyworried about the audit function because local collecting involves some liability. However, he did believe that in the long run it would be better to collect the taxes locally. Also he had been concerned about the ability of the software to handle 2 taxing districts but that has been checked and there are no problems with that. MAY 099 2000 -67- J 1, PAGE . BOOK I IJ PAGE 36'0 ONMOTIONby Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously voted to table the item for one week. 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT None. U.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. U.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD None. There being no finther business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:57 a.m. ATTEST: �> (Z:� 0" J. on, Clerk Fran B. Adams, Chairman Minutes Approved ")o©D MAY 099 2000