The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/23/2001"' MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2001 - 9:00 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25'h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman District 5 Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman District 2 Fran B. Adams District 1 Kenneth R. Macht District 3 John W. Tippin District 4 9:00 a.m. 1. 2 3 4. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE James E. Chandler, County Administrator Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board Comm. Kenneth R. Macht ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA / EMERGENCY ITEMS BACKUP PAGES 1. Add Item 5.13., Letter from Environmental Protection Agency Commending West Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. 2. Move Item 13.A., Letter from Somerset County Commissioners, Somerset, Pennsylvania, to Item 5.C. 5. PROCLkNIATION and PRESENTATIONS Presentation by Jim Egan, Exec. Director of Marine Resources Council, Regarding Environmental Concerns for Citizens of Indian River County 6, APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of September 18, 2001 7, CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated October 11, 2001) 1-12 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): BACKUP PAGES B. Appointment of Sebastian Councilman Ray Coniglio to IRC Economic Development Council and Tourist Development Council (memorandum dated October 11, 2001) 13 C. Bid Award: IRC #4005 Annual Bid for Uniform Rental General Services Dept. / Purchasing Division (memorandum dated October 10, 2001) 14-29 D. Office of Criminal Justice Grants Florida Department of Law Enforcement FY 2001/2002 Byrne State and Local Law Enforcement Grants (memorandum dated October 15, 2001) 30-66 E. Annual County Tax Deed Applications (memorandum dated October 10, 200 1) 67-79 F. Nextel South Corp. v. Indian River County; Case No. 01-14005Civ-Paine/Lynch, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida (memorandum dated October 17, 2001) 80-100 G. Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements, Phase I Work Order No. 10 (memorandum dated October 16, 2001) 101-105 H. Roseland Stormwater Improvements Project — Work Order No. 9 (memorandum dated October 16, 2001) 106-109A 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Supervisor of Elections: Purchase of Sequoia Voting System (memorandum dated October 17, 2001) 110-113 9, PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HE: BRINGS 1. Redistricting Proposals (backup may be provided separately) is • �1i 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (contyj. PAGES A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.): 2. Request for Abandonment of the Entire 15'" St. S.W. Right -of -Way Within the Grovenor Estates Subdivision (Legislative) (memorandum dated October 8, 2001) 114-123 3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING USE OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF EXEMPTION PROCESS FOR DIVIDING AGRI- CULTURALLY DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 911, ZONING; CHAPTER 913, SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS, AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFEC- TIVE DATE Request to Amend Sections 911.06(4) and 913.06 (5)(A)2 of the Land Development Regulations to Update Affidavit of Exemption Allowances in Agricultural Areas (Staff -Initiated) (Legislative) (memorandum dated October 15, 2001) 124-133 4. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LANDSCAPE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT STANDARDS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOP- MENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 926, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REGULATIONS, AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PRO- VISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE Request to Amend Section 926.12(3) of the Land Development Regulations to Modify Replacement Landscaping Requirements (Initiated by Ben Bishop) (Legislative) (memorandum dated September 17, 200 1) 134-153 5. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING THE THRESHOLD FOR STAFF -LEVEL APPROVAL OF MAJOR SITE PLANS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 914 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE G =u W' 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.): 5. (continued) Request to Amend Sections 914.06(1)(a) and 914.06 (5)(f) of the Land Development Regulations to Raise Staff Level Approval Thresholds for Non Residential Major Site Plans (Legislative) (memorandum dated October 17, 2001) 6. Consideration of and Formal Selection of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application Category and Authorization for Staff to Issue a Re- quest for Proposals to Hire a Block Grant Application Consultant (Legislative) (memorandum dated October 15, 2001) B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS Request by Brian T. Heady to discuss "governing by deception and lies" (letter dated October 17, 2001) C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None 10, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS Resolutions Authorizing the Issuance of $11,000,000 General Obligation Bond Issue for Environmentally Significant Land by Competitive Sale (memorandum dated October 17, 2001) I1. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Communitv Development 1. Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the Indian River County Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAPlan) (memorandum dated October 17, 2001) 2. Board Consideration of Purchase of the Historic Rodney Kroegel Property on Indian River Drive in Coordination with The Trust for Public Land (memorandum dated October 16, 2001) B. Emergency Services None BACKUP PAGES 154-172 173-179 180 181-249 250-261 262-268 BACKUP 11, DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): PAGES C. General Services Approval to Lease Document Storage Space (memorandum dated October 17, 2001) 269-282 D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget None F. Personnel None G. Public Works 1. Children's Home Society — Oslo Road Property Re -acquisition of Land Parcel by County (memorandum dated October 1, 200 1) 283-288 2. Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements, Phase I (memorandum dated October 16, 2001) 289-304 H. Utilities 1. Petition Water Service — 32nd Terrace — off 81h St. One of Two Streets in Suburban Acres Subdivision (memorandum dated October 10, 2001) 305-320 2. Indian River Department of Utility Services Utility Maintenance Building extension (memorandum dated October 10, 2001) 321-355 I. Human Services None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13, COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Letter from Somerset County Commissioners, Somerset, Pennsylvania dated September 26, 2001 356 B. Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.): Co Commissioner Fran B. Adams D. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht E. Commissioner John W. Tippin 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS A. Emergency Services District None B. Solid Waste Disposal District None Co Environmental Control Board Lien against LaFountain Property (memorandum dated October 16, 2001) 15. ADJOURNMENT BACKUP PAGES 357-358 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: http://beel.co.indian-n*vcr.R.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 M. Meeting broadcast same as above on AT & T Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian. INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 23, 2001 1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... -1- 2. INVOCATION .................................................. -1- 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ........... I .... I ..................... -1- 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS -2- 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS ........................ -2- A. Presentation by Jim Egan, Executive Director of Marine Resources Council, Regarding Environmental Concerns for Citizens of Indian River County .............................................. -2- B. Letter from Environmental Protection Agency Commending Indian River County West Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility ............. -3- C. Letter from Somerset County Commissioners, Somerset, Pennsylvania .............................................. -5- 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 .................. -6- OCTOBER 23, 2001 ,- -1- 7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ -6- 7.A. List of Warrants ............................................ -6- 7.13. Indian River County Economic Development Council and Tourist Development Council - Ray Coniglio to Replace Ben Bishop ....... -15- 7.C. Bid 44005 - Annual Bid for Uniform Rental - Aramark Uniform Services .........................1.0.......0.................... -16- 7.D. Sheriff - Office of Criminal Justice Grants - Florida Department of Law Enforcement - FY 2001-02 Byrne State and Local Law Enforcement Grants (Substance Abuse Administration, Prevent II, and Multi -Agency Drug Enforcement Unit VII) ................................. -18- 7.E. Annual County Tax Deed Applications - Tax Collector ......... .19- 7.F. Nextel South Corp. v. Indian River County; Case No. 01-14005Civ- Paine/Lynch, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida ........................................................ .20- 7.G. Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements, Phase I - Work Order No. 10 - Carter Associates ......................................... -22- 7.H. Roseland Stormwater Improvements Project - Work Order No. 9 - Carter Associates............................................... -23- 8. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS KAY CLEM - PURCHASE OF SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEM (AVC EDGE ELECTRONIC VOTING SYS"TEM) (REALLOCATION OF 5 -YEAR OPTIONAL SALES TAX FUNDS) ..... -24- 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - REDISTRICTING PROPOSALS ................ -30- OCTOBER 23, 2001 -2- ftpp U I.J : J U p 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION 2001-106 PROVIDING FOR CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, VACATION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF ENTIRE 15TH STREET SW RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE GROVENOR ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND RESERVING A DRAINAGE, UTILITY, PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE ABANDONED RIGHT-OF-WAY (THE COLONY PD) - Legislative .................. -34- 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2001-033 REGARDING USE OF AFFIDAVIT OF EXEMPTION PROCESS - SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR DIVIDING AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); CHAPTER 911, ZONING; (UPDATE SUBDIVISION PROCESS IN AGRICULTURAL AREAS) - Legislative .. -41- 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2001-031 REGARDING LANDSCAPE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT STANDARDS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); CHAPTER 926, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REGULATIONS (REPLACING LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS - BEN BISHOP) - Legislative .... I ... . OCTOBER 23, 2001 ....0...........00............0.....0..... -47- -3- 9.A.5. ORDINANCE 2001-032 REGARDING THRESHOLD FOR STAFF -LEVEL APPROVAL OF MAJOR SITE PLANS; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS), CHAPTER 914, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (RAISE STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL THRESHOLDS FOR NON- RESIDENTIAL MAJOR SITE PLANS) - Legislative ................. -56- 9.A.6. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION CATEGORY AND AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO ISSUE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO HIRE A BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION CONSULTANT - EAST GIFFORD - RFP FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - Legislative .... .66- 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS - BRIAN HEADY REQUEST TO DISCUSS "GOVERNING BY DECEPTION AND LIES" . I ..................... -72- OCTOBER 23, 2001 -4- F 10. RESOLUTION 2001-107 SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION 95-063 PROVIDING FOR SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $110000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; RESOLUTION 2001-108 APPOINTING ROBERT C. REID SPECIAL COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COORDINATING, APPROVING AND NOTING FINANCING DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $11,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; AND RESOLUTION 2001-109 ESTABLISHING INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN PROJECT COSTS INCURRED WITH PROCEEDS OF FUTURE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING - LAND ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS -74- 1 I.A.1. RESOLUTION 2001-110 AMENDING THE COUNTY'S LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR FY 2000-2001,2001-2002, AND 2002-2003 (HABITAT FOR HUMANITY; STRAKA & ASSOCIATES [HOME PROGRAM]; AND HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL) . -84- 11.A.2. HISTORIC RODNEY KROEGEL PROPERTY ON INDIAN RIVER DRIVE - CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE WITH THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND (U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE, PELICAN ISLAND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, AND FLORIDA COMMUNITY TRUST) ................................................. -95- OCTOBER 23, 2001 -5- I I .C. STORAGE SPACE LEASE WITH STORAGE SOLUTIONS (CLERK TO THE BOARD - FINANCE DEPARTMENT) ................ .99- 1 I.G.1. RESOLUTION 2001-111 DECLARING FAILURE OF CONDITION STATED IN MODIFICATION TO COUNTY DEED AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF $25,000 TO THE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA (REACQUIRE PARCEL OF LAND) ... -101- I I.G.2. BID 44012 - VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I - C.E.M. ENTERPRISES ......... -104- I I.H.1. 32ND TERRACE OFF 8TH STREET - PETITION WATER SERVICE - ONE OF TWO STREETS IN SUBURBAN ACRES SUBDIVISION ....................................................... -106- 1 LH.2. WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - UTILITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXTENSION - CHANGE ORDER 41 - BARTH CONSTRUCTION .................... -108- 13.A. CHAIRMAN CAROLINE D. GINN - SOMERSET COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, SOMERSET, PENNSYLVANIA - LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2001 .................................... -109- 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - UPDATES ...... -109- OCTOBER 23, 2001 -6- `' PG 0 9 m t 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ....................... -109- 14.13. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ...................... -109- 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD .................... -109- OCTOBER 23, 2001 -7- PIG October 23, 2001 REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Board of County Commissioners ofIndian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25`" Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, October 23, 2001, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman; Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht; John W. Tippin; and Fran B. Adams. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney; and Patricia "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ginn called the meeting to order. 2. INVOCATION Jack Diehl of Our Savior Lutheran Church delivered the Invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Macht led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -1- t 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Ginn requested 2 changes to today's Agenda: 1. Add Item 5.B., Letter from Environmental Protection Agency Commending West Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. 2. Move Item 13.A., Letter from Somerset County Commissioners, Somerset, Pennsylvania to Item 5.C. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously made the above changes to the Agenda. 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS A. PRESENTATIONBY.IIMEGAN. ENECUTIVEDIRECTOR OFMARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL. REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS FOR CITIZENS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Jim Egan thanked the Board for the opportunity to address the public. He commented that the ongoing public workshops on the Indian River Lagoon for the last several years serve the purpose of bringing input to local governments. The Lagoon is a part of St. Johns River Water Management District National Estuary Program. The Marine Resources Council has these workshops available on tape should anyone wish to have a copy. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge has been an invaluable asset in keeping the public updated as to the impacts on the Lagoon from the proposed development of the Lost Tree Islands and the proposed streamlining of the Department of Environmental Protection OCTOBER 23, 2001 tit t bii 1 ills \,2• 14 :J `..13 1 7'1' -2- permitting process. There is a great concern that streamlining the permitting process would have a cumulative effect on the Lagoon and would allow septic tanks in wetland areas. Mr. Egan also commended Gene Rauth and the Solid Waste Disposal District for their efforts in formulating a stormwater plan to use discharge water for beneficial purposes. This plan will not only benefit Indian River County but the whole state. There is a lot of support for these innovative solutions to water discharge problems. Mr. Egan then asked the Board for its continuing support of expanding preservation lands to create buffer zones and the Sebastian River muck dredging project. He noted that Indian River County has been rated by the Audubon Society as the most protective county on the Indian River. B. LETTER FROMENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY COMMENDING INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY Chairman Ginn read the following letter into the record: UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 Zc r `�r'r Gig �l vgO1E R E C E I V E L 0ISTRIBUTIO�N�LIS14 Commissioners C Administrator. Attorney OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY WATER COMMISSION Personnel Public 1Varks Community Der Ms. Caroline Ginn Utilities County Commissioner Finance Indian River Countv C 184025 1h Street Emerg Seri Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Risk Mgt. Other Q �i OCTOBER 23, 2001; -3- Dear Ms. Ginn: Congratulations on being a national finalist in the Medium Advanced category of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2001 Wastewater Management Operations and Maintenance Awards Program. Although the IRCUD/West Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility was not selected for a national award, the managerial results and compliance record of your facility are commendable. Your application will be returned to the EPA Regional Office by late November. Competition for the national awards in 2001 was intense and the national selection panel noted that all of the finalists are outstanding. It is very gratifying to see that highly motivated wastewater treatment plant personnel can continue to improve and maintain water quality. Thank you for your contributions to the goals of the Clean Water Act. Sincerely, Gary W. Hudiburgh, Chief Municipal Assistance Branch cc: Terry Southard, Wastewater Superintendent John Bowles, Florida DEP Jim Adcock, EPA Region IV OCTOBER 23, 2001 -4- MSOMERSET COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PENNSYL VA NIA Chairman Ginn read the following letter into the record: SOMERSET COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JAMES C. MARKER, Chairman CAROLYN Z4btBANINI, Chief Clerk BRAD COBER, Vice Chairman SONYA AUGUSTINE, Asst. Chief Clerk PAMELA A. TOKAR-ICKES, Secretary DANIEL W. RULLO, Solicitor 0 S RI UT10H LI / Commissioners Llf h ?«c' Adminislralor September 26, 2001 Anarney ✓ Personnel Pablit Warks Indian River County Board of Commissioners RECEIVED Community Oer. 1840 25's Street utilities Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394 JCT i 2..1 Finance BOARD OF COUNTY ONS Dear Board of Commissioners: COMMISSION Emerg.sen.tisk kyt. Glher We the Somerset County Board of Commissioners would like to take this opportunity td thank you for adopting Resolution No. 099, condemning the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. We would like to thank you for your support and condolences to all the victims and rescue workers in New York County, New York, Arlington County, Virginia; and here in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. In declaring September 21, 2001 Somerset County, Pennsylvania day in Indian River County, Florida you have honored the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93, who as we now know, heroically determined to defend themselves and our nation's security. Because of their efforts to circumvent the intended destination of that flight, they unselfishly gave their lives to save the lives of others. All the passengers of Flight 93 will be inextricably linked to Somerset County, Pennsylvania in history and heart. Thank you for recognizing that in this time of National despair, it is essential that all American Citizens stand beside one another to support our President and to come together as a united people. 300 NORTH CENTER AVENUE, SUITE 500 SOMERSET, PA 15501 OCTOBER 23, 2001 SOMERSET COUNTY BOARD OF CONINUSSIONERS i . 4 5� JANIE' C Chairman BRA OBER, Vice Chairman L TELAA. t-iR- S!Secretar -5- (814) 445-140 FAX (814) 445-795 7 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 18, 2001. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 18, 2001, as written. 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. LIST OF WARRANTS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 11, 2001: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2001 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes. Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the time period of October 3, 2001 to October 11, 2001. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -6- 0 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued by the Clerk to the Board for October 3, 2001 through October 11, 2001, as recommended by staff. CHECK NAME CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE AMOUNT 0021393 THE GUARDIAN 2001-10-03 0021396 UNITED WAY OF INDIAN RIVER CTY 2001-10-04 9,593.04 0021397 UNUM LIFE INSUANCE 4,101.60 2001-10-C4 3,895.85 0021398 AMERICAN CANCER/HEART SOCIETY 2001-1C-04 0021399 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE 2001-10-05 84.00 00214CO BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF 2001-10-08 4 106.20 0021401 ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT 2001 -10 -CS 4'872.08 2,389.23 0021402 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC 2001-10-08 0021403 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 2001-10-08 585.98 0021404 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE 2001-10-08 12,525.71 0021405 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 2001-10-08 251.10 0021406 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND 2001-10-10 28,362.50 0021407 KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE 1,087.89 2001-10-10 138.50 0021408 BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR 2001-10-10 0021409 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 2001-10-10 115.38 0021410 IRS - ACS 50.00 2001-10-10 50.00 0021411 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE 2001-10-10 0021412 VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. 2001-10-10 639.86 0021413 INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT 2001-10-10 2,540.00 0021414 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 2001-10-10 81,367.15 0021415 NACO/SOUTHEAST 213.83 2001-10-10 8,300.36 0021416 SALEM TRUST COMPANY 2001-10-10 0021417 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE 2001-10-10 295.97 0021418 FL SDU 132.46 2001-10-10 8,099.24 0310914 A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC 2001-10-11 0310915 ACE PLUMBING, INC 308.00 2001-10-11 54.00 0310916 ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC 2001-10-11 0310917 ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP 2001-10-11 185.60 0310918 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 2001-10-11 1,476.00 0310919 AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION 2001-1C-11 231.25 0310920 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 2001-10-11 35.00 0310921 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 2001-10-11 107.27 805.56 0310922 ATLANTIC REPORTING 2001-10-11 410.30 0310923 ABS PUMPS, INC 2001-10-11 0310924 AA ELECTRIC S E INC 996.39 2001-10-11 70.57 0310925 ASCE/MEMBERSHIP 2001-10-11 3 0310926 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES 2001-10-11 80.00 0310927 A T & T 301.46 2001-10-11 48.52 0310928 ALL INDIAN RIVER FENCE CO 2001-10-11 0310929 ASHBROOK CORPORATION 950.00 2001-10-11 5,952.02 0310930 ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO 2001 -10 -ll 0310931 AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC 198.25 2001 -i0 -ll 500.98 OCTOBER 23, 2001 i1 i s" J -7- CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0310932 AMERICAN REPORTING 2001-10-11 69.00 0310933 A T & T 2001-10-11 41.83 0310934 APOLLO ENTERPRISES 2001-10-11 720.81 0310935 AMERITREND HOMES 2001-10-11 500.00 0310936 ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT 2001-10-11 0310937 A -FLAG & FLAGPOLE CO 20,368.32 2001-10-11 41.00 0310938 BARTH CONSTRUCTION 2001-10-11 0310939 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2001-10-11500.00 0310940 BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC 2001-10-11 6,590.83 0310941 BREATHING AIR SYSTEMS DIVISION 2001-10-11 107,109.61 0310942 BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK 2001-10-11 ,643.00 4 0310943 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 2001-10-11 34,303.33 0310944 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 4,711.50 2001-10-11 11.70 0310945 BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC 2001-10-11 0310946 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 5,417.41 0310947 BARTON, JEFFREY K 2001-10-11 869.84 0310948 BRODART CO 2001-10-11 286,221.36 2001-10-11 0310949 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 2001-10-11 1,423.00 1,081.80 0310950 BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE 0310951 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 2001-10-11 100.00 2001-10-11 0310952 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 2001-10-11 634.48 0310953 B P R 72.29 0310954 BEAZER HOMES, INC 2001-10-11 105.00 0310955 BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF 2001-10-11 1,000.00 2001-10-11 0310956 BLANKEN, RICHARD 41,544.16 0310957 BRADFORD, MADGE A 2001-10-11 315.68 2001-10-11 0310958 BREVARD REHABILITATION MED 2001-10-11 276.50 0310959 BEIDLER, HENRY 2001-10-11 207.06 456.06 0310960 BASS-CARLTON SOD INC 2001-10-11 27.00 0310961 BRANTLEY, RICHARD A 2001-10-11 0310962 BOWLES, AARON 11370.00 0310963 BIOMASS PROCESSING 2001-10-11 73.30 0310964 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF IRC 2001-10-11 90,907.42 2001-10-11 0310965 BROOKS, THERESA 1,969.00 0310966 BRIGGS EQUIPMENT 2001-10-11 167.04 .0310967BURTON GOLF INC 2001-10-11 218.45 0310968 ANDY RODGERS 2001-10-11 173.99 0310969 BELLSOUTH 2001-10-11 139.10 0310970 CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 45.39 0310971 CHUCK'S ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC 2001-10-11 622.19 0310972 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC 629.00 0310973 CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO 2001-10-11 827.75 0310974 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 2001-10-11 500.00 2001-10-11 16,735.10 0310975 CLARKS, DOROTHEA 2001-10-11 0310976 CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO 31.32 0310977 COALITION2001-10-11 76,783.00 FOR THE HOMELESS OF 2001-10-11 0310978 CLEANNET USA 9,456.69 0310979 COAST TO COAST JANITOR SERVICE 2001-10-11 20,537.72 0310980 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 2001-10-11 695.00 0310981 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AN3.25 D 2001-10-]1 4566..0000 0310982 COPYCO INC 2001-10-11 0310983 CAPE PUBLICATIONS INC 39.41 2D01-10-11 220.00 0310984 CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN 2001-10-11 0310985 CARUSO'S REGENCY DODGE INC 2001-10-i1 6,871.33 0310986 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP 14,952.00 2001-10-11 4,740.51 0310987 CINGULAR WIRELESS 2001-10-11 0310988 CHASE MEADOWS, LLC519.70 2001-10-11 23,875.05 0310989 CLARRY, ALISON 2001-10-11 0310990 CONEY, TERESA & LARRY 2001-10-11 23.17 235.00 0310991 DAILY COURIER SERVICE 2001-10-11 0310992 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 417.00 2001-10-11 16.38 0310993 DELTA SUPPLY CO 2001-10-11 5.00 OCTOBER 23, 2001 4- CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0310994 DEMCO INC 0310995 DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC 2001-10-11 111.75 0310996 DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 516.45 0310997 DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC 2001-10-11 2'918.50 0310998 DA -DE PAPER COMPANY 132'95 0310999 DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE -BUREAU 2001-10-11 1,063.78 0311000 DIEHL, MELANIE 30.00 0311001 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 19.31 0311002 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIR 2001-10-11 65.00 0311003 DENNIS ELECTRIC INC 525.00 0311004 DILLARD, CASSIE 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2,117.00 0311005 DEPT OF STATE/RA GRAY BUILDING 2001-10-11 38.62 0311006 EPSILON SIGMA PHI 68.69 0311007 EWING 2001-10-11 ' MARSHA 2001-10-11 50.00 0311008 ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC 2.00 0311009 EXCHANGE CLUB CASTLE 2001-10-11 3,000.00 0311010 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES 2001-10-11 21336.70 0311011 EGGLESTON, WILLIAM286.00 0311012 EVERGLADES FARM 2001-10-11 78.00 0311013 EDMISTON, APRIL 2001-10-11 5,820.06 0311014 FEDEX 2001-10-11 19.31 0311015 FELLSMERE, CITY OF 2001-10-11 14.96 2001-10-11 20.33 0311016 FLORIDA CITY & COUNTY 0311017 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY LLC 2001-10-11 325.00 0311018 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF 35,727.00 -11 0311019 FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO 2001-10-11 200.00 0311020 FLORIDA ENGINEERINGSOCIETY 2001-10-11 127.75 0311021 FLORIDA FIRE CHIEFS 258.00 0311022 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 2001-10-1175.00 0311023 FLORIDA SLUDGE, INC 4,737.86 0311024 FLORIDA PUBLIC EMPLOYER LABOR 2001-10-11 2'961.00 0311025 FLINN, SHEILA I235.00 0311026 FLORIDA FIRE MARSHALL'S 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 70.00 0311027 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 2001-10-11 390 00 269.44 0311028 FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE 2001-10-11 0311029 FACTICON, INC 50.00 0311030 FACTS ON FILE INC 2001-10-11 2,250.00 2001-10-11 58.45 0311031 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT 0311032 FLORIDA EDACS PS USERS GROUP 2001-10-11 3'735.01 0311033 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH 2001-10-11 150.00 0311034 FIRSTLAB 7.18 0311035 FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE 2001-10-11 109.50 2001-10-11 0311036 FIRST UNION810.07 0311037 FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL 2001-10-11 71207.35 0311038 FLORIDA COPY DATA 2001-10-11 25.00 2001-10-11 0311039 FRENCH, GEORGE 49.00 0311040 FASICK, JEFFREY 2001-10-11 41525.65 2001-10-11 0311041 FAQS PRESS 500.00 0311042FLEMING, TERRY D 2001-10-11 15.95 0311043 GALE GROUP, THE 2001-10-11 1,250.00 2001-10-11 939 0311044 GENE'S AUTO GLASS 49 2001-10-11 115.00 0311045 GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE 0311046 GOOOKNIGHTLAWN EQUIPMENT, INC 2001-10-11 179.35 0311047 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 69.15 0311048 GARCIA, ARTURO L 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2,293.88 0311049 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 2001-10-11 500.00 0311050 GEORGIA RUBBER 1-10-11 774.93 0311051 GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER 2001-10-11 770.00 0311052 GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTE 2001-10-11 6.555.16 0311053 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE 15,608.35 0311054 GORHAM, JONATHAN 2001-10-11 2,849.25 0311055 GENTGEN, JOAN O 2001-10-11 28,25 0311056 GATRELL, SHARON 2001-10-11 127.50 03110572001-10-11 HOLIDAY INN SELECT _ 75.00 -11 0311058 HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH 2001-10-11 792.00 0311059 HYATT ORLANDO 18,450.00 2001-10-11 306.00 OCTOBER 23, 2001 -9- CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0311060 HERITAGE QUEST - 2001-10-11 126.96 0311061 HILL MANUFACTURING 2001-10-11 154.84 10-11 330.00 0311062 HORIZON NURSERY 2001- 30.00 0311063 HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2001-10-11 0311064 HANSEN, SUSAN 2001-10-11 121_80 0311065 HERITAGE MICROFILM 2001-10-11 2,112.00 0311066 HARRIS, GREGORY PHD CVE 2001-10-11 2,829.30 0311067 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE 2001-10-11 8,180.90 0311068 HERMAN, JOEL V 2001-10-11 636.70 0311069 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2001-10-11 175.00 0311070 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC 2001-10-11 11652.42 0311071 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 2001-10-11 108.67 0311072 INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER 2001-10-11 225.00 0311073 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES 2001-10-11 8.29 0311074 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION 2001-10-11 618.75 0311075 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL 2001-10-_l 1,667.50 0311076 INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC 2001-10-11 111.25 0311077 INTERNATIONAL GOLF MAINTENANCE 2001-10-11 19,505.53 0311078 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 2001-10-11 280,335.60 0311079 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 2001-10-11 41,325.00 0311080 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTHY 2001-10-11 21,250.00 0311081 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT 2001-10-11 307.44 0311062 INFOS 2001-10-11 2,898.95 0311083 CARLSON, JOYCE M JOHNSTON 2001-10-11 69.00 0311084 JEFFERSON, CHRISTOPHER A 2001-10-11 51.50 0311085 JACKSON, CARLOS 2001-10-11 84.97 0311086 JONES, ELVIN JR 2001-10-11 51.50 0311087 JAEGER PRODUCTS INC 2001-10-11 21425.00 0311088 J PROSSER ENTERPRISES INC 2001-10-11 11245.00 0311089 KING, JOSEPH J 2001-10-11 61690.00 0311090 K S M ENGINEERING & TESTING 2001-10-11 110.00 0311091 KRUGER CONSTRUCTION CORP 2001-10-11 6,300.00 0311092 K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2001-10-11 131.26 0311093 KNAPP, EUGENE E JR 2001-10-11 500.00 0311094 KRISS, HOLDEN E 2001-10-11 115.13 0311095 KRA-KEL ENTERPRISES INC D/B/A 2001-10-11 31740.00 0311096 KAUFF'S TOWING 2001-10-11 116.94 0311097 KENWARD, DEAN M 2001-10-11 552.00 0311098 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. 2001-10-11 1,399.28 0311099 LEWIS, RUTH A 2001-10-11 44.34 0311100 L B SMITH, INC 2001-10-11 277.12 0311101 LIVE OAK ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2001-10-11 10.00 0311102 LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS 2001-10-11 333.70 0311103 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 2001-10-11 5,877.01 0311104 LOPRESTI, ETTA 2001-10-11 26.66 0311105 LESCO, INC 2001-10-11 1,209.89 0311106 LETTS, DAVID 2001-10-11 4,997.00 0311107 LOWE'S COMPANIES,INC 2001-10-11 126.84 0311108 LANGSTON, HESS, BOLTON,ZNOSKO 2001-10-11 1,052.39 0311109 LUNA, JORGE 2001-10-11 150.50 0311110 LUNA, JUVENAL 2001-10-11 283.50 0311111 LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION 2001-10-11 2,000.00 0311112 LIGHTNING LEASING INC 2001-10-11 1,625.00 0311113 MIKES GARAGE 2001-10-11 185.00 0311114 MILNER INC 2001-10-11 920.00 0311115 MARTIN'S LAMAR UNIFORMS 2001-10-11 63.36 0311116 MADD 2001-10-11 50.00 0311117 MULLER, MINTZ, KORNREICH, 2001-10-11 213.74 0311118 MARTIN COUNTY PETROLEUM 2001-10-11 1,400.95 0311119 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 2001-10-11 178.87 0311120 MARC INDUSTRIES 2001-10-11 26.28 0311121 MGB CONSTRUCTION INC 2001-10-11 1,000.00 0311122 MEZZINA, PATRICIA 2001-10-11 479.00 OCTOBER 23, 2001 - 1 O CHECK NAME NUMBER CHECK DATE 0311123 MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC 0311124 2001-10 1 MARTIN, CRISTI 0311125 MEDTRONIC PHYSIO -CONTROL 0311126 MEDICAL RECORDS SERVICES, IN 0311127 MCGRIFF, BARBARA, R 0311128 MUNNINGS, WANDA 0311129 MATSON, PHILLIP J 0311130 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 0311131 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC 0311132 NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE 0311133 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 0311134 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 0311135 NEOPOST 0311136 NORTHSIDE AGAPE MINISTRIES 0311137 NIKE GOLF 0311138 NATIONAL RESIDENTIAL 0311139 NOWLIN, TIAIRA 0311140 NORTRAX EQUIPMENT CO 0311141 OCALA HILTON/SILVER SPRINGS 0311142 OXMOOR HOUSE 0311143 OFFICE DEPOT, INC 0311144 ORLANDO HILTON/ALTAMONTE SPRNG 0311145 ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO 0311146 OLIVIA DEVONMILLE MEDIATION 0311147 PAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING CO 0311148 PARKS RENTAL INC 0311149 PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC 0311150 PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY 0311151 PETTY CASH 0311152 PETTY CASH 0311153 PETTY CASH 0311154 POSTMASTER 0311155 PUBLIC DEFENDER 0311156 PETRILLA, FRED if PHD 0311157 PORT CONSOLIDATED 0311158 PAGE, LIVINGSTON 0311159 PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 0311160 POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES 0311161 PRESS JOURNAL 0311162 PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES, INC 0311163 PROSPER, JANET C 311164 0POOL OPERATOR, THE 0311165 PESHA, JESSICA 0311166 QUALITY BOOKS, INC 0311167 RECORDED BOOKS, LLC 0311168 R & G SOD FARMS 0311169 RELIABLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE 0311170 RAPP, PAMELA 0311171 REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING 0311172 REAM, CHARLES R 0311173 RASMUSSEN, KARA 0311174 ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET 0311175 REFORMATION CHRISTIAN MINISTRI 0311176 RODRIGUEZ-WELLS, DAVID 0311177 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC 0311178 REXEL SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY 0311179 ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC 0311180 STANDARD & POOR'S 0311181 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO 0311182 SUNRISE FORD TRACTOR & 0311183 SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY 0311184 SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 0311185 SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC 0311186 SEMBLER, CHARLES W 0311187 SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES OCTOBER 23, 2001 - 1 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 C 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10.11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 CHECK AMOUNT 72.60 38.50 20,754.21 23.49 120.00 44.00 159.60 93.95 204.41 34,036.63 115.00 748.33 986.70 486.71 414.72 24,331.00 19.31 68,950.00 99.00 32.91 199.99 850.00 4,207.50 400.00 255.00 187.50 237.06 80.18 126.43 33.39 60.24 272.00 5,663.24 500.00 21,644.33 45.50 25.00 1,242.00 128.00 500.00 28.00 275.00 38.62 553.34 323.95 140.00 118.62 12.00 408.18 150.00 72.10 186.18 500.00 508.00 41.96 538.58 75.60 13,000.00 61.27 71.26 150.00 697.00 430.00 50.85 922.59 CHECK NAME CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE AMOUNT 0311188 SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL 2001-10-11 0311189 SEXTON, HILDY 998.27 2001-10-11 80.00 0311190 SCHLITT, JIM 2001-10-11 0311191 SAFECO, INC 500.00 2001-10-11 4,925.00 0311192 STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES INC 2001-10-11 0311193 SUPERIOR PRODUCTS MFG COMPANY 2001-10-11 2,504.26 0311194 STARCK, DONNA 805.01 2001-10-11 16.36 0311195 SEBASTIAN, CITY OF 2001-10-11 0311196 STEVENS PRINTING 7,904.78' 2001-10-11 15.00 0311197 SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF 2001-10-11 0311198 SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 2001-10-11 1,130.00 0311199 SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 2001-10-11 43.00 0311200 SIMES CONSTRUCTION CO INC 2001-10-11 152,235.00 0311201 SHOWPLACE SIGNATURE HOMES 2001-10-11 500.00 500.00 0311202 SEYMOUR, LINDA 2001-10-11 287.00 0311203 SULPHURIC ACID TRADING CO, INC 2001-10-11 0311204 SUNNYTECH INC- FL 2,28.10 0311205 SLP INVESTMENTS INC/PERKINS 2001-10-11 -11 8866.08 0311206 SILVA JENNIFER 53.00 2001-10-11 180.00 0311207 TITLEIST 2001-10-11 0311208 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL 2001-10-11 672.90 0311209 TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP 2001-10-11 37'273.0 0311210 TESNOW, RONALD L 584.660 2001-10-11 636.70 0311211 TREASURE COAST COUNCIL OF 2001-10-11 20.00 0311212 THOMAS T REELER, PUBLISHER 2001-10-11 43.25 0311213 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 2001-10-11 25.00 0311214 SMITH, TERRY L 2001-10-11 754.58 0311215 TREASURE COAST COURT 2001-10-11 81.00 0311216 TREASURE COAST BUILDERS 2001-10-11 500.00 0311217 T A P SOD 2001-10-11 1,560.00 0311218 SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST 2001-10-11 826.98 0311219 TREASURE COAST COUNCIL OF 2001-10-11 20.00 0311220 THIRD PARTY SOLUTIONS INC 2001-10-11 16.57 0311221 TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL 2001-10-11 26.57 0311222 TOUCHBERRY, KEITH OR KIM 2001-10-11 500.00 0311223 TONNER, MICHAEL MD 2001-10-11 200.00 0311224 TOMMY HILFIGER GOLF 2001-10-11 917.62 0311225 ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT 2001-10-11 563.38 0311226 U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP 2001-10-11 15,648.54 0311227 URGENT CARE WEST 2001-10-11 58.00 0311228 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC 2001-10-11 5,001.92 0311229 UNISTRUT NORTHERN 2001-10-11 225.00 0311230 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 2001-10-11 10.88 0311231 UNIVERSAL LICENSING SERVICE 2001-10-11 80.00 0311232 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2001-10-11 71,806.96 0311233 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2001-10-11 72.54 0311234 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC 2001-10-11 308.14 0311235 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2001-10-11 1,683.74 0311236 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2001-10-11 25.00 0311237 VERO ORTHOPAEDICS 2001-10-11 29.00 0311238 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 2001-10-11 35.00 0311239 VEY, CARRIE 2001-10-11 396.00 0311240 VERO BEARING & BOLT 2001-10-11 154.69 0311241 VICTORIA SECRETS 2001-10-11 284.54 0311242 WAL-MART 2001-10-11 638.07 0311243 WALSH, LYNN 2001-10-11 27.84 0311244 WILD, JOE 2001-10-11 550.44 0311245 WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY 2001-10-11 31.72 0311246 WOODY'S PRINTING 2001-10-11 50.00 0311247 WILLHOFF, PATSY 2001-10-11 130.00 0311248 WATER TREATMENT & CONTROLS CO 2001-10-11 11314.96 0311249 WILLIAMS, BETTY R, RN 2001-10-11 50.00 0311250 WILSON, MARGARET F 2001-10-11 109.04 0311251 WASTE ;MEWS 2001-10-11 39.00 OCTOBER 23, 2001 -12- CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0311252 WUESTHOFF REFERENCE LAB 2001-10-11 300.00 0311253 WASTE MANAGEMENT 2001-10-11 88,173.89 0311254 WALGREEN COMPANY 2001-10-11 11363.20 0311255 W W GRAINGER INC 2001-10-11 568.95 0311256 0311257 YELLOW SPRING INSTRUMENT CO, ZEDEK, KELLY 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 393.20 33.00 0311258 ZITO, MICHAEL C 2001-10-11 23.27 0311259 MILLER, JOSEPH 2001-10-11 420.24 0311260 ABERNATHY, STEVE 2001-10-11 571.00 0311261 DAVIS, RICHARD 2001-10-11 332.80 0311262 WODTKE, RUSSELL 2001-10-11 591.94 0311263 LICARI, LINDA 2001-10-11 391.66 0311264 HICKS, HARRY 2001-10-11 421.90 0311265 BAKER, RON D. 2001-10-11 522.00 0311266 PHIPPS, DAVID 2001-10-11 462.44 0311267 ROYAL, THOMAS 2001-10-11 582.98 0311268 TURNER BUILDERS 2001-10-11 12.86 0311269 TOZZOLO BROTHERS 2001-10-11 38.49 0311270 KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS 2001-10-11 85.87 0311271 BROWN, LEROY 2001-10-11 16.95 0311272 BAVERSTOCK, ROBERT 2001-10-11 14.70 0311273 GARCIA, ARTURO 2001-10-11 19.43 0311274 R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC 2001-10-11 31.58 0311275 MC ALARNEN, MATTHEW J 2001-10-11 33.70 0311276 HEALY, EDWIN J 2001-10-11 11.51 0311277 PETERS, JULIA P 2001-10-11 25.84 0311278 GASKIN, ERIC 2001-10-11 43.52 0311279 MERCEDES HOMES INC 2001-10-11 328.20 0311280 PEIRCE & ASSOC INC 2001-10-11 43.43 0311281 PITTMAN, CATHERINE R 2001-10-11 102.13 0311282 ANDO BUILDING CORP 2001-10-11 35.69 0311283 GALANTO, NANCY A 2001-10-11 1.75 0311284 GHO VERO BEACH INC 2001-10-11 40.92 0311285 GHO VERO BEACH INC 2001-10-11 72.96 0311286 WHEELER, JASON 2001-10-11 82.40 0311287 SHEARD, ALBERTA 2001-10-11 71.64 0311288 MC COY, LAURI L 2001-10-11 28.68 0311289 HINZMAN, FRANK D 2001-10-11 34.92 0311290 KUSER, SUZANNE 2001-10-11 44.87 0311291 YVONNES TRAVEL HOUSE INC 2001-10-11 64.40 0311292 AMERITREND HOMES 2001-10-11 23.48 0311293 ANDERSON, SHERRILL F 2001-10-11 29.77 0311294 PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES INC 2001-10-11 30.44 0311295 SHAFFERS AUTO SERVICE 2001-10-11 37.44 0311296 ROYAL PALM HOMES INC 2001-10-11 26.79 0311297 ZBOROWSKI, JOHN 2001-10-11 8.24 0311298 WARNER, GERALDINE 2001-10-11 29.99 0311299 LURIA IMPROVEMENTS LLC 2001-10-11 44.47 0311300 BLAKESLEE, SHERRY J 2001-10-11 71.55 0311301 BINGS ORIGINAL CHICKEN WINGS 2001-10-11 101.68 0311302 FARNELL, JUDY 2001-10-11 65.46 0311303 SILVIS, JESSIE M 2001-10-11 4.14 0311304 0311305 0311306 0311307 0311308 HUMS, ERLINDA MC FALL, RAYMOND AND TIBBETTS, GUY KAMPUS, ELIZABETH C & D RACING COLLECTIBLES 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 43.63 12.46 16.62 16.66 18.84 0311309 0311310 0311311 0311312 0311313 0311314 KENDRICK, WILLIAM RIGHTON, CHERYL E REED, PHILLIP TOZZOLO BROTHERS MORGAN, PATRICIA MC CALL, DONALD E 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 2001-10-11 33.99 83.07 41.10 27.52 11.60 37.94 OCTOBER 23, 2001 -13- CHECK NAME NUMBER CHECK CHECK DATE AMOUNT 0311315 LUCAS, PAUL 0311316 STRUNK, GLENN A AND 2001-10-11 38.45 0311317 BIEBER HOMES INC 2001-10-11 70.76 0311318 BURGOON BERGER CONST CO 2001-10-11 25.40 0311319 R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC 2001-10-11 68.59 0311320 SUNSHINE PARTY SHOP 2001-10-11 40.83 0311321 HERON CAY 2001-10-11 81.52 0311322 MAYER, DELORIS M 2001-10-11 71.75 0311323 BAUM, GLENN 2001-10-11 74.17 0311324 YOUNG, JANI 2001-10-11 15.49 0311325 FLACH, N W 2001-10-11 32.34 0311326 DERRICO CONSTRUCTIONCORP 2001-10-11 36.15 0311327 SAUBERT, 2001-10-11 336.77 0311328 SCHUMACHER, MARGARET A AND 2001-10-11 MGARET 29.93 0311329 MOONEY, ROBERT 2001-10-11 18.15 0311330 VEA -LE, NANCY 2001-10-11 31.53 0311331 BAER, JOHN F JR 2001-10-11 47.98 0311332 MATARAETIS, MARK AND 2001-10-11 42.33 2001-10-11 0311333 GHO VERO BEACH INC 20.58 0311334 GREGG, DAVID JR 2001-10-11 48.02 0311335 HOOKER, SAM AND 2001-10-11 119.08 0311336 HUDSONTODD E LA R 2001-10-11 17.50 E 2001-10-11 0311337 KREGER, TODD AND 30.91 0311338 SULLENBERGER, LINDA S 2001-10-11 26.48 0311339 BYRNE, SUSAN 2001-10-11 20.16 0311340 MONTGOMERIE, CORINNE 2001-10-11 16.96 0311341 ROCKWELL -SMITH, JOSEPH H 2001-10-11 31.69 0311342 MIRANDA, JOSEPH R 2001-10-11 28.65 0311343 TAYLOR, WILLIE B 2001-10-11 45.67 0311344 PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES INC 2001-10-11 68.52 0311345 UPDIKE, JOHN J 2001-10-11 53.32 0311346 COBUNROBERT H 2001-10-11 33.37 0311347 GAYDOS, PAUL 2001-10-11 66.83 0311348SERAYDARIAN, ELIZABETH 2001-10-11 25 97 0311349 MAYER, JOHN J AND 2001-10-11 38.88 2001-10-11 11.07 0311350 GARCIA, JESUS S AND 0311351 HOLSTEIN, SANDRA S 2001-10-11 24.04 0311352 MC NICOLL, ALEXANDER 2001-10-11 50.60 0311353 HOSMER, BONNIE 2001-10-11 17.51 0311354 VINCENT, GARY 2001-10-11 2.88 0311355 HAMILTON PLACE INC 2001-10-11 33.19 0311356 WEBg, MA2001-10-11 51.08 RTY AND 2001-10-11 0311357 FARRELLY, LAWRENCE P62.93 0311358 COLLINS, 2001-10-11 62.41 KEVIN K 2001-10-11 0311359 STUMP, EUGENE 30.39 0311360 GIL 2001-10-11 MAN, JOSEPH 2001-10-11 62.58 0311361 BAKOS, DANIEL 22.69 0311362 SANCHEZ, JOSE 2001-10-11 20.95 0311363DI TROCCHIO 2001-10-11 1.10 0311364 STUWART, CORDyARIA 2001-10-11 36.88 0311365 ROWLISON 2001-10-11 39.24 MARLA J 2001-10-11 0311366 ROBERTS, REGINA 22.52 2001-10-11 41.72 0311367 JARRIN, A RMANDO G 2001-10-11 0311368 PAGE, AMBER 41.23 0311369JORGENSEN, ERIC 2001-10-11 21.26 2001-10-11 2.22 0311370 FLEMMING, ELLA MAE JONES 2001-10-11 233..0505 2,169,699.09 OCTOBER 23 2001 UA i -14- 7.B. INDIAN RIVER COUNTYECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AND EVEL BISHOP OUNCIL - GLIO TO REPLACE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 11, 2001: To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: - October 1 I, 2001 Subject: NOTICE OF APPOINTMENTS FROM THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN From: Kimberly Massung Executive Aide Sebastian City Clerk, Sally Maio, has informed me that at the regular City of Sebastian Council meeting held Wednesday, October 10, 2001, Council appointed Councilman Ray Coniglio to represent the City of Sebastian on the Indian River County Economic Development Council and Tourist Development Council, replacing Ben Bishop. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted the City of Sebastian's appointment of Councilman Ray Coniglio to the Indian River County Economic Development Council and Tourist Development Council, replacing Ben Bishop. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -1J- 7. C. BID #4005 - ANNUAL BID FOR UNIFORM RENTAL - ARAMARK UNIFORM SER VICES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 10, 2001: DATE: October 10, 2001 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THROUGH: James E. Chandler, County Administrator j Thomas Frame, General Services DirectorUj•�� — FROM: Fran Powell, Purchasing Manager 7!;a-,� xzzze4 SUBJECT: Bid Award: IRC # 4005 Annual Bid for Uniform Rental General Services Department / Purchasing Division BACKGROUND INFORMATION Bid Opening Date: Advertising Dates: Broadcast on DemandStar to Specification Requested by: Replies: BID TABULATION October 3, 2001 at 2:00 P.M. September 17 and 24, 2001 One Hundred Eighteen (1 IS) Vendors notified One (1) Vendors One (1) Vendors SECTION I - COST FOR WEEKLY LAUNDRY SERVICE COST PER WEEK ANNUAL TOTAL EMPLOYEES RECEIVING 11 SETS BLEND COTTON BLEND COTTON 235 Male 2585 sets SHIRT AND $4.25 x52 $51,935.00 PANTS 50 MALE 550 SETS SHIRT AND $6.00 X J 2 $17,160.00 PANTS 13 FEMALE 143 SETS SHIRT AND $4.25 X 52 $ 2,873.00 P,e,NTs 5 FEMALE 55 SETS SHIRT AND $6.00 x52 $ 1,60.00 PANTS 22 MALE (E,YECUTrVE) 242 SETS SHIRT AND $6.00 x 52 $ 6,864.00 PANTS 1 MALE (EXECUTIVE) 11 SETS SHIRT AND $6.00 X 52 $ 312.00 PANTS 1 FEMALE (ExEcuTrvE) 11 SETS SHIRT AND $6.00 x 52 $ 312.00 PANTS EMPLOYEES RECEIVING 9 SETS BLEND COTTON BLEND coTTON 22 male li 198 SETS SHIRT AND ., $ .40 $4.80 x52 S J,889.60 551491.20 p NT OCTOBER 23, 2001 -16- EMPLOYEES RECEIVING 14 SETS 14 Males SHOP TOWELS FLOOR MATS WORK SHIRT WORK SHIRT PA1VTS (MALE ---�_ PANT_ MA SHORTS SHORTS EXECUTIVE SHIRTS EXECUTIVE SHIRTS (FEMALE EXECUTIVE PANTS (ti1ALE) EXECUTIVE PANTS (FEMALE) RECONENIENDATION 196 SETS 1 BUNDLE EACH BLEND Co 170S s PANTS RT D $5.95 $8.40 x 52 100 EA. $7.00 x 52 3' x 4' $2.25 X52 SECTION II — COST TO REPLACE UNIFORM PIECES 65/3 % COTTON BLEND $12.00 $12.00 $14.00 $14.00 $14.00 $14.00 $18.00 $18.00 $20.00 $20.00 Staff recommends awarding this bid as follows: BLEND $ 4,331.60 S_ 3_ 64.00 $ 117.00 100% COTTON $1--- 4.00 $14.00--_ $16.00— $1�— $16.00 $16.00 $18 00 $18.00 $20 00 $20 00 • Award to Aramark Uniform Services, a division of Aramark Uniform & Career Inc. as the sole bidder meeting the specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. This vendor had been providing Indian River County with uniform service since October I, 1995. The original contract was a result of piggybacking the Palm Beach County bid # 91-059. Due to their continued good service, staff received Board approval to renew the contract in its entirely through September 30, 2001. • Establish an Open End Contract for the period October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2003 with the recommended vendor. During the previous budget the combined total for departments with uniform service was approximately $72,000.00. The new contract prices for weekly service reflects a 17% overall savings against the 2000 prices. • Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew this contract for three (3) additional one (1) year periods subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance and the determination that renewal of this annual contract is in the best interest of the County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded Bid 94005 to Aramark Uniform Services, a division of Aramark Uniform & Career Apparel, Inc., as recommended by staff. OCTOBER 23, 2001 BID DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED -17- CO ITO V $6,115.20 7.D. SHERIFF- OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANTS- FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LA W ENFORCEMENT - FY 2001-02 B YRNE STATE AND LOCAL LAWENFORCEMENT GRANTS (SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADMINISTRA TION, PRE VENT II, AND MUL TI -A GENC Y DR UG ENFORCEMENT UNIT VII) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 15, 2001: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 15, 2001 SUBJECT: OFFICE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE GRANTS FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT FY 2001/2002 BYRNE STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird Assistant County Administrator FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS On June 5, 20011 the Board of County Commissioners approved the Application for Funding Assistance from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement for the Multi -Agency Drug Enforcement Unit, the Substance Abuse Council and Prevent grants for the fiscal year 2001/2002. On October 3, 2001, Indian River County received notification of the grant awards from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and a Certificate of Acceptance for each grant, which constitutes official acceptance of the award. These Certificates must be approved and received by the Department within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the award, and prior to the reimbursement of any project expenditures. Also included for approval by the Board are two state -required agreements between the Board of County Commissioners and the Substance Abuse Council of Indian River County for the Substance Abuse Administration Grant XII and the Prevent II Grant. Copies of the approved subgrant applications are available for review in the Commission Office. RECOMDIENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Certification of Acceptance of Subgrant Award for the Multi -Agency Drug Enforcement Unit (M.A.C_E.) Grant in the amount of SS3,128.50; the Substance Abuse Administration Grant XII in the amount of S 14,422.00, and the Prevent II Grant in the amount of S46,6 '15.50, and also the two state required Agreements. OCTOBER 23, 2001 .18- Mil ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the Certification of Acceptance of Subgrant Award for the Multi - Agency Drug Enforcement Unit Grant in the amount of $83,128.50; the Substance Abuse Administration Grant XII in the amount of $14,422; and the Prevent II Grant in the amount of $46,675.50; as well as the two state required Agreements, as recommended by staff. CERTIFICATES OF ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD YT IPPLICATIONS - The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 10, 2001: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney* William G. Collins II, DepunT County Attorney, Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Artornev October 10, 2001 0 "Board Cerrihed, C.rS7, County and Local Governmenr Law MEMORANDUM TO: /Board of County Commissioners FROM: -Lea R. Keller, CLA, Legal Assistant THROUGH: William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney RE: OCTOBER 23, 2001 Annual County Tax Deed Applications -19- Discussion: Charles W. Sembler, Tax Collector, has notified us that there are 109 tax certificates held by Indian River County, which are assessed at $5,000 or more, that are now eligible for tax deed applications. In connection with this process, there are title search fees of $100 per parcel. According to Florida Statutes Section 197.503(2), the County shall make application for tax deed and pay for any fees and costs on property valued over $5,000. Any fees and costs the County pays in connection with this process will be reimbursed, plus interest, when a tax certificate is redeemed. Recommendation: Board approve the payment -of the requested $10,900 to the Tax Collector and authorize the \ Chairman to sign the attached 109 notices of application for tax deed. ON MOTION byCotnmissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the payment of the requested $10,900 to the Tax Collector and authorized the Chairman to sign the notices of application for tax deed, as recommended by staff. 7.F. NEXTEL SOUTH CORP.y INDIAN RI VER COUNTY' CASE NO 01. 40050V—PAINEIL YNCH, UNITED STA TES DISTRICT SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF FLORIDA The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 17, 2001: Paul G. Banget, County Attorney` William G. Collins H. Deputy County Attorney` Michael C. Zito, Assistant County .Attornev "Board Certified, City, County and Local Government Law October 17, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney / L7) I I"t I t Re: Nextel South Corp. v. Indian River County, Case No. 01-14005Civ-Paine1ynch, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida OCTOBER 23,2001 p'.v xf� s.i 4 i '� —20— Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners not appeal the United States District Court's order and judgment on Count I of the above -referenced case, authorize Michael Burke, Esq., and Johnson, Anselmo, Murdoch, Burke & George, P.A., the County's outside counsel in the above -referenced case, to enter into a stipulation or similar instrument in a form acceptable to the County's outside counsel, with counsel for Nextel South Corp., whereby the County agrees not to appeal the District Court's order and judgment on Count I of the above -referenced case in exchange for Nextel's agreement not to seek attorney fees and damages against the County, that the County not propose that Nextel relocate the subject proposed tower, and that the Board direct County staff to comply with the District Court's Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I of the Verified Complaint and any ensuing judgment. Discussion: Attached is a copy of the United States District Court's Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count I of the Verified Complaint. Inasmuch as Nextel is willing to forgo its claims for attorney fees and damages, and the County's case on appeal would not be strong, it is recommended that the Board direct County staff to comply with the District Court order and any ensuing judgment, and that the County not appeal the District Court order and judgment in exchange for Nextel's waiver of its claims for attorney fees and damages. According to Mr. Burke, Nextel may be willing to relocate the subject proposed tower on the same property if the County proposes it in writing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously directed County staff to comply with the District Court order and judgment in exchange for Nextel's waiver of its claims for attorney fees and damages, as recommended by staff. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -21- i i .i 7.G. VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWA TER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I - WORK ORDER NO. 10 - CARTER ASSOCIATES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 16, 2001: TO: James Chandler, County Administrator October 16, 2001 THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: W. Keith McCully, P.E., Esq., Stormwater Engineer W/% SUBJECT: Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements, Phase I — Work Order No. 10 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On August 4, 1998, at their regular meeting, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the Chairman to execute the Professional Civil Services Master Agreement, between Carter Associates, Inc. and Indian River County, for the Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements, Phase 1. Attached Work Order No. 10 is necessary to secure technical assistance for an FDEP 319(h) Grant, and to provide additional technical and bidding assistance. The lump sum cost for this work is $2,300.00. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to approve Work Order No. 10. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Work Order No. 10 to the Professional Civil Services Agreement with Carter Associates, Inc., dated August 4, 1998, for Vero Lake Estates Stormwater Improvements, Phase I, as recommended by staff. OCTOBER 23, 2001 WORK ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -22- FI 5 r) 66t + Ui1.J 1 ®r a� � R IMP NO. 9 - CARTER ASSOCIATES OJECT - WORK ORD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 16, 2001: TO: James Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: W. Keith McCully, P.E., Esq., Stormwater Engineer SUBJECT: Roseland Stormwater Improvements Project — Work Order No. 9 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS DATE: October 16, 2001 On August 4, 1998, at their regular meeting, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the Chairman to execute the Professional Civil Services Master Agreement, between Carter Associates, Inc. and Indian River County, for the Roseland Stormwater Improvements Project. Attached Work Order No. 9 is necessary to secure technical assistance in the preparation of an FDEP 319(h) Grant application to help fund the project. The lump sum cost for this work is S 1,440.00. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chairman to approve Work Order No. 9. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Work Order No. 9 to the Professional Civil Services Agreement with Carter Associates, Inc. dated August 4, 1998, as recommended by staff. J WORK ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OCTOBER 23, 2001 OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -23- VISOR OF ELECTIONS KAY CLEM - PURCHASE OF VOTING SYSTEM (AVC EDGE ELECTRON VOTING SYSTE x ON SALES TAX FUNDS) The Board reviewed memoranda of October 17, 2001 and October 19, 2001: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney' `Board Certified, City, County and Local Government Law William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney* Michael C. Zito, assistant County Attorney October 17, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney< 16 ; 1 Re: Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. Enclosed for your review is a copy of the proposed agreement with Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc., bearing my comments. It is anticipated that the final version will be available before the Board's October 23, 2001, meeting. Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney* William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney' Michael C. Zito, assistant CountyAttorney *Board Certified, City, County and Local Government Law October 17, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney/ <6 1 Re: Certification to the Florida Department of State, Division of Elections; Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners find that there is but a single source, to wit: Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc., from which suitable voting equipment OCTOBER 23, 2001, -24- may be obtained, and authorize the chairman to execute the proposed Certification or one substantially similar thereto pursuant to Section 101.293, Florida Statutes (2001). Discussion: Attached is a proposed Certification which, pursuant to Section 101.293, Florida Statutes (2001), is required if a majority of the Board of County Commissioners finds that there is but a single source from which suitable voting equipment may be obtained. As proposed in the Certification, the situation and conditions requiring an exception to the competitive sealed bidding and competitive sealed proposal requirements of Section 101.293, Florida Statutes (2001), include the following: 1. The Indian River County Supervisor of Elections ("Supervisor") investigated and evaluated electronic voting systems that could serve the particular needs of Indian River County in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential Election. 2. Following public presentations by five touch -screen vendors, the Supervisor determined that there is but a single source from which suitable voting equipment can be obtained. 3. The single source, to wit: Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc., manufactures the AVC Edge Electronic Voting System, which, according to the Supervisor, is the only electronic voting system certified by the State of Florida that would satisfy the voting needs of Indian River County. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird Assistant County Administrator FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager DATE: October 19, 2001 SUBJECT: Sequoia Voting Machines Purchase - Funding Alternatives Background As a result of the 2000 General Election, the State Legislature has created additional requirements for voting equipment in all Florida counties. In accordance with these new requirements, the Supervisor of Elections has selected a vendor for new touch screen voting equipment. On September 18, 2001, the Board of Commissioners approved the selection of Sequoia Voting Systems and provided authorization for negotiations with said vendor. These negotiations have resulted in an all inclusive total cost of $1,999,950 for Indian River County. Along with the new requirements for voting equipment throughout the State, the legislature approved a Voting Systems Assistance funding package. This funding assistance package, however, falls far short of providing all the funding necessary to implement the new requirements resulting in another unfunded mandate from the State. Indian River County has received an allocation of $142,500 for voting system assistance. This places the cost of the unfunded mandate at $1,857,450 for the County. In short, this additional financial burden could not come at a worse time. The attacks on September 11 have sent an already struggling economy into certain recession. What is uncertain now is just how severe—and how long—this recession will be. OCTOBER 23,2001 B1( d -25- The State of Florida has projected that the current economic troubles will adversely affect revenues b about $1.3 billion. Budget cuts will have to be made to adjust for the shortfall. The State has served notice to local governments that this will mean decreased shared revenues and grant funds. y Legislative Session has been scheduled for October 22 through November 1 to address these issue Local governments will not have an indication of the amount of the financial burden that will be passed d on from the State until after this session. In the next few months, staff will develop a plan for dealing with the shortfall in all of the County budgets (operating funds such as General Fund and M.S.T.U, as well as capital funds like Optional Sales Tax). Optional Sales Tax funds remain the best option for the purchase of the voting systems. However, this revenue source fluctuates—like most County revenues—along with changes in the economy. doubt about whether the actual revenues for the upcoming year will meet the amount This casts budgeted. Additionally, all contingency funds for FY 2000/01 have been utilized. Therefore, there is very the room for any increases in allocation. This leaves us with the task of re-evaluating all projects in the five-year program for Optional Sales Tax. In order to provide the funds necessary for this purchase, other projects may need to be deferred—or deleted --from the five-year program. Staff has developed some alternatives for reallocating funds for the voting systems as presented below. Please find the detailed worksheets for each alternative attached. Option 1 - This option moves the construction of a new Fire Station 5 at Grand Harbor from the 2001/02 fiscal year to 2002/03. A total of $1,149,500 has been allocated for this project. Moving this expense out one year addresses the cash flow situation that would be created by adding the cost of the voting machines. Additionally, $146,448 is available from the original $1.7 million allocated for 4`h Street and U.S.1 Intersection Improvements. Financial responsibility for the project was assumed by the Florida Department of Transportation. Subsequently, $1,425,000 was redirected to the North County Pool and $153,552 was allocated for water and sewer hookups at the Hobart Park soccer fields. An additional $561,502 would be needed from contingency funds to generate the total $1,857,450 Indian River County contribution. This contingency will be spread across two years to minimize the impact on the current year. Option 2 - This option removes the South County Park Phase II and Swimming Pool from the five Year plan. Moving this project will provide $1,700,000. The remaining $146,448 from the 4`h Street and U.S.1 Intersection brings the total to $1,846,448. Reserves for contingency will provide the additional $11,002 required. Fire Station 5 construction would be moved out one year in this option as well to provide for positive cash flow during the 2001/2002 fiscal year. Option 3 - This option removes $500,000 allocated for recreation land for multi-purpose fields. The remaining $ 46well. 8 for the 4" Street and U.S.1 Intersection would be utilized in this ves for alternative as well. Resercontingency would provide $1,211,002 over three years. Of this total, $2111002 would come from fiscal year 2001/02, with $500,000 each from fiscal years 2002/03 and 2003/04. Fire Station 5 construction would be moved out one year in this option as well to provide for positiv year. e cash flow during the 2001/2002 fiscal One important item to note is that this decision is possibly a temporary solution. It is still too early to determine the severity of the recession and the severity of the revenue cuts from the State at this time. Once staff has received sufficient information from the State and has a better indication of how sharply local revenues will drop, a comprehensive plan for addressing the revenue shortfall will be presented. In the next few months, staff will present this plan to the Board of Commissioners for consideration. At that time, it may be necessaryto review the Optional Sales Tax Program and reallocate funding to projects with the highest priority, which will likely result in certain projects being cut from the program. In addition to the Optional Sales necessary spending cutbacks in Tax budget, the operating budgets of the County will be reviewed for order to meet the revenue shortfall. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -26- Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners review the options presented above and make a recommendation to staff for funding the voting system. Attachments • Current Sales Tax Program Summary of Revenues and Expenses (@ 10/18/01) • Option 1 - Sales Tax Program Summary • Option 2 - Sales Tax Program Summary • Option 3 - Sales Tax Program Summary • Voting Machine Costs - Revenue Analysis • Redistribution of $1,700,000 Funding Supervisor of Elections Kay Clem thanked the Board for its vote to allow her to negotiate a contract with Sequoia Voting Systems and noted that she is pleased to report that County Administrator Jim Chandler and Assistant County Administrator Joe Baird had been able to reduce the cost of the contract to $1,999,950, which is a reduction of %2 million dollars. She asked the Board to authorize sending the Certification to the Division of Elections. County Attorney Paul Bangel clarified that the Certification is in the backup and is a separate matter from the contract. Commissioner Adams stated that she had not had a chance to read the contract and was still concerned about not going to bid on this matter. Commissioner Stanbridge questioned whether Sequoia is stating that they will not honor a unit price, and Mrs. Clem responded that the company is offering a better price for installation than for a unit price. Commissioner Adams believed a better price could be obtained through the bid process. Mrs. Clem noted that she had arranged 5 public presentations of the equipment and vendors and everyone had been invited. Chairman Ginn stated that on September 18`x', 2001, the Board had voted to allow the negotiations to go forward. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -27- Gf ► `� r:� r . f Indian River County Approved Date Administrator Legal Budget �Q Department Risk Mana ement Supervisor of Elections Kay Clem thanked the Board for its vote to allow her to negotiate a contract with Sequoia Voting Systems and noted that she is pleased to report that County Administrator Jim Chandler and Assistant County Administrator Joe Baird had been able to reduce the cost of the contract to $1,999,950, which is a reduction of %2 million dollars. She asked the Board to authorize sending the Certification to the Division of Elections. County Attorney Paul Bangel clarified that the Certification is in the backup and is a separate matter from the contract. Commissioner Adams stated that she had not had a chance to read the contract and was still concerned about not going to bid on this matter. Commissioner Stanbridge questioned whether Sequoia is stating that they will not honor a unit price, and Mrs. Clem responded that the company is offering a better price for installation than for a unit price. Commissioner Adams believed a better price could be obtained through the bid process. Mrs. Clem noted that she had arranged 5 public presentations of the equipment and vendors and everyone had been invited. Chairman Ginn stated that on September 18`x', 2001, the Board had voted to allow the negotiations to go forward. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -27- Gf ► `� r:� r . f Commissioner Macht commented that any failure is on the part of the State which should have made a statewide purchase and gotten a uniform price. County Administrator Chandler noted that there is another item for consideration which is the manner of funding. An item will be brought to the Board dealing with reprioritizing sales tax funds as well as gas tax revenues at a later time. He did not have sufficient information at this time to make a recommendation and the Legislative meeting later this week will also possibly affect our capital or operating budgets, or both. Commissioner Adams felt that Option 3 appears to have the least impact on the contingency fund. Chairman Ginn questioned whether the general fund was involved, and Mr. Chandler responded that these funds are all within the optional sales tax programs, not the operating budget. Chainnan Ginn questioned the unencumbered balance of the contingency fund at this time, and Assistant County Administrator Joe Baird responded that there is no unencumbered balance. There is a cash balance of $30,000 but last year that fund was eliminated in the first 2 months of the budget year. Chairman Ginn favored Option 2 as it only requires $11,000 out of contingency. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Adams opposed) approved the contract with Sequoia Voting System for the purchase of the AVC Edge Electronic Voting System, as recommended. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -28- Oft ft S �� :�� {�l� �i.,iCl ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Adams opposed) found that there is but a single source, to -wit: Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc. from which suitable voting equipment may be obtained, and authorized the Chairman to execute the proposed Certification pursuant to Section 101.293, Florida Statutes (2001), as recommended by staff. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board, by a 4-1 vote (Chairman Ginn opposed) approved Option 3 funding as set forth in staff's recommendation. CONTRACT AND CERTIFICATION ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE OCTOBER 23, 2001 CLERK TO THE BOARD -29- •i� [ i U t ( ([(�� 1 1 4..� ...i ARING - RED_ISTRICTING PROP 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 October 22, 2001: Supervisor of Elections Indian River County, Florida MEMORANDUM TO: Indian River County Commissioners FROM: Kay Clem IC/ RE: Redistricting proposals DATE: October 22, 2001 Attached are summaries of the redistricting proposals we have drawn for your review. After our last public hearing, it was suggested that we change the color coding on the districts so that all District 1 proposals were the same color and all District 2 the same color, etc. We have produced that change and have removed the street name assignments except for major corridors and boundary streets. We have also included a brief summary description of the districts along with the total variance percentage of each district. Again, we only changed colors and removed some of the street names. No changes have been made in district boundary lines from the set of maps you were given previously. OCTOBER 23, 2001 �� pf Pt $j y -30- Supervisor of Elections Kay Clem then presented the following Summary Sheet of the Proposed Plans: Summary Sheet of Proposed Plans Plan 1 2.12% Total Variance Beach in one district All of Sebastian in one district (only plan with Sebastian in one — rest are split) South County split All of west county in one district Plan 2 2.00% Total Variance Beach split in three districts Sebastian mostly in one district South east part of county not split West County split on SR 60 Plan 3 Scrapped — pitted two school board members together Plan 4 2.86% Total Variance Beach split in two districts Sebastian split on Easy Street South County split in three West County split on SR 60 Plan 5 1.42% Total Variance Beach mostly in one district — Split at Orchid town limits Sebastian split on CR 512 South County mostly one district West County split on SR 60 Plan 6 3.13% Total Variance Beach all one district Sebastian split on CR 512 South County all one district West County split on SR 60 Plan 7 2.82% Total Variance Beach split in two districts Sebastian split on Barber, then CR 512 South County all one district West County split on SR 60 Grand Harbor part of "beach" district Current County Commission Districts are plus/minus 42.31% Total Variance Current School Board Districts are plus/minus 37.58% Total Variance OCTOBER 23, 2001 t,ar, e) � r,, Ltt t t,. �•� � �_7 i_.i `7 tit -31- The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding this matter. Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, President of the Barrier Island Coalition and North Beach Association, commended everyone involved on their efforts and their non-political approach to this excellent job. He believed that Map No. 4 makes the most sense and that Map No. 7 is an excellent secondary plan. He asked the Board to pay close attention to the state redistricting process as everyone is deeply concerned about this. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, that the Board approve Plan Proposal No. 4. Commissioner Macht questioned whether thought could be given to balancing populations as to growth rates, and Chairman Ginn advised that the statutes prohibit that method of districting. However, if there is an imbalance, the districts can be changed in odd numbered years. County Attorney Bangel noted that the Constitution says, with regard to population, "as nearly equal as practicable" while the Statutes say "as possible" Chairman Ginn noted that the School Board will vote on their choice on November 13, 2001. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -32- ria st £i^9a.- bti.> E.� THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the Motion passed unanimously (approved Plan Proposal No. 4). OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- Plan Proposal 4 DISH j P11, Sum(P0010001) 0 CC7 �CC2 r� 22,222 22,867 _I CC3 22,798 CC4 CC5 Water i;ti 22,480 22,603 _—___. 0 i (CLERK'S NOTE: SEE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 18, 2001 FOR AUTHORIZATION OF AMENDMENT TO THESE MINUTES) ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, on December 18, 2001 the Board unanimously approved the amendment of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 23, 2001 to enter upon the minutes of such meeting the boundary descriptions of county commissioner districts corresponding to the Plan 4 map approved by the Board on October 23, 2001. Legal description of County Commission Board member residence district number 1 and School Board member residence district number 1 shall be all the territory within the following described boundaries: From a point of beginning at the intersection of the North boundary line of Indian River County with the centerline of the navigation channel of the Indian River Lagoon (existing Florida Intracoastal navigation channel right-of-way); thence run Southeasterly along said centerline of the Intracoastal Waterway channel to the intersection with the Northeasterly projection of the centerline of Fellsmere Boulevard (County Road 512 - Eastbound); thence, run Southwesterly on said projection of said centerline of Fellsmere Boulevard (County Road 512 -Eastbound) to the intersection with centerline of Riverside Drive (Old U.S. Highway No. 1); thence, run Northerly along the centerline of said Riverside Drive to the intersection with the Easterly projection of the South right-of-way of Coolidge Street; thence, run Southwesterly along the South right-of-way of Coolidge Street (same being the North line of Blocks 4 and 5 of Edgewater park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 23 Public Records of Indian River County, Florida) to the East right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railroad; OCTOBER 23, 2001 �` ; � v 4f� —33— A i s L � � thence, continue Southwesterly across the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of- way and Old Dixie Highway right-of-way to the Eastern terminus of the centerline of Taft (First) Street; thence, continue Southwesterly on the centerline of Taft Street to the intersection with the centerline of High Street; thence, run Southeasterly along the centerline of High Street to the intersection with the centerline of County Road 512 (Eastbound); thence, run Southwesterly along the centerline of County Road 512 (Eastbound) to the North-South one-quarter section line of Section 6, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; thence, run South on said North-South one-quarter section line of said Section 6 and the North-South one-quarter section line of Section 7, all in Township 31 South, Range 39 East, to the South line of said Section 7; thence, run West on the South line of said Section 7 (same being the North line of Section 18, Township 31 South, Range 39 East) to the intersection with the centerline of South Easy Street; thence, run Southerly along the centerline of South Easy Street to the intersection with the centerline of South Fleming Street; thence run Westerly along the centerline of South Fleming Street to the intersection with the centerline of the Harbor Waterway right-of-way; thence, run Southwesterly along the centerline of the Harbor Waterway right-of- way to its intersection with the centerline of the Collier Waterway; thence, run Southerly along the centerline of Collier Waterway to its intersection with the South line of Section 13, Township 31 South, Range 38 East; thence, run West along the South line of said Section 13 (and along the alignment of Englar Drive) to the intersection with the centerline of George Street (a/k/a Landsdowne Drive); thence, run South and Southwesterly along the centerline of George Street (a/k/a Landsdowne Drive) to its intersection with the centerline of Cheltenham Street; thence, run South along the centerline of Cheltenham Street to its intersection with the centerline of Periwinkle Drive; OCTOBER 23, 2001 , -33- B thence, continuing across Periwinkle Drive, run Southwesterly along the centerline of Crystal Mist Avenue to its intersection with the West line of Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 38 East; thence, run South along the West line of said Section 25 to West one-quarter corner of said Section 25; thence, run East along the South line of the North one-half of said Section 25 (and along the South line of Unit 11 of Sebastian Highlands Subdivision, and along the South city limits of the City of Sebastian) to the Southeast corner of the Southwest one-quarter of Northeast one-quarter of said Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 38 East; thence, run South along the West line of the Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one-quarter of said Section 25 (and along the city limit line of Sebastian) to the Northwest corner of South one hundred feet of the North one-half of Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one-quarter of said Section 25; thence, run East along the North line of the South one hundred feet of said North one-half of Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one-quarter, (and along South limit of City of Sebastian) to the East line of said Section 25 (same being the West line of Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 39 East); thence, run North along the East line of said Section 25 (same being the West line of said Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 39 East), and along the Sebastian city limit line, to the Southwest corner of the North one-half of Northwest one-quarter of said Section 30; thence, run East along the South line of North one-half of the Northwest one- quarter of said Section 30 (and along the Sebastian city limit line) to the Southeast corner of the North one-half of Northwest one-quarter of said Section 30; thence, run South along the West line of the South one-half of Northeast one- quarter of said Section 30 (and along Power Line Road — 70`h Avenue) to the Southwest corner of the Northeast one-quarter of said Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; thence, run East along the South line of the Northeast one-quarter of said Section 30 (and along the South line of Sebastian Highlands Subdivision, and the Sebastian city limit line) to its intersection with the centerline of 66`h Avenue along the East line of said Section 30; thence, run South on the centerline of 66`h Avenue to its intersection the centerline of North Winter Beach Road — 69 h Street; OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- C 2 0 €'��' thence, run West on the centerline of 69th Street to its intersection with the West , line of Section 6, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, and range line between Range 38 East and Range 39 East, thence, run South along said range line (and along the West right-of-way of the Indian River Farms Water Control District Range Line Canal) to its intersection with the centerline projection of North Gifford Road — 45th Street, thence, run East along the centerline of North Gifford Road — 45th Street to its intersection with the centerline of 66" Avenue; thence, run South on the centerline of 66th Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of "Barber Avenue" — 37th Street; thence, run West on the centerline of "Barber Avenue" — 37th Street to its intersection with the West line of Section 30, Township 32 South, Range 37 East, and range line between Range 38 East and Range 39 East; thence, run South along said range line, and along the West right-of-way of the Indian River Farms Water Control District's Range Line Canal (and along the Eastern right-of-way of 74th Avenue alignment) to its intersection with the centerline of 16th Street; thence, run West along the centerline of 16th Street to its intersection with the centerline of 82" Avenue; thence; run North on the centerline of 82nd Avenue to its intersection with the centerline of State Road 60; thence, run West along the centerline of State Road 60 to the intersection with the West line of Indian River County on the West line of Township 32 South, Range 35 East; thence, run North along the West boundary of Indian River County on the West line of Township 32 South to the South line of Section 31, Township 31, South Range 35 East; thence, run West along the South line of Section 31, Township 31 South, Range 35 East (and along the Indian River County line) to the Southwest corner of said Section 31; thence, run North along the West line or Township 31 South, Range 35 East to the k Northwest corner of Section 6, Township 31 South, Range 35 East, same being the Northwest corner of Indian River County; OCTOBER 23, 2001 1,210 FIG 049 -33- D thence, run East along the North line of Indian River County, across the North lines of Township 31 South through Ranges 35, 36, 37 and 38 East to the point where said line intersects the thread of the South fork of the St. Sebastian River; thence, continue along the North boundary of Indian River 'County, run Northeasterly along the thread of the South fork of the Sebastian River to the main stream of the St. Sebastian River; t thence, run Easterly along the thread of the St. Sebastian River (and along the Indian River County line) to its confluence with the Indian River Lagoon; thence, run East along the North boundary of Indian River County within the Indian River Lagoon to its intersection with the centerline of the Florida Intracoastal Waterway channel and point of beginning. Legal description of County Commission Board member residing district number 3 and t, School Board member residence district number 2 shall be all the territory within the following described boundaries: From a point of beginning at the intersection of the Southerly extension of the centerline of 58d' Avenue (Kings Highway) and the south line of Indian River County (near the Southeast corner of Section 32, Township 33 South, Range 39 East) run West on the South county line across the South line of Township 33 South, Range 39, n 37 and 36, East to the Southwest corner of said Township 33 SouthRange 36 East, and the Southwest corner of Indian River County; , Thence, run North on the East line of Township 33 South, Range 36 East (and along the West boundary of Indian River County) to the Southeast corner of Township 32 South, Range 35 East; Thence, run West on the South line of said Township 32 South, Range 35 East (and along the county line) to the Southwest corner thereof, Thence, run North along the West line of Township 32 South, Range 35 East (and along the West line of Indian River County) to the intersection with the centerline of State Road 60: Thence, run Easterly along the centerline of State Road 60 across Township 32 South, Range 35 East and across Township 33 South, Range 36, 37, and 38 East to the intersection with the centerline of 82nd Avenue (Ranch Road) located along the West line of Section 1, Township 33 South Range 38 East; , OCTOBER 23, 2001 r -33- E Dal Thence, run South of the centerline of 82"d Avenue (Ranch Road) to the intersection with the centerline of 16`h Street; Thence, run East along the centerline of 16th Street to the East line of Section 1, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, and the range line between Ranges 38 and 39 East; Thence, run North along said range line, and along the West right-of-way of the Indian River Farms Water Control District's Range Line Canal (and along the Eastern right-of-way of 74th Avenue alignment) to the intersection with the Westerly extension of the centerline of 37th Street (Barber Avenue); Thence, run East on the centerline of 37th Street (Barber Avenue) to the centerline of 66th Avenue (Lateral "A" Road); Thence, run North on the centerline of 66th Avenue (Lateral "A" Road) to the intersection with the South right-of-way of 41" Street (South Gifford Road); Thence, run East on the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41St Street) to the intersection with the centerline of Kings Highway (58th Avenue); Thence, run South on the centerline of Kings Highway (58th Avenue), and along the West line of Section 28, Township 32 South, Range 39 East to the Southwest corner of the Northwest one-quarter of the Southwest one- quarter of said Section 28,- Thence, 8; Thence, run East along the South Line of the Northwest one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter on said Section 28 to the Southeast corner thereof (said point being the Northwest corner of the City limits of the City of Vero Beach); Thence, continue East along the South Line of the North one-half of the South one- half of Section 28, Township 32 South, Range 39 East (and along the North City limit of Vero Beach) to the Southwest corner of the West 10.58 acres of the East 20.58 acres of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 28; Thence, following the North limits of the City of Vero Beach through the following eight courses, run North on the West Line of said West 10.58 acres of East 20.58 acres of said Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one- quarter of Section 28 to the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41st Street); OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- F i UPG05I Thence, run East on South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41St Street) to the East Line of said West 10.58 acres of East 20.58 acres of said Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one-quarter of Section 28; Thence, run South on said East Line to the Southeast corner of the West 10.58 acres of East 20.58 acres of Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one- quarter of Section 28, Township 32 South, Range 39 East; Thence, run East on the North Line of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 28, and on the North Line of the Southwest one-quarter or the Southwest one-quarter of Section 27, Township 32 South, Range 39 East to the West Line of the East one-quarter of said Southwest one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Section 27; Thence, run South on the West Line of the East one-quarter of said Southwest one- quarter of Southwest one-quarter of said Section 27 to a point 200 feet South of the North Line of the Southeast one-quarter of Southwest one- quarter of Southwest one-quarter of said Section 27; Thence, run East parallel to the North Line of the Southeast one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter and the North Line of the Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one- quarter of Section 27, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, to the centerline of said Southeast one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Section 27; Thence run North along the centerline of the East one-half of the Southwest one- quarter of said Section 27 to the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41St Street); Thence, East along the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41St Street) to the intersection with the West right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railway; OCTOBER 23, 2001 tDI/ € E). 0 -33-G Thence, leaving the City limits of the City of Vero Beach, continue East along the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41" Street) to the present Eastern Terminus of said South Gifford Road (415` Street) on the Easterly right-of-way of Indian River Boulevard, as shown on said right-of-way maps of Indian River Boulevard; Thence, continue East from the Eastern Terminus of South Gifford Road (41" Street), as shown on Indian River Boulevard rights-of-way map, along the North Line of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, to the intersection with the Census Block Line between Census Blocks 2025 and 2033 (lying East of Indian River Boulevard) as shown on Sheet 30 of 38 of Census Block Map identified as "P.L. 94-171 County Block Map (Census 2000)", prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau; said Census Block Line reportedly established along the Eastern edge of an old citrus grove lying within said Northeast one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Section 25; Thence, . meander Southerly on said block line (along the Eastern edge of old citrus grove and along Western edge of a mosquito impoundment) to the intersection with an outfall drainage ditch to the Indian River near the Southeast corner of said Northeast one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Section 25; Thence, run East of said Census Block Line along the centerline of outfall drainage ditch generally located along the North Line of the Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East to its intersection with the West Line of Government Lot 4, of said Section 25 (and City limit line of the City of Vero Beach); Thence, run South (on the City limit line of Vero Beach) along the West Line of Government Lot 4 of said Section 25 and along the East one-quarter of Section 36, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, to the intersection with the centerline of Indian River Boulevard. Thence, leaving the City limits of Vero Beach run South on the centerline of Indian River Boulevard to the intersection with the South right-of-way of the main canal of the Indian River Farms Water Control District. Thence, run Westerly along the South right-of-way of said main canal to the intersection with the centerline of 20t" Avenue. OCTOBER 239 2001 -33- H R tt Thence, run South, on the centerline of 20th Avenue to the intersection with the North right-of-way of 14th Street (and South City limits of the City of Vero Beach); Thence, West along the North right-of-way of 14th Street (and along the South limits of the City of Vero Beach) to a point 200 feet Easterly of the East Line of Wright Place Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 5, page 6, Public Record of St. Lucie County, Florida (now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida); Thence, continuing along the Southerly limits of the City of Vero Beach through the following six courses run South 30 feet to the North Line of Tract 6, Section 11, Township 33 South, Range 39 East (as shown on the plat of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, Recorded in Plat book 2, page 25, Public Record of St. Lucie County, now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida); Thence, run West on the North Line of said Tract 6 a distance of 200 feet to the Northwest corner of said Tract 6 (same being the Northeast corner of Tract 5 of said Indian River Farms Company Subdivision); Thence, run South on the East Line of said Tract 5 a distance of 400 feet; Thence, run West on a line parallel to the North Line of said Tract 5 to the West Line of the East ten acres of said Tract 5; Thence, run North along the West Line of said East ten acres of Tract 5, a distance of 400 feet to the Northwest corner of said East ten acres of Tract 5; Thence, run North to the Southwest corner of said Wright Place Subdivision on the North right-of-way of 14th Street; Thence, run West on the North right-of-way of 14th Street (along the South limits of the City of Vero Beach) to the intersection with the centerline of 27"' Avenue (Emerson Avenue), Thence, run South along the centerline on 27"' Avenue (Emerson Avenue) to the intersection with the centerline of 8th Street (Glendale Road); Thence, run West along the centerline of 8th Street (Glendale Road) to the intersection with the centerline of 43`d Avenue (Clemons Avenue); Thence, run South on the centerline of 43`d Avenue (Clemons Avenue) to the intersection of the centerline of 1St Street S.W. (R.D. Carter Road); OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- I BK 1 1''1 PG 054 Thence, run West on the centerline of 1't Street SW (R.D. Carter Road) to the intersection with the centerline of 58th Avenue (Kings Highway). Thence, run South on the centerline and extension of the centerline of 58th Avenue to the South County line and Point of Beginning. Legal description of County Commission Board member residence district number 4 and School Board member residence district number 3 shall be all the territory within the following described boundaries: From a point of beginning at the intersection of the Southerly extension of the centerline of 581h Avenue (Kings Highway) and the South line of Indian River County (near the Southwest corner of Section 33, Township 33 South, Range 39 East) run North along the centerline of 58th Avenue (Kings Highway) to the intersection with the centerline of 1st Street, SW (R.D. Carter Road); Thence, run East on the centerline of 1st Street, SW (R.D. Carter Road) to the intersection with the centerline of 43`d Avenue (Clemons Avenue); Thence, run North on the centerline of 43`d Avenue to the intersection with the centerline of 8"' Street (Glendale Road), Thence, run East on the centerline of 8' Street (Glendale Road) to the intersection with the centerline of 27th Avenue (Emerson Avenue); Thence, run North along the centerline of 27th Avenue ( Emerson Avenue) to a point thirty-five feet North of the South line of the Northwest one-quarter of the Northwest one-quarter of Section 10, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, said point being on the North right-of-way line of 14th Street; Thence, run East along the North right-of-way line of 10h Street (and South limits of the City of Vero Beach) to the Southwest corner of Block 3 of Wright Place Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 6, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, (now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida); Thence, run South to the Northwest cornea- of the East ten acres of Tract 5, Section 11, Township 33 South, Range 39 East (as shown on the plat of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida); Thence, along the south limits of the City of Vero Beach through the following five courses, run South along the West line of East ten acres of said Tract 5, a distance of 400 feet; OCTOBER 239 2001 -33- 1 Thence, run East along a line parallel to the North line of said Tract 5 to the East line of said Tract 5; Thence, run North along the East line of said Tract 5 to the Northeast corner of said Tract 5 (same being the Northwest corner of Tract 6); Thence, run East along the North line of said Tract 6, a distance of 200 feet; Thence, run North, a distance of 30 feet to a point on the North right-of-way of 14t" Street; Thence, run East along the North right-of-way of 14"' Street (and South limits of the City of Vero Beach) to the East line of Section 11, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, Thence, run South along said section line (and along the city limit line of Vero Beach) to the South line of the North one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East; Thence, run East along the South line of the said North one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 12 (and along the city limit line of Vero Beach) to a point lying 303.53 feet West of the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway (said right-of-wa_y being eighty feet in width); Thence, along the south limits of the City of Vero Beach through the following five courses, run Southeasterly parallel to said West right-of-way of Old Dixie, a distance of 327.50 feet; Thence, run East parallel to the said South line of North one. -half of Southwest quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 12, a distance of 103.75 feet; Thence, run Southeasterly parallel to the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway, a distance of 22.89 feet; Thence, run East parallel to said South line of North one-half of Southwest quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 12, a distance of 200 feet to the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway; Thence, run Northwesterly along the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway to the South line of the North one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 12; OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- K ELa 0 • Thence. run East along the South line of the North one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, (and along city limit line of Vero Beach) to the East line of said southwest quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 12; Thence, run North along the East line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter and the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 12 (and along the city limit line of Vero Beach) across the right-of-way line of the Florida East Coast Railway to a point, which is 350 feet South of the North line of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East; Thence, continuing Easterly along the South limits of the City of Vero Beach, run East and parallel, and 350 feet south of the North line of said Section 12, a distance of 887.5 feet; Thence South, a distance of five feet; Thence East on a line parallel to and 355 feet South of the North line of said Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East to the intersection with the centerline of U.S. Highway No. 1; Thence, run Southerly along the centerline of U.S.Highway No. 1 to its intersection with the South line of Indian River County on the south line of Section 31, Township 33 South, Range 40 East - Thence, run West on the South line of Indian River County along the South line of said Section 31 and the South line of Sections 36, 35, 34 and 33 in Township 33 South, Range 39 East to the intersection with Southerly extension of the centerline of 58`x' Avenue (Kings Highway) and point of beginning. Legal description of County Commission Board member residence district number 5 and School Board member residence district number 4 shall be all the territory within the following described boundaries: From a point of beginning at the intersection of the centerline of U.S. Highway Number 1 and the South Line of Indian River County said point being on the South Line of the Southeast one-quarter of the Section 31, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, run East on the South Line of Indian River County, along the South Line of Township 33 South, Range 40 East, and the Easterly extension thereof to the East limits of the State of Florida, Thence, run Northwesterly along the East boundary of the State of Florida and Indian River County to a point of intersection with the Easterly projection of the North Line of Government Lot 1, Section 29, Township 32 South, Range 40 East; OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- L Thence, run West along the extended North Line of said Government Lot 1 and along the North Line of Government Lot 1 of said Section 29 and 30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East to the East Line of the Town of Indian River Shores, Thence, meandering Southerly along the common limits of the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores through the following five courses, run Southerly to a point on the South Line of State Tract 25, said point lying 1915.00 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Tract 25 (said Tract being part of the South boundary of Indian River Shore as set forth in Chapter 57-1415, Special Acts of 1957; Thence, run Westwardly along the said South boundary of Tract 25, as hereon set forth, to the Southwest comer of said Tract 25; Thence, run Southeasterly to the Northeast corner of State Tract 18,- Thence, 8; Thence, run South along the East boundary of said Tract 18 (as set forth in Chapter 57-1415, Special Acts of 1957) to the South Line of the North one-half of Section 30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East; Thence, run West along the South Line of the North one-half of said Section 30 to a point on the West Line of said Section 30, said point being the Southwest corner of the City limits of the Town of Indian River Shores; Thence, continue West along the South Line on the North one-half of Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East (and along the North limits of the City of Vero Beach) to the Northwest corner of Government Lot 3 of said Section 25; Thence, run South (on the City limit line of Vero Beach) along the West Line of Government Lots 3 and 4 of said Section 25 and along the East one- quarter of Section 36, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, to the intersection with the centerline of Indian River Boulevard. Thence, leaving the City limits of Vero Beach run South on the centerline of Indian River Boulevard to the intersection with the South right-of-wav of the main canal of the Indian River Farms Water Control District. Thence, run Westerly along the South right-of-way of said main canal to the intersection with the centerline of 200' Avenue. Thence, run South, on the centerline of 20th Avenue to the intersection with the North right-of-way of 14th Street (and South City limits of the City of Vero Beach); OCTOBER 23, 2001 Thence, run East along the North right-of-way of 14`" Street (and along the South limits of the City of Vero Beach) to the East line of Section 11, Township 33 South, Range 39 East; Thence, run South along said section line (and along the city limit line of Vero Beach) to the South line of the North one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East; Thence, nun East along the South line of the said North one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 12 (and along the city limit line of Vero Beach) to a point lying 303.53 feet West of the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway (said right-of-way being eighty feet in width); Thence,. along the south limits of the City of Vero Beach through the following five courses, run Southeasterly parallel to said West right-of-way of Old Dixie, a distance of 327.50 feet; Thence, run East parallel to the said South line of North one-half of Southwest quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 12, a distance of 103.75 feet; Thence, run Southeasterly parallel to the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway, a distance of 22.89 feet; Thence, run East parallel to said South line of North one-half of Southwest quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 12, a distance of 200 feet to the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway; Thence, run Northwesterly along the West right-of-way of Old Dixie Highway to the South line of the North one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 12; Thence, run East along the South line of the North one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, (and along city limit line of Vero Beach) to the East line of said southwest quarter of Northwest quarter of Section 12; Thence, run North along the East line of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter and the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 12 (and along the city limit line of Vero Beach) across the right-of-way line of the Florida East Coast Railway to a point, which is 350 feet South of the North line of Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East; OCTOBER 23, 2001 $r� + 9 ! DG it 5 -33- N Thence, continuing Easterly along the South limits of the City of Vero Beach, run East and parallel, and 350 feet south on to the North line of said Section 12, a distance of 887.5 feet; Thence South, a distance of five feet; Thence East on a line parallel to and 355 feet South of the North line of said Section 12, Township 33 South, Range 39 East to the .intersection with the centerline of U.S. Highway No. 1; Thence, run Southerly along the centerline of U.S.Highway No. 1 to its intersection with the South line of Indian River County on the south line of Section 31, Township 33 South, Range 40 East and Point of Beginning. Legal description of County Commission Board member residence district number 2 and School Board member residence district number 5 shall be all the territory within the following described boundaries: From a point of beginning at the intersection of the North boundary line of Indian River County with the centerline of the navigation channel of the Indian River Lagoon (existing Florida Intracoastal navigation channel right-of-way); Thence run Southeasterly along said centerline of the Intracoastal Waterway channel to the intersection with the Northeasterly projection of the centerline of Fellsmere Boulevard (County Road 512 - Eastbound); Thence, run Southwesterly on said projection of said centerline of Fellsmere Boulevard (County Road 512 -Eastbound) to the intersection with centerline of Riverside Drive (Old U.S. Highway No. 1); Thence, run Northerly along the centerline of said Riverside Drive to the intersection with the Easterly projection of the South right-of-way of Coolidge Street; Thence, run Southwesterly along the South right-of-way of Coolidge Street (same being the North line of Blocks 4 and 5 of Edgewater park Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 23 Public Records of Indian River County, Florida) to the East right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railroad; Thence, continue Southwesterly across the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of- way and Old Dixie Highway right-of-way to the Eastern terminus of the centerline of Taft (First) Street; Thence, continue Southwesterly on the centerline of Taft Street to the intersection with the centerline of High Street; OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33-0 Bill I OL 0 b U b Thence, run Southeasterly along the centerline of High Street to the intersection with the centerline of County Road 512 (Eastbound); Thence, run Southwesterly along the centerline of County Road 512 (Eastbound) to the North-South one-quarter section line of Section 6, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Thence, run South on said North-South one-quarter section line of said Section 6 and the North-South one-quarter section line of Section 7, all in Township 31 South, Range 39 East, to the South line of said Section 7; Thence, run West on the South line of said Section 7 (same being the North line of Section 18, Township 31 South, Range 39 East) to the intersection with the centerline of South Easy Street; Thence, run Southerly along the centerline of South Easy Street to the intersection with the centerline of South Fleming Street; Thence, run Westerly along the centerline of South Fleming Street to the intersection with the centerline of the Harbor Waterway right-of-way; Thence, run Southwesterly along the centerline of the Harbor Waterway right-of- way to its intersection with the centerline of the Collier Waterway; Thence, run Southerly along the centerline of Collier Waterway to its intersection with the South line of Section 13, Township 31 South, Range 38 East; Thence, run West along the South line of said Section 13 (and along the alignment of Englar Drive) to the intersection with the centerline of George Street (a/k/a Landsdowne Drive); Thence, run South and Southwesterly along the centerline of George Street (a/k/a Landsdowne Drive) to its intersection with the centerline of Cheltenham Street; Thence, run South along the centerline of Cheltenham Street to its intersection with the centerline of Periwinkle Drive; Thence, continuing across Periwinkle Drive, run Southwesterly along the centerline of Crystal Mist Avenue to its intersection with the West line of Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 38 East; Thence, run South along the West line of said Section 25 to West one-quarter corner of said Section 25; OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- P Et i L 6 u 0 6 1 Thence, run East along the South line of the North one-half of said Section 25 (and along the South line of Unit 11 of Sebastian Highlands Subdivision, and along the South city limits of the City of Sebastian) to the Southeast comer of the Southwest one-quarter of Northeast one-quarter of said Section 25, Township 31 South, Range 38 East; Thence, run South along the West line of the Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one-quarter of said Section 25 (and along the city limit line of Sebastian) to the Northwest corner of South one hundred feet of the North one-half of Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one-quarter of said Section 25; Thence, run East along the North line of the South one hundred feet of said North one-half of Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one-quarter, (and along South limit of City of Sebastian) to the East line of said Section 25 (same being the West line of Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 39 East); Thence, run North along the East line of said Section 25 (same being the West line of said Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 39 East), and along the Sebastian city limit line, to the Southwest comer of the North one-half of Northwest one-quarter of said Section 30; Thence, run East along the South line of North one-half of the Northwest one- quarter of said Section 30 (and along the Sebastian city limit line) to the Southeast corner of the North one-half of Northwest one-quarter of said Section 30; Thence, run South along the West line of the South one-half of Northeast one- quarter of said Section 30 (and along Power Line Road — 70th Avenue) to the Southwest corner of the Northeast one-quarter of said Section 30, Township 31 South, Range 39 East; Thence, run East along the South line of the Northeast one-quarter of said Section 30 (and along the South line of Sebastian Highlands Subdivision, and the Sebastian city limit line) to its intersection with the centerline of 66`h Avenue along the East line of said Section 30; Thence, run South on the centerline of 66th Avenue to its intersection the centerline of North Winter Beach Road — 69`' Street; Thence, run West on the centerline of 69th Street to its intersection with the West line of Section 6, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, and range line between Range 38 East and Range 39 East, OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- Q hL Thence, run South along said range line (and along the West right-of-way of the Indian River Farms Water Control District Range Line Canal) to its intersection with the centerline projection of North Gifford Road — 45th Street, Thence, run East along the centerline of North Gifford Road — 45th Street to its intersection with the centerline of 66th Avenue; Thence, run South on the centerline of 66t11 Avenue to its intersection with the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road — 41St Street; Thence, run East on the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41St Street) to the intersection with the centerline of Kings Highway (58th Avenue); Thence, run South on the centerline of Kings Highway (58th Avenue), and along the West line of Section 28, Township 32 South, Range 39 East to the Southwest comer of the Northwest one-quarter of the Southwest one- quarter of said Section 28, Thence, run East along the South Line of the Northwest one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter on said Section 28 to the Southeast corner thereof (said point being the Northwest corner of the City limits of the City of Vero Beach); Thence, continue East along the South Line of the North one-half of the South one- half of Section 28, Township 32 South, Range 39 East (and along the North City limit of Vero Beach) to the Southwest corner of the West 10.58 acres of the East 20.58 acres of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 28; Thence, following the North limits of the City of Vero Beach through the following eight courses, run North on the West Line of said West 10.58 acres of East 20.58 acres of said Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one- quarter of Section 28 to the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41st Street); Thence, run East on South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41St Street) to the East Line of said West 10.58 acres of East 20.58 acres of said Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one-quarter of Section 28; Thence, run South on said East Line to the Southeast corner of the West 10.58 acres of East 20.58 acres of Northeast one-quarter of Southeast one- quarter of Section 28, Township 32 South, Range 39 East; OCTOBER 23, 2001 Oil � U,t em -33- R Thence, run East on the North Line of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of said Section 28, and on the North Line of the Southwest one-quarter or the Southwest one-quarter of Section 27, Township 32 South, Range 39 East to the West Line of the East one-quarter of said Southwest one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Section 27; Thence, run South on the West Line of the East one-quarter of said Southwest one- quarter of Southwest one-quarter of said Section 27 to a point 200 feet South of the North Line of the Southeast one-quarter of Southwest one- quarter of Southwest one-quarter of said Section 27; Thence, run East parallel to the North Line of the Southeast one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter and the North Line of the Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one- quarter of Section 27, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, to the centerline of said Southeast one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Section 27; Thence, run North along the centerline of the East one-half of the Southwest one- quarter of said Section 27 to the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41 St Street); Thence, run West on the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41St Street) to the intersection with the West right-of-way of the Florida East Coast Railway; Thence, leaving the City limits of the City of Vero Beach, continue East along the South right-of-way of South Gifford Road (41St Street) to the present Eastern Terminus of said South Gifford Road (41St Street) on the Easterly right-of-way of Indian River Boulevard, as shown on said right-of-way maps of Indian River Boulevard; Thence, continue East from the Eastern Terminus of South Gifford Road (41" Street), as shown on Indian River Boulevard rights-of-way map, along the North Line of the Northeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, to the intersection with the Census Block Line between Census Blocks 2025 and 2033 (lying East of Indian River Boulevard) as shown on Sheet 30 of 38 of Census Block Map identified as "P.L. 94-171 County Block Map (Census 2000)" prepared by U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau; said Census Block Line reportedly established along the Eastern edge of an old citrus grove lying within said Northeast one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Section 25; OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- S K L0PG0 6� L F Thence, meander Southerly on said block line (along the Eastern edge of old citrus grove and along Western edge of a mosquito impoundment) to the intersection with an outfall drainage ditch to the Indian River near the Southeast corner of said Northeast one-quarter of Southwest one-quarter of Section 25; Thence, run East on said Census Block Line along the centerline of outfall drainage ditch, generally located along the North Line of the Southwest one-quarter of the Southeast one-quarter of Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, to its intersection with the West Line of Government Lot 4, of said Section 25 (and City limit line of the City of Vero Beach); Thence, run North along the West Lines of Government Lots 3 and 4 (and along the City limits of Vero Beach) to the Northwest corner of said Government Lot 3, of said Section 25; Thence, run East along the South Line of the North one-half of Section 25, Township 32 South, Range 39 East (along the North limits of the City of Vero Beach) to the West one-quarter corner of Section 30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East, said point being the Southwest corner of the Town of Indian River Shores city limits; Thence, continuing along the common limits of the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores through the following six courses, run East along the South Line of the North one-half of said Section 30 to the East Boundary of State Tract 18 (said line being part of the South boundary of Indian River Shores as set forth in Chapter 57-1415, Special Acts of 1957); Thence, run North along the East Boundary of said Tract 18 to the Northeast corner of said Tract 18; Thence, run Northwesterly to the Southwest corner of State Tract 25 (as described and set forth in Chapter 57-1415, Special Acts of 1957); Thence, run Easterly along the South Boundary of State Tract 25 to a point which lies 1915 East of the Southwest comer of said Tract 28; Thence, meandering Northerly along the common limits of the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores to the North Line of Government Lot 1 of Section 30, Township 32 South, Range 40 East; OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- T Thence, run East on the North Line of Government Lot 1 in Section 30 and Government Lot 1 in Section 29, all in Township 32 South, Range 40 East, and the Easterly projection thereof to the East Boundary of the State of Florida; Thence, run Northwesterly along the East Boundary of the State of Florida (and Indian River County) to the Northeast comer of Indian River County; Thence, run Westerly along the North Line of Indian River County through the centerline of the Sebastian Inlet, to the intersection with the centerline of Florida Inland Navigation Channel and Point of Beginning. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -33- u 9,A,2, PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION 2001406 PROVIDING FOR CLOSING, ABANDONMENT VACATION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF ENTIRE 15TH STREET SW RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE GROVENOR ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND RESERVING A DRAINAGE, UTILITY, PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE ABANDONED RIGHT-OF-WAY (THE COLONY PDL 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 October 8, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator IVISVDN HEAD C Community DDevetopmentNrrecr�r� THROUGH: Stan Bolin, AICP Planning Director, Current Development FROM: John McCoy, AICD Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: October 8, 2001 SUBJECT: Request For Abandonment of the Entire lith Street S.W. Right -of -Way Within the Grovenor Estates Subdivision It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 23, 2001. OCTOBER 23, 2001 006 7 -34- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: A petition has been submitted to abandon the entire 15th Street S. W. right-of-way within the Grovenor Estates subdivision. This right-of--wav segment is located along the southern boundary of Grovenor Estates, and abuts a portion of the site approved to be developed as "The Colony" PD (planned development). The subject right-of-way segment is a 35' wide public "half -street that is unpaved but improved (graded) as a 14' to 16'+ wide travelway (see attachment #2). This right-of-way abandonment request was initiated by The Colony developer as a result of an approval condition for The Colony PD project. Because the subject portion of 15' Street S.W. does not provide the sole direct access to any adjacent Grovenor Estates lots, does not provide access to The Colony development, and is substandard in width, it is a candidate for abandonment. In accordance with county procedures, adjacent property owners were notified of, and participated in, the Technical Review Committee review of this request. The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider granting this abandonment request. ANALYSIS: The referenced segment of 15`' Street S.W. right-of-way was created as a county -maintained half - street in 1957 via the Grovenor Estates subdivision plat. Currently, no residences are accessed by this segment of 1511' Street S.W. Therefore, no existing development uses this right -of --way access. During review and approval of The Colony project, the County accepted and approved The Colony's project design. That design does not connect to or use the subject segment of 15th Street S.W., and instead provides a golf course along 15" Street S.W. Because the Colony developer neither needs nor proposes use of the adjacent subject right-of-way, there is no need to complete the half -street for vehicular access. Also, it should be noted that the owners of adjacent Grovenor Estates lots would benefit from the abandonment by the resulting increase in lot sizes and buildable area, since all abandoned right-of-way area would revert to adjacent Grovenor Estates lots. In reviewing any right-of-way abandonment request, it is important to consider the characteristics and function of the road to be abandoned. In this case, the subject segment of 15'° Street S.W. has a low volume of local traffic and merely serves as a "loop road" connection between the south ends of 32"d Avenue S.W. and 33`11 Avenue S.W. (see attachment #2). Thus, the subject road segment serves as an occasional turnaround for vehicles that travel to the southern ends of 32nd Avenue S.W. and 33`11 Avenue S.W. Proposed Access Drainage and Utility Easements Per guidelines established by the Board, this petition has been reviewed by all county divisions and Utility providers having potential interest in the right-of-way. All departments and utility providers have recommended approval, although several departments have recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions are that the county retain an access, drainage, utility, and pedestrian easement over the entire abandoned segment. By retaining such an easement, the 15t° Street S.W. travelway can be maintained as is nd , in lieu of creating dead end T -turnarounds at the south ends of 32 Avenue S.W. and 33`11 Avenue S.W. Also, establishing the easement will retain pedestrian access for Grovenor Estates residents and allow for any future drainage and utility improvements. Such an arrangement is similar to what was approved for a Greenbriar Estates roadway segment that was located adjacent to the Pointe West PD and abandoned, with easement retained, on February 1, 2000. The" Public Works Department has agreed to maintain the travelway within the proposed easement, as necessary. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -35- 1J Jr V Plh r tj4) Conclusion The subject right-of-way is not part of the roadway system as noted on the County's thoroughfare plan and is not needed for the thoroughfare plan system. The abandonment would not eliminate access to any properties. Additionally, the abandonment would presen e the existing traffic pattern, while giving the adjacent property owners greater use of their land. Retaining an access, drainage, and utilities easement over the right-of-way segment will preserve benefits for Grovenor Estates residents and the county. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the attached abandonment resolution for legal form and sufficiency. Therefore, in staffs opinion the proposed abandonment is warranted. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners abandon its rights to the subject 15' Street S.W. right-of-way segment and authorize the Chairman to execute the attached abandonment resolution, with the following condition: 1. That over the segment of right-of-way to be abandoned an access, drainage, pedestrian and utility easement be retained for public use. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Sketch of Right -of -Way 4. Resolution Planning Director Stan Boling stated that the street will remain an easement and the ability to turn around there will be kept. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, stated that the design for the project has already been approved. The applicant is simply complying with requirements of the County's ordinance. OCTOBER 23, 2001 'W? # -36- Commissioner Adams questioned whether the property owners would be prevented from putting up a fence, and Director Boling stated that the easement is being retained. No improvements can be put in that 35 -foot strip. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard with regard to this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 2001-106 providing for the closing, abandonment, vacation and discontinuance of the entire 15`x' Street SW right-of-way within the Grovenor Estates Subdivision and reserving a drainage, utility, pedestrian and vehicular access easement over the abandoned right-of-way (The Colony PD). RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 106 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, VACATION AND DISCONTINUANCE OF THE ENTIRE 15°i STREET S.W. RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE GROVENOR ESTATES SUBDIVISION AND RESERVING A DRAINAGE, UTILITY, PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS EASEMENT OVER THE ABANDONED RIGHT- OF-WAY SAID LAND LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, on March 21, 2001 Indian River County received a duly executed and documented petition, requesting that the County close, vacate, abandon, discontinue, renounce and disclaim any right, title and interest of the County and the public in and to the entire 15"' Street S.W. right-of-way within the Grovenor Estates subdivision, said lands lying in Indian River County, Florida; and OCTOBER 23, 2001 -37- tei 070 L RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 106 WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes 336.10, notice of a public hearing to consider said petition was duly published; and WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all those interested and present, the board finds that the subject right-of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any given private property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: 1. All right, title and interest of the County and the public in and to that certain right-of-way being known more particularly as: (See Exhibit "A" for legal description.) Lying in Indian River County, Florida. is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, discontinued, renounced and disclaimed, except for a drainage, utility, vehicular access and pedestrian easement, which are hereby reserved over the entire abandoned right-of-way. ?.The closing, vacation, abandomnent, discontinuance and disclaimer of this public right-of- way is in the best interests of the public. 3. Notice of the adopting of this resolution shall be forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of adoption hereof; and 4. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution together with the proofs of publication required by Florida Statutes 336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River County without undue delay. 5. The abandoned right-of-way shall be returned in its entirety to the abutting lots to the north within the Grovenor Estates subdivision The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ti ppi n , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Macht and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye OCTOBER 23, 2001 -38- Ui% c'_ 0 I'D G' 0 7 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 106 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of October ,2001. AtteMJBarton, Clerk By Deputy Clerk PAIRICIA M. RIDGELY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Caroline D. Ginn Chairman I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this day, before me, and officer duly authorized in this State and County to take acknowledgments, personally appeared CAROLINE D. GINN, and PATRICIA M. RIDGELY as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Deputy Clerk, respectively, to me known to be the persons described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and they acknowledged before me that they executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 23rdday of Artnher , A.D., 2001. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY: William G. Collins, Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS BY:rL1vCiRobert ' M. Keating, P, Di ec Community Develont D isi Notary Pub ':��'+y''•.. Kimberly E. Massung MY COMMISSION N CC855436 EXPIRES %4 July 15, 2003 BONDED TMRU TROY FAIN INSURANC[ IIJC 1104 OCTOBER 23, 2001 n4;c{ �)j L/Vi C... 3•' o EJ W f 2 1 -39- N SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION NOT A FIELD BOUNDARY SURVEY SHEET I OF 2 I' - 100 ABANDONMENT DESCRIPTION 15TH STREET SOUTHWEST ALSO KNOWN AS SHAMROCK LANE BEING THE SOUTH 35.00 FEET OF GROVENOR ESTATES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF. AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5. PAGE 19. OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 23265 SQUARE FEET OR 0.534 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. GROVENOR ESTATES UNIT 2A PLATBOOK 5. PAGE 19 0 _ p 0 0 p r1 - Q Y LOT IO i LL LOT 7 LOT 10 3 LOT 7 wo ZLL Lu 3 > WO Q= >r D n <S O 00 D _ m LOT 9 �� LOT 8 LOT 9 n�LOT 8 p BLOCK 37 o BLOCK 38 BLOCK 38 o BLOCK 39 O p O O Z N S 89432550E 664 80 AREA OF ABANDONMENT SHEET I OF I 00206ADE GCD CERTRCATE: I heebceriTf hat the ey represeted hereo dated this 12th day aSEPT 2001 c true and correct to the DAV I D DONE S best of my knowledge and beief, and meets the ML Techrcd Standards set forth by the Honda Bawd of Professional Sr Veyors PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR d MAPPER 7s. �rs"t to Section 472027. Florida Statutes. !� _ NDTE NOT VND U%ZSS SEn MTH -AN seas® SURVEYORS SE� TFa DAVID M JONES S-RVEY BOT2345 14TH AVENUE PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR "D y FRaEN5 (561)567-9875 VERO BEACHFL 32960 RGR ATlvE NO SE R04 OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA NO. 3909 PU LC FCCORM Htis BEEN MCC BY OCTOBER 23, 2001 -40- vBV G V 7 3 AFFIDAVIT OF E VISION PROCESS l ULTURAI,IN DFCI F An 2001-033 I W N G CHAPTER OF TH] REGULATIONS (LDRS ; ;(UPDATE SUBDIVISION LURAL AREAS) - Legislativ 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 October 15, 2001: Qs] FROM: DATE: James Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Di 13 - Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director October 15, 2001 for SUBJECT: Request to Amend Sections 911.06(4) and 913.06(5)(A)2 of the Land Development Regulations to Update Affidavit of Exemption Allowances in Agricultural Areas (Staff -Initiated) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of October 23, 2001. OCTOBER 23, 2001 8 r � l !1 R y s -41- BACKGROUND On March 20, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted various amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, including an amendment to policies governing creation of residential parcels in agriculturally designated areas. DCA (Department of Community Affairs) found the amendments in compliance on June 1, 2001. One of those amendments made agricultural PDs (planned developments) optional and allowed creation of residential parcels in agricultural areas via the platting process and the affidavit of exemption process. This allowance "gave back" the affidavit of exemption option, which was available prior to 1990, to agricultural land owners. Both the platting and affidavit of exemption process are provided for in LDR Chapter 913 (the subdivision ordinance). Based upon the recent comprehensive plan changes, staff has processed several affidavits of exemption for parcels in agriculturally designated areas. Two LDR sections, however, currently reflect the previous comprehensive plan policies and need to be updated to reflect current policies. To that end, staff has initiated the attached LDR amendment proposal. At its August 30, 2001 meeting, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered the proposed amendment and voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the amendment with a minor wording change (see attachment 41). That wording change has been incorporated into the proposed amendment (see attachment #3). Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered the proposed changes at its September 27, 2001 meeting and voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the Board adopt the amendment (see attachment # 2). The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider the proposed changes and is to adopt, adopt with modifications, or not adopt the proposed amendment. ANALYSIS Under current comprehensive plan policies, parcels may be created in agriculturally designated areas by one-time parcel splits, agricultural PDs, or under the provisions of LDR Chapter 913 via subdivision plats or affidavits of exemption. Affidavits of exemption allow creation of up to fifty (50) parcels that have at least 200,000 sq. ft. of area without platting and without provision of formal paved roads, drainage, and utility improvements. Affidavits of exemption, however, are not exempt from right-of-way, environmental, tree protection, and other non -infrastructure requirements. The affidavit of exemption process requires staff review and approval of survey and legal documents, and usually takes 6-12 weeks. Currently, there are two LDR sections that do not allow affidavits of exemption in agriculturally designated areas, contrary to the allowance under current comprehensive plan policies. Staff has drafted amendments to those LDR sections to specifically allow affidavits of exemption in agricultural areas in accordance with current comprehensive plan policies and subject to LDR Chapter 913 requirements. In essence, the proposed amendment will re -institute an allowance that was available to agricultural landowners prior to 1990. Effects on Affordable Housing Costs Per Policy 1.7 of the Housing Element of Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, staff is required to prepare a Financial Impact Statement to assess the anticipated impact of a proposed regulation on the cost of housing. The proposed amendment will simplify the review and approval process for creation of large parcels (5 acres or larger) that can be developed for single- family homes. Therefore, the amendment has a potential to tower costs associated with creating large "single-family" parcels. Thus, there should be no increase in housing costs as a result of this amendment. - OCTOBER 23, 2001 -42- RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment ordinance allowing affidavits of exemption in agricultural areas subject to LDR Chapter 913 requirements. Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the proposal and noted that this is a correction to make all 3 options available for the creation of residential parcels in agriculturally designated areas: (1) agricultural PD process; (2) platting process; or (3) affidavit of exemption process. Commissioner Stanbridge questioned whether the affidavit of exemption process involving less than 50 lots requires that the lots have to be 5 acres each, and Director Boling responded that is correct. That process has been in the Code for many years and is among the options which were available for us before 1990. However, that process does not require roads, sewers and drainage. Commissioner Adams noted that some of these developments use the drainage easements as roads, which are unpaved. Director Boling added that road right-of-way must be dedicated. Each 5 -acre parcel would have to have access either through a county or private right-of-way. Chairman Ginn questioned whether this is currently allowed in the urban service area and noted that, if so, it needs to be changed and she cannot support this. Commissioner Stanbridge agreed that she also could not support this. Director Boling added that there are no public hearing requirements, as with one-time lot splits. Right-of-way requirements could be applied but there are no formal platting costs and no paving requirements for the project itself. Several agricultural PDs were developed last year and staff came away from those processes with the understanding that clustering was the only problem concerning the Board. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -43. K 2 ''' Commissioner Adams believed the affidavit of exemption process would result in 5 acre parcels with no roads. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding this matter. Rene Renzi, 340 Waverly Place, hated to see the Board approve an ordinance where something this far-reaching only needs staff approval. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously denied the portion of the proposed Ordinance dealing with the Affidavit of Exemption and adopted the revised Ordinance 2001-033 regarding use of the subdivision process for dividing agriculturally designated properties; amending the following chapter of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); Chapter 911, Zoning. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -44- t - ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 033 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING USE OF THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS FOR DIVIDING AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED PROPERTIES, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 911, ZONING; 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. Zoning chapter 911 section 911.06(4) is hereby amended as follows: "(4) Uses. Uses in the agricultural and rural districts are classified as permitted uses, administrative permit uses and special exception uses. Site plan review shall be required for the construction, alteration and use of all structures and building except single-family dwellings and permitted agricultural uses. No residential development in agriculturally designated areas shall occur unless such development is approved as a planned development and meets the requirements of section 911.14; the following activities shall be exempt from this requirement: (a) Construction of a single-family dwelling unit on a tract or parcel existing on October 1, 1990. (b) Division of a tract or parcel into two (2) lots, each meeting or exceeding the minimum lot size of the agricultural zoning district and meeting the lot split criteria of section 913.06(3); any subsequent split of such property shall require approval -as in accordance with subdivision ordinance Chapter 913 requirements or planned development requirements (c) Division of a tract into parcels of at least forty (40) acres in size. Division of a tract via a subdivision plat approved in accordance with subdivision ordinance Chapter 913 requirements. 2. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of the Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 3. Codification The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -45- nn P6 L178 ORDINANCE NO, 2001- 033 4. 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. 5. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 10th day of October 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 23rd day of October 2001, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner StanbridgP seconded by Commissioner Adams., and adopted by the following vote: The ordinance was adopted by a vote of: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin Commissioner Fran B. Adams The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this of October , 2001. Attest: J.K. Barton, Clerk Deputy Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By: Caroline D. Ginn Chairman Filed with the Florida Department of State on the day of 2001. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM William G. Collins Deputy County Attorney 23rd day APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Community Development Coding: Words in sifilee ihFaugh are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. OCTOBER 23, 2001 B1 � -46- 9.AA PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2001-031 REGARDING LANDSCAPE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT STANDARDS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); CHAPTER 926, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REGULATIONS (REPLACING LANDSCAPING WIREN - Legislati PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 17, 2001: TO: James Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development 6 FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: September 17, 2001 SUBJECT: Request to Amend Section 926.12(3) of the Land Development Regulations to Modify Replacement Landscaping Requirements (Initiated by Ben Bishop) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of October 23, 2001. BACKGROUND Ben Bishop of Environmental Landscape Group has filed an application to amend (reduce) the Chapter 926 standards for the size of replacement landscaping. Mr. Bishop's application was prompted by code enforcement action on the Indian River Square (Target) S.R. 60 site, where OCTOBER 23, 2001 A 9 ;a'yr� c V U -47- dead and failing landscaping (including approximately 30 canopy trees) is required to be replaced. Under the current section 926.12(3) standards, the size of replacement canopy trees on project sites like Indian River Square, that have been completed for more than 36 months, is 18 feet tall, versus the original at -planting height of 10'-12' feet. According to code enforcement records, the 926.12(3) standards for shrubs, understorv, and canopy trees have been enforced on numerous other project sites, although most of those sites did not involve as many canopy trees as the Indian River Square case. As an alternative to requiring compliance with the existing 926.12(3) requirements, the Code Enforcement Board, at the Indian River Square owner's request, has granted the owner sufficient time to propose and have processed an amendment to reduce the replacement size standards. Thus, the manner in which the Indian River Square site is partially re -landscaped will depend upon whether or not the replacement standards are amended. Although the proposed amendment was prompted by a specific case, it would have a county- wide effect, if adopted. Therefore, the requested amendment must be considered in the context of all projects within the unincorporated area of the county that require landscaping (site plan and planned development projects). At its August 30, 2001 meeting, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) discussed the issue at length, and voted 6-0 to amend the current standards based on staff research presented at the meeting (see attachment #4). The PSAC amendment proposal differs from Mr. Bishop's original request and staff's original recommendation. In essence, the PSAC proposal retains a strong incentive for adequately maintaining landscaping on project sites while slightly modifying the requirements to bring them more in line with the results of staff research and the City of Vero Beach's replacement requirements for "established" trees. Based on the PSAC meeting discussion, staff has changed its original recommendation and supports the PSAC proposal. Support for that proposal is reflected in staff's recommendation at the end of this report. The PSAC/Staff proposal is contained in attachment #6. At its September 27, 2001 meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission considered Mr. Bishop's proposal and the PSAC/staff proposal. The PZC voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the Board adopt the PSAC/staff proposal (see attachment #5). ANALYSIS • History of Existing Standards In the spring of 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) initiated changes to "beef - up" the then -existing Chapter 926 landscaping standards. Changes proposed by the PZC and staff in the summer of 1997 included: increases in at -planting minimum tree sizes, road frontage landscaping requirements, and certain buffer types; more stringent review of landscaping material quality; and standards for replacement landscaping (Section 926.12(3)). At its June 26, 1997 meeting, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered those proposed changes and recommended that a PSAC/PZC joint workshop be held on landscape issues. Subsequently, at its July 26, 1997 meeting, the PZC recommended that a joint workshop be held with the Board of County Commissioners and that the Board invoke the pending ordinance doctrine to enact the proposed amendments as an interim measure. On July 22, 1997, the Board invoked the pending ordinance doctrine which enacted the proposed ordinance on an interim basis. That pending ordinance included the Section 926.12(3) replacement standards that are in effect today. The Board also scheduled ajoint public workshop to discuss landscaping issues and to form the basis of a "final" ordinance. That workshop was held on September 8, 1997, and was well attended. At that workshop, the Board reviewed various landscaping issues and each section of the pending ordinance. including the replacement OCTOBER 23, 2001";1 .48. MW I landscaping standards. The Board then directed staff to make changes to some of the ordinance sections, but not the landscape replacement standards. The Board also established a policy that public road projects include roadside and median landscaping. The result was a decision to increase private sector and public sector landscaping requirements. Staff then drafted a post - workshop final ordinance. The post -workshop final ordinance, which included the current 926.12(3) standards, was considered by the PSAC at its October 16, 1997 meeting. At that meeting, the PSAC voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the final ordinance. At its November 13, 1997 meeting, the PZC voted 5-0 to recommend adoption of the final ordinance. At its December 16, 1997 meeting, the Board adopted the final ordinance by a vote of 3-1. The sole dissenting vote was due to one commissioner's belief that certain landscaping standards were not stringent enough. In summary, the current landscaping requirements (including the replacement size standards) were part of a comprehensive and extensive review of the county's landscape standards that occurred in 1997. • Reason for Replacement Standards The current replacement size standards were established in 1997 in response to a fundamental problem that Planning and Zoning Commissioners and staff had observed with landscape maintenance on completed, older project sites. The problem was that landscaping material was not maturing on many sites due to insufficient material quality at the time of planting and due to the fact that replacement landscaping was being installed at the same minimum sizes required at the outset of a project. In addition, the 926.12(3) requirements at that time did not provide a strong disincentive for inadequate maintenance and landscape material growth. Consequently, replacements resulting from code enforcement action did not adequately "boost" site landscaping appearances. To address these problems, the current 926.12(3) replacement standards were established to ensure that landscaping material on project sites matures as intended and to provide a strong disincentive for inadequate maintenance and inadequate landscape material growth on project sites. • Current and Proposed Replacement Requirements The current 926.12(3) requirements (see attachment #2) apply only to the minimum number of required trees on a project site. These requirements allow landscaping material to be replaced at the original project minimum sizes for the first 18 months after project C.O. (Certificate of Occupancy). Thereafter, replacement requirements for shrubs, understory trees, and canopy trees are increased. A. 0-18 months after C.O. Current 926.12(3) Requirements At -planting sizes allowed, as followed: • Outside of Special Corridors Shrubs: 18" Understory trees: 5' (1" diameter at 0.5') Canopy trees: 10' (2" diameter at 0.5') • Within Special Corridors Shrubs: 18"-30" Understory trees: 5' (1" diameter at 0.5') Canopy trees: 12' (2" diameter at 0.5') OCTOBER 23, 2001 r f, r, �, b i ; i 1I UU -49- B. 18-36 months after C.O. C. More than 36 months after C.O. • (Same inside or outside special corridors) Shrubs: 30" Understory trees 0.5') 7' (1 V2" diameter at Canopy trees: 16' (3" diameter at 0.5') • (Same inside or outside corridor) Shrubs: 36" Understory trees: 10' (2" diameter at 0.5 ) Canopy trees: 18' (4" diameter at 0.5') Note: Palm clusters can substitute for individual canopy trees. These replacement requirements are comparable to but more stringent than the City of Vero Beach replacement requirements. City planning staff requires replacement of "established" trees with trees that are at least 16' in height and 5" in diameter 0.5' above grade. The City code does not specify a post C.O. timeframe for defining what constitutes an "established" tree. Proposed 926.12(3) Requirements (Ben Bishop) A. 0-18 months after C.O. At -planting sizes allowed. (No change to current standard) B. 18-36 months after C.O. Replace at height and caliper equal to the average height and caliper of existing species in good health on site. Maximum replacement tree height: 16' C. More than 36 months after C.O. Same as above. Maximum replacement tree height: 18' In his proposed amendment request (see attachment #1), Mr. Bishop states that the current replacement requirements are not based on actual growth rates of trees. This is correct. Staffs field research conducted in August 2001 at ten S.R. 60 corridor sites indicates that canopy trees planted at a height of 12' with a diameter of 2" at 0.5' above grade, after three years, generally grow to a size of 15'-16' tall with a diameter of 3"-4" at 0.5' (see attachment #3). The limited observation data on understory trees indicate that actual understory tree growth rates are consistent with the 926.12(3) standards for understory trees. However, for canopy trees planted at an initial height of 12', the existing Section 926.12(3) requirement of 18' would be 2'-3' higher than (12.5-20% increase over) the average actual growth rate observed. This 12.5%-20% difference represents a "penalty" or disincentive for not adequately maintaining the health of required trees on project sites. Outside of special corridor areas, the difference would be greater because the minimum at -planting height of canopy trees is 10' rather than 12'. The proposed amendment, however, provides no replacement size penalty for poor landscape maintenance. Staff s greatest concern with the amendment originally proposed by Mr. Bishop is that it could actually provide a disincentive for good landscape maintenance and resulting vigorous growth of landscape material on project sites. Under this proposed amendment, a project site that has mediocre maintenance and 13.5' trees three years after C.O. would have a 13.5' tree replacement requirement. However, project sites with excellent landscape maintenance and 16' trees three years after C.O. would have a 16' tree replacement requirement. Under this proposed OCTOBER 23, 2001 -50- amendment, there would also be a disincentive for planting trees larger than the at -planting minimum because such trees would ultimately force a higher replacement standard on the project owner. This proposed amendment could also lead to unnecessary trimming and pruning of all site trees to keep replacement requirements "artificially low". Such unintended disincentives and results would be contrary to the intent of landscaping requirements in general. PSAC/STAFF PROPOSED 926.12(3) REQUIREMENTS A. 0-18 months after C.O. B. Over 18 months of C.O. At -planting sizes allowed, as followed: • Outside of Special Corridors Shrubs: 18" Understory trees: 5' (1" diameter at 0.5') Canopy trees: 10' (2" diameter at 0.51) • Within Special Corridors Shrubs: 18" 30" Understory trees: 5' (1" diameter at 0.5') Canopy trees: 12' (2" diameter at 0.5') Note: Same as current standard for 0-18 months after C.O. • (Same inside or outside special corridors) Shrubs: 30" Understory trees: 7' (1 %" diameter at 0.5') Canopy trees: 16' (3" diameter at 0.55) (established 16' canopy tree as minimum required height) Note: Same as current standard for 18-36 months after C.O. Staff's research indicates that, on adequately maintained sites, canopy trees can be expected to grow from 12' at planting to 16' after 48-60 months. It could take 12-36 months longer for trees 10' at planting (the minimum size required outside of special corridors) to reach a height of 16'. Thus, the proposed change to require 16' trees after 18 months of C.O. will boost landscaping appearance on most sites, and will likely blend in on sites with well-established trees. In addition, such a 16' cap would bring county requirements in line with City of Vero Beach requirements. City staff indicate that the 16' standard has worked well on a variety of established sites. Also, since the PSAC meeting staff has verified that the cost difference between 16' trees and 18' trees is probably greater than the aesthetic benefit of the 2' height difference. Based upon prices from local landscapers, the cost of Florida #1 live oaks (installed) is $6504820 for a 16' tree and $820-$1.700 for an 18' tree. • Alternatives The existing replacement requirements could be amended in various ways, including: modifications to the "time after C.O." variable , changes to the numerical minimum standards themselves, and changes to allow a greater number of shorter trees to be installed in lieu of 1:1 OCTOBER 23 2001 Pit] 0 'U -51- replacement of significantly larger trees. Separate standards for non -corridor and corridor areas could be devised, as another alternative. However, in staff's opinion the PSAC/Staff proposed replacement standards provide an appropriate penalty for inadequate landscape maintenance and ensure that landscape material on established project sites is mature. Effects on Affordable Housing Costs Per Policy 1.7 of the Housing Element of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, staff is required to prepare a Financial Impact Statement to assess the anticipated impact of a proposed regulation on the cost of housing. The amendment could reduce costs of replacement landscaping for certain established, residential projects. Therefore, the amendment would not increase housing costs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the PSAC/Staff proposed amendment to the 926.12(3) replacement landscaping requirements. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Amendment from Ben Bishop 2. Existing 926.12(3) Requirements 3. Field Observations of Landscape Material Growth 4. Minutes from the August 30, 2001 PSAC Meeting 5. Minutes from the September 27, 2001 PZC meeting 6. Proposed Amendment Ordinance (PSAC/Staff Proposal) Planning Director Stan Boling noted that this provision was last amended in 1997. Staff is recommending the PSAC approved requirements, while Ben Bishop of Environmental Landscape Group is recommending different requirements. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding this matter. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -52- Ml U uD Ben Bishop, Environmental Landscape Group, was pleased with the current requirements but felt there are a lot of areas that can and possibly should be addressed, such as maintenance. After discussion, Commissioner Adams questioned whether Mr. Bishop would be comfortable with staff requirements and he responded affirmatively. Craig Fletcher, 2345 Avalon Avenue, questioned whether when a canopy dies it can be replaced by a palm cluster, and Director Boling responded that it could. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Stanbridge questioned when the new tree ordinance will come before the Board, and Community Development Director Bob Keating felt it could be ready by January of next year. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 2001-031 regarding landscape material replacement standards, amending the following chapter of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); Chapter 926, Landscape and Buffer Regulations. OCTOBER 23, 2001 d -53- UK I ORDINANCE NO, 2001-031 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING LANDSCAPE MATERIAL REPLACEMENT STANDARDS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 926, LANDSCAPE AND BUFFER REGULATIONS; 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. LDR section 926.12(3) is hereby amended to read as follows: "(3) Replacement of required landscaping. Required landscaping that has died or has been removed shall be replaced by material which is equivalent to the size that the material should have attained from the time of project C.O. (certificate of occupancy), as follows: From zero (0) to eighteen (18) months after project C.O. , landscape materials may be replaced at the sizes indicated on the approved site plan. FFeRi More than eighteen (18) months after project C.O., replacement shrubs shall be a minimum of thirty (30) inches in height, replacement canopy trees shall be a minimum of sixteen (16) feet in height and three (3) inches in diameter at 0.5 feet above grade, and replacement understory trees shall be a minimum of seven (7) feet tall with a one and one-half (1 %) inch diameter at 0.5 feet above grade. arm ZHM AWRIERRM WE 2. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of the Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 3. Codification The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word " „« Ordinance may be changed to "section", , article„ , or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions. 4. 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. OCTOBER 23, 2001 F111} w3 `, l 07 -54- ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 031 5. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 10th day of October 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 23rd day of October 2001, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ti Rpi n seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: The ordinance was adopted by a vote of: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 93rd day of October ,2001. Attest: J.K. Barton, Cle By( ?4-7 �i ;1 PATRICIA M. RIDGPOPuty Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By: Caroline D. Ginn Chairman Filed with the Florida Department of State on the day of OAL..,� 2001. APPROVED AS TOLEGALFORM William G. Collins Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Community Developm Coding: Words in stf ike thf ough type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. a OCTOBER 23 2001 -55- 9.Ae5. ORDINANCE 2001-032 REGARDING THRESHOLD FOR STAFF -LEVEL APPROVAL OF MAJOR SITE PLANS; AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS); CHAPTER 914, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES (RAISE STAFF LEVEL APPROVAL THRESHOLDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL MAJOR SITE PLANS) - 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 October 17, 2001: TO FROM: James Chandler County Administrator DE NT HEAD CONCURRENCE 46 Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: October 17, 2001 ment Director RE: Request to Amend Sections 914.06(1)(a) and 914.06(5)(t) of the Land Development Regulations to Raise Staff Level Approval Thresholds for Non -Residential Major Site Plans It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 23, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Recently, economic development consultant William Fruth produced a study of economic development in Indian River County and identified deficiencies in the local economy. To OCTOBER 239 2001` l -56- address these deficiencies. Fruth identified tools that communities can use to improve their economies. Those tools include: a positive, "business -friendly" community attitude, good labor force, expedited permitting, and adequate public infrastructure. Subsequent to Fruth's initial presentation, a workshop for local government and private sector leaders was held to discuss the results of the study. One recommendation that came out of the workshop was to establish an Economic Development Public/Private Task Force to review the permitting process with the objective of expediting local, state and regional permitting for new manufacturing companies. On July 10, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners established the Economic Development Public/Private Task Force to review the permitting process and to identify ways to improve that process. That Task Force has formed and has convened three times. At its July 31, 2001 meeting, the Economic Development Public/Private Task Force discussed the development plan approval and permitting process. One issue which arose at that meeting was turnaround times for permits at the state, regional and local levels. Consequently, the Economic Development Public/Private Task Force decided to review the County's development plan approval and permitting process at its next meeting. At the August 16, 2001 meeting of the Economic Development Public/Private Task Force, staff presented a report on the County's site plan review and approval process. That process applies to construction of new industrial development projects as well as expansion of existing industrial facilities. At the meeting, the task force asked staff to compile information on staff -only approval thresholds for other jurisdictions in Florida and to draft an amendment to the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to raise the threshold for staff -only approvals from 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface to an 80,000 square foot threshold for non-residential projects. At the September 5, 2001 meeting of the Economic Development Public/Private Task Force, staff presented a draft LDR Amendment to increase the staff -level approval threshold from 10,000 square feet of new impervious surface area to 80,000 square feet of new impervious surface area. At that meeting, Task Force members indicated that their original recommendation of 80,000 square feet referred to building area and not impervious surface area. Once that point was clarified, the Task Force recommended a higher threshold for staff level approval, and staff has prepared a revised proposed LDR amendment that raises the threshold for staff -level approval to 150,000 square feet of new impervious surface for non-residential permitted use projects. That proposed LDR amendment is attached to this report. PSAC and PZC Actions At its September 27, 2001 meeting, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered and supported the proposed amendment with an additional and related LDR change. That additional change involves establishing a specific timeframe for staff decisions on site plans (see attachment #3). Staff supports this additional change, and that change has been incorporated into the proposed amendment (see attachment #1). At its September 27, 2001 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) considered and supported the proposed amendment on a 4-2 vote (see attachment #4). One of the two dissenting votes was due to that Commissioner's desire to have all permitted uses (no threshold limit) approved at a staff -level. At the September 27, 2001 PZC meeting, staff informed the PZC of the addition supported by the PSAC and staff. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -57- pit The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) is now to review the attached LDR amendment and is to adopt, adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. ANALYSIS Site Plan Approval Process in Selected Jurisdictions Recently, staff surveyed Brevard, Collier, Martin, Sarasota, and Saint Lucie Counties, and the cities of Sebastian and Vero Beach regarding thresholds for staff level approval of site plans. These jurisdictions were chosen because of their proximity or similarity to Indian River county. The jurisdictions surveyed exhibited a wide range of thresholds for staff -level approvals. Generally, the smallest jurisdictions (municipalities) have relatively low thresholds for staff level approval. Some county jurisdictions, such as Brevard, Collier and Sarasota Counties, place no project square footage limits on what staff can approve. In those counties, planning and zoning commissions and boards of county commissioners are involved in project review only when a proposed project involves conditional uses, requires public hearings (such as planned developments or where a rezoning is required) or if there is some other substantive public interest issue at stake. Martin county's current thresholds became effective on July 17, 2001, so information is not yet available on the effects of that change on approval turnaround times. COMPARISON OF STAFF APPROVAL THRESHOLDS BY JURISDICTION Jurisdiction Types of Site Plans Turnaround Type of Site Turnaround Time approved by staff Time Plan approved by Planning and Zoning Commission and/or governing body INDIAN New impervious 4-6 weeks New impervious 6-9 weeks RIVER surface up to 10,000 surface greater (currently) Sq. Ft. than 10,000 Sq. Ft. INDIAN New impervious 4-6 weeks New impervious 6-9 weeks RIVER surface up to surface greater (proposed) 150,000 Sq. Ft. than 150,000 Sq. Ft. City of Vero Nlinor changes to 1-3 weeks New 8-12 weeks Beach existing projects. development or major changes to existing projects. City of New impervious 2-4 weeks Above 1,000 6-8 weeks Sebastian surface less than square feet of 1,000 square feet new impervious surface Brevard All projects for 4-6 weeks All projects for 11-13 weeks County permitted uses (no conditional uses threshold) All projects for 8 weeks All projects for 24 weeks Collier County permitted uses (no conditional uses threshold) OCTOBER 23, 2001 -58- Martin p to 100000 Sq. N/A Over 100,000 Sq. N/a County. new Bross floor Tarea; Ft. of new gross Equates to floor area 0000-300,000 sq. ft. new impervious surface. Saint Lucie Up to 24,999 Sq. Ft. 12 weeks 257000 Sq. Ft. 13 weeks minimum "under the roof'; minimum and up Equates to 40.000- 75,000 sq. ft. new impervious surface. Sarasota All projects for 16-24 weeks All projects for 48 weeks County permitted uses (no conditional uses threshold) As evidenced by the above chart, thresholds for staff level approval vary among jurisdictions. Smaller jurisdictions, with less buildable space, have lower thresholds for staff level approval of site plans. Jurisdictions with more buildable space have higher thresholds for staff level approval, thereby enabling staff to more quickly approve larger projects. As the table illustrates, the proposed increase in thresholds for staff -level approval would result in Indian River County's thresholds being higher than St. Lucie's, but lower than thresholds in Brevard, Collier, Sarasota and Martin Counties. Brevard, Collier, and Sarasota Counties have no size limit thresholds on what staff can approve as long as the proposed use is a permitted use in the zoning district where the site is located. Martin County has a higher numeric threshold than the proposed 150,000 square feet impervious surface threshold for Indian River County. In comparison with other jurisdictions, it appears that the proposed LDR amendment would speed up approval timeframes for certain non-residential projects while preserving PZC oversight of larger non-residential projects. Proposed LDR Amendment The attached proposed LDR amendment reflects the direction given by the Economic Development Public/Private task force at its August 16`h meeting. As structured, this amendment would represent a fifteen -fold increase from the existing 10,000 sq. ft. threshold to a new 150,000 sq. ft. threshold. Generally, an industrial project consisting of 150,000 sq. ft. of new impervious area would contain up to 60,000 to 75,000 sq. ft. of new building area. It should be noted, however, that the proposed amendment would not apply to just industrial projects; instead, it would apply to all non-residential projects having permitted uses. The amendment would not affect the review and approval process for special exception uses or administrative permit uses that require PZC review, per Chapter 971 regulations. The table below shows PZC site plan activity from January 2000 to August 9, 2001. In the first row, all residential and non-residential projects that were reviewed by PZC during that period are listed by category: permitted uses (non-residential and residential), administrative permit uses, special exception uses, and Planned Development rezonings. The second row shows the number of projects that would have been reviewed by PZC in the January 2000 -August 9, 2001 period if the proposed amendment had been in effect. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -59- PZC SITE PLAN ACTIVITY Administrativ71Exception JAWARY 7000-ATTCrTT.CT 2. Fidelity Federal Bank 4 ?nm As the table indicates, the proposed LDR amendment, if approved, will significantly reduce the number of non-residential, permitted use projects that the PZC reviews. While that reduction is significant, the substantive effect should not be. That is because the projects that will not be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission are permitted use projects where app+oval is not discretionary. Even the largest of these projects must be approved if it meets all applicable regulations. Also, it should be noted that all residential projects, administrative permit projects, and special exception use projects that PZC reviews currently will still be reviewed by PZC. Following are five example projects that were reviewed by PZC during the January, 2000 to August 2001 period, but would have been staff -level approved if the proposed threshold had been in effect during that period. Project Name Permitted Permitted Use Administrativ71Exception ecial PD 2. Fidelity Federal Bank Use (non- (residential) Permit Uses Rezoningresidential) 3. Morning Star 23,735 sq. ft. Site Plans Presbyterian es 4. Mattress Giant/Linens & Site Plans 125,185 sq. ft Things 5. Eastside Oslo Trade 29,700 sq. ft 59,790 sq. ft. Center Total 58 49 28 16 2 Total under 2 49 28 16 2 proposed amendment I j Percent -96% 0 0 O 0 chan ge As the table indicates, the proposed LDR amendment, if approved, will significantly reduce the number of non-residential, permitted use projects that the PZC reviews. While that reduction is significant, the substantive effect should not be. That is because the projects that will not be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission are permitted use projects where app+oval is not discretionary. Even the largest of these projects must be approved if it meets all applicable regulations. Also, it should be noted that all residential projects, administrative permit projects, and special exception use projects that PZC reviews currently will still be reviewed by PZC. Following are five example projects that were reviewed by PZC during the January, 2000 to August 2001 period, but would have been staff -level approved if the proposed threshold had been in effect during that period. Project Name Gross Floor Area Impervious Surface 1. Medical Service Center 10,500 sq. ft. 36,663 sq. ft 2. Fidelity Federal Bank 8,184 sq. ft. 55,524 sq. ft. and Trust 3. Morning Star 23,735 sq. ft. 95,306 sq. ft Presbyterian 4. Mattress Giant/Linens & 38,380 sq. ft 125,185 sq. ft Things 5. Eastside Oslo Trade 29,700 sq. ft 59,790 sq. ft. Center In addition to the approval threshold change, the proposed amendment establishes a timeframe for mandatory staff action to either approve resubmitted site plans or issue another discrepancy letter when there are deficiencies in the resubmittal. The proposed timeframe is seven (7) working days from staff's receipt of resubmitted plans. This timeframe is acceptable to staff and the PSAC, and will fit into existing review and approval procedures. ALTERNATIVES In considering staff level project approval thresholds, there are a number of alternatives available to the PZC. These alternatives include: OCTOBER 23, 2001 -60- I . Increase the staff -level approval threshold to 150,000 square feet of new impervious surface. (Proposed amendment) 2. Change the proposed 150,000 sq. ft. of new imperyious surface area threshold to a new number (hiuher or lower). 3. Change the threshold to a building area standard. 4. Limit the threshold increase to target industries to provide a special incentive that would apply to target industry projects only. 5. Increase the threshold to include all permitted uses, including residential multi -family projects. ` 6. Leave the staff -level approval thresholds as they are. By increasing the threshold for staff level approval of non-residential development projects, the project approval process timeframe can be reduced by approximately two weeks. The principal effect of making such a change would be to speed up the approval process for non-residential projects. A secondary impact would be to reduce the quantity of the site plan projects reviewed by the PZC. While the PZC would review fewer non- residential permitted use projects under such a change, that should not affect the substance of the development approval process because the PZC's decision on such projects is not discretionary. According to law, an application must be approved if it meets all applicable regulations, and it is staff's responsibility to review projects for consistency with adopted regulations. If the proposed LDR amendment is approved, the PZC could then focus more on important policy issues such as reviewing comprehensive plan amendments, considering Land Development Regulation changes, setting development standards, reviewing planning development projects, and others. For the reasons stated above, staff supports the proposed amendment. As structured, the proposed amendment would address the issue of expediting the project approval process, but still set limits on staff level approval. With the 150,000 square foot threshold, most industrial projects could be staff approved, while exceptionally large projects will still be considered by the PZC. Also all residential projects will still be reviewed by PZC at a public meeting; this is important because residential projects generally attract more public interest than non-residential projects. Finally, the proposed amendment is the preferred alternative because it retains the current threshold measure of impervious surface. Impervious surface is a better measure than building area or acreage, because it better corresponds to a development's impacts than other measures do. Effect on Affordable Housing, Costs Per Policy 1.7 of the Housing Element of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, staff is required to prepare a Financial Impact Statement to assess the anticipated impact of a proposed regulation on the cost of housing. Because the proposed LDR amendment would affect non-residential projects only, there will be no impacts on housing cost. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed LDR amendment to increase the thresholds for staff level approval of site plans for non- residential permitted use projects to 150,000 square feet of new impervious surface. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed LDR Amendment. 2. Draft Minutes from Public/Private Task Force 3. Minutes from the September 27, 2001 PSAC Meeting 4. Minutes from the September 27, 2001 PZC Meeting OCTOBER 23, 2001 -61- Planning Director Stan Boling commented that the Economic Development Task Force initiated this change which affects site plan approvals. These requirements were last amended in 1990 and are currently done by impervious surface area. Anything below 10,000 square feet can be approved by staff. Brevard, Collier and Sarasota Counties have no levels; their staff approves all site plans. Martin County has a requirement based on the building area. The Task Force is recommending that the impervious surface area be raised from 10,000 to 150,000 square feet which would speed up the approval process and provide incentive toward permitted uses. He felt there should be no thresholds. Chairman Ginn questioned whether these projects have any public input, and Director Boling responded that they do not if they are a permitted use. As a matter of policy, if someone contacts staff regarding a project, they are put on a notification list. Commissioner Macht felt the process has suffered for years from not having a "go -team" to accelerate the processes. He believed this is a minimal step and we need to do it. Chairman Ginn felt the scope was a little too broad. Commissioner Tippin noted that this only covers permitted uses and has been recommended by the Task Force. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding this matter. Brian Heady spoke in opposition to the change. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -62- nu b Rene Renzi also opposed the change and asked the Board to keep the control they have now. Ralph Evans, 1420 Shorelands Drive, distributed a handout (COPY OF WHICH IS ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING) and spoke in favor of the change. He believed that every permitted use should be reviewed only by staff and "findings of fact" should be issued to explain why a plan is not approved when it is not. Jim Egan was opposed to the change. George Watson, Economic Development Director, Chamber of Commerce, invited everyone to the Economic Development Tour next Friday and pointed out that we are not talking about large projects. This is a very small change to better attract small industries. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board, by a 4-1 vote (Chairman Ginn opposed) adopted Ordinance 2001-032 regarding the threshold for staff -level approval of major site plans, amending the following chapter of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); Chapter 914, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -63- t2 13 `J ORDINANCE NO, 2001- 032 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y, FLORIDA, REGARDING THE THRESHOLD FOR STAFF -LEVEL APPROVAL OF MAJOR SITE PLANS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 914 SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES; 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, Site Plan section 914.06(1)(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: "(1) Site plan thresholds (a) Major site plans. The following projects shall constitute major site plan projects and shall require, except as noted in paragraph 4 below, major site plan approval. 1. Residential projects having three (3) or more dwelling units. 2. Nonresidential projects comprised of five thousand (5,000) square feet or more new impervious surface area, or projects comprised of new impervious surface area representing more than ten (10) percent of the site/area of development, whichever is less. 3. Where three (3) or more minor site plan requests or six (6) or more administrative approval requests for a single project area/site have been submitted and approved over any five-year period of time; where potential cumulative impacts exceed the criteria of a major site plan application or together may create a substantial impact, the director of the community development department may require any subsequent minor site plan or administrative approval application to be reviewed pursuant to the criteria of a major site plan. 4. The following major site plan projects shall require the same approval process required of minor site plan projects: a. Residential projects involving four (4) or fewer dwelling units; and b. Nonresidential projects involving less than nehundred fifty thousand (150.000) square feet of new impervious surface area, regardless of new building area amount. " 2. Site Plan section 914.06(5)(f) is hereby amended to read as follows: "(f) Approval of minor site plans. The TRC is authorized to approve, approve with conditions or deny minor site plan applications not requiring administrative permit approval. Within seven (7) working days after the applicant submits to staff a complete response to TRC comments (also known as a resubmittal) the county shall either issue site plan approval or a discrepancy letter. Once all commenting TRC members have reviewed and approved the applicant's responses to comments, the minor site plan shall be signed and approved. All approved minor site plans shall be signed by the community development director or his designee. Appeals of decisions of the TRC may be made by applicants pursuant to the provisions of Section 914.13." OCTOBER 23, 2001 -64- ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 032 3. 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 the Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 4. 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 re -lettered to accomplish such intentions. 5. 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. 6. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press-Joumal on the 15th day of October 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 23rd da of time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner y OrtnhPr 2001, at which Commissioner Marht ,seconded by Ti opi n , and adopted by the following vote: The ordinance was adopted by a vote of.- Chairman f: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin Commissioner Fran B. Adams The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 23rd day Of.- OrtnhPr 32001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Attest: J.K. Barton, Clerk By� By: PATRICIA M. RI UGELY Deputy Clerk Caroline D. Ginn ---�— Chairman Filed with the Florida Department of State on the I 2001. day of OCTOBER 23, 2001 -65- D° ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 032 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM William G. Collins Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Robert M. Keating, AICA Community Development Coding: Words in k type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. C VELOPMET� '•► APPLICATION CATEGORY AND AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO ISSUE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO HIRE A BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION CONSULTANT - EAST GIFFORD - RFP FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS - 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 October 15, 2001: OCTOBER 23,2001 C19 t9 -66- TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIjyIS1pN HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S '/( Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Randy Deshazo Economic Deve opment Planner DATE: October 15, 2001 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AND FORMAL SELECTION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) APPLICATION CATEGORY AND AUTHORIZATION FOR STAFF TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO HIRE A BLOCK GRANT APPLICATION CONSULTANT It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 23, 2001. INTRODUCTION The next Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application cycle occurs in early 2002. In order to submit a competitive grant application, however, the county must initiate the application process at this time. This involves undertaking several actions, including choosing a CDBG application category and beginning the CDBG consultant selection process. BACKGROUND The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program provides an opportunity for eligible cities and counties to compete for funds to improve local housing, streets, utilities, and public facilities. These funds are available in several categories: housing rehabilitation, neighborhood revitalization, and commercial revitalization. In 1996, Indian River County was awarded a Neighborhood Revitalization Community Development Block Grant. Funds from that grant were used to provide infrastructure improvements in both the Douglas School Subdivision and the Whitfield Subdivision. Through the grant, 84 single-family homes were connected to the county water system, roads in both subdivisions were paved, and drainage improvements were made in both subdivisions. In total, 151 lots benefited from the road paving and drainage improvements. In 1999 and 2000, the County applied for Community Development Block Grants in the Neighborhood Revitalization category. As proposed, these grants would have funded water line extension and road paving activities in an area of Wabasso adjacent to the 1996 CDBG target area. Because of the county's low areawide needs score and the level of competition for neighborhood revitalization grants, the county's 1999 and 2000 CDBG applications were not funded. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -67- For the 2002 CDBG cycle, the application submittal deadline is March, 2002. In order to apply for CDBG funds, the Board of County Commissioners must first authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant. The chosen consultant will then write the grant application, and the County will submit the application. If the grant is awarded to the County, the consultant will be paid for both writing the grant and administering it from the block grant award. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS CDBG Program Under the CDBG program, there are two groups of grant categories. Three CDBG categories comprise the first group. These are: Commercial Revitalization, Housing ghborhood Revitalization. Indian River County may receive a Rehabilitation, and Nei grant in only one of the three categories in the first group. If awarded a Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, or Neighborhood Revitalization grant, the county may not apply for another grant in any of those three categories until that grant is closed. Following is a description of each of the three CDBG categories: Commercial Revitalization Various improvements may be funded in commercial areas. Eligible projects include parking facilities, drainage, street paving, sidewalks, lighting, recreation facilities, potable water services, and sanitary sewer services. This category is very competitive. Housing Rehabilitation Substandard housing occupied by income eligible households may be rehabilitated to meet code requirements. Both owner occupied and rental housing may be included. Recipients are eligible in the entire jurisdiction. Dilapidated housing may be demolished and cleared, and financing is provided to the displaced occupants for replacement housing. _Neighborhood Revitalization This category is primarily for potable water and sanitary sewer installation or replacement (including hook-ups), street paving, and drainage improvements in low/moderate income neighborhoods. Funds may also be used to purchase and develop property as sites for low/moderate income housing. This is a very competitive grant category. The second group consists only of the Economic Development category. This grant category is independent of the other three categories. In the same fiscal year that Indian River County applies for a grant in a category from the first group, the county may also choose to apply for funds in the Economic Development category. Even if Indian River County has an open Commercial Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, or Neighborhood Revitalization grant, an economic development CDBG application can still be submitted to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for consideration. The following is a description of the Economic Development category: Economic Development Funds are available to local governments to provide necessary infrastructure or sites for new businesses or business expansions. Local governments may also lend funds directly to the 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. Economic Development CDBG funds may be used for the following activities: acquisition of real property; acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of commercial land 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. OCTOBER 23, 2001i} -68- CDBG Application Cycle Neighborhood Revitalization, Housing Rehabilitation, and Commercial Revitalization CDBG applications are subject to an annual application cycle. The next application deadline is March 2002. The Economic Development CDBG application time frame, however, is different. Instead of being limited to annual cycles, Economic Development CDBG applications may be submitted monthly. In most cases, Economic Development CDBG applications are related to private development projects. Consultant According to the state's CDBG program rules, up to 8% of the CDBG funds can be Utilized to cover the cost of application preparation and project administration. These functions could be performed by a consultant. By using a consultant to prepare the application and administer the project, the county would get the benefit of the consultant's expertise with the program. Most consultants will prepare the application at no charge to the county, provided that the consultant is assured of administering the project if funded. If the application receives funding, the consultant would get a percentage of the project cost, ranging from 5% to 8%, for administering the project. If the project does not get funded, there would be no cost to the county for the consultant having prepared the application. CDBG Citizen Advisory Task Force As part of the CDBG program requirements, each jurisdiction submitting an application to the CDBG program must integrate citizen input into the application process. That process involves holding at least two public hearings, and convening a meeting of the CDBG Citizen Advisory Task Force (a Board appointed citizen task force) to review the CDBG application before it is submitted to DCA. In previous application cycles, the County's existing CDBG Citizen Advisory Task Force (CATF) was activated to review all applications and provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. For the upcoming application cycle, the CATF should again be activated. ANALYSIS The Community Block Grant program is a competitive process. Accordingly, each jurisdiction's application is scored and competes with applications submitted by other jurisdictions. Through the process, all applications are ranked from highest to lowest. CDBG funds are then allocated to those jurisdictions with the highest scores until all the funds are utilized. While the county may not apply for commercial revitalization category grants because the county does not have a community redevelopment agency, the County can pursue grants in either the Housing Rehabilitation or Neighborhood Revitalization categories. Housing Rehabilitation grants are available to make improvements to sub -standard housing and to demolish dilapidated housing, as well as to help finance new homes for displaced residents. Neighborhood Revitalization grants on the other hand, can fund various infrastructure improvements within a neighborhood, including road paving, potable water improvements and hookups, and fire hydrants. In both 1999 and 2000, Indian River County submitted CDBG applications in the Neighborhood Revitalization category. Because of the competitiveness of the Neighborhood Revitalization category, neither application scored high enough to be funded. Generally, the Housing category is less competitive than the Neighborhood OCTOBER 23, 2001 —69— e C20 P Un 12 Revitalization category. Consequently, a county CDBG application in the Housing category would have a higher probability of being funded than an application in the Neighborhood Revitalization category. Also important to consider is that the county has significant housing rehabilitation needs — particularly in Gifford. For example a study of housing conditions in Gifford revealed that there are 388 sub -standard housing units and 146 dilapidated housing units in the Gifford neighborhood. Most of the units needing rehabilitation or demolishing are located in east Gifford, between US 1 and 43rd Avenue. Therefore, east Gifford seems to be an appropriate target area for a CDBG Housing Rehabilitation grant. Besides initiating the RFP process to select a consultant to prepare a standard (Housing category) CDBG application, the county may concurrently initiate the process to select a consultant to prepare an economic development grant application. While an economic development CDBG application may be submitted only in conjunction with a job - creating project, selecting a consultant now will save time if a qualifying project occurs later in the year. From a procedural standpoint, the county must issue two separate RFPs: one for Economic Development and one for either Housing Rehabilitation or Neighborhood Revitalization. Given that Indian River County is unlikely to receive funding for Neighborhood Revitalization, staff's position is that the Board should authorize staff to issue an RFP for Housing Rehabilitation CDBG and an RFP for an Economic Development CDBG. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: ♦ Open the public hearing; ♦ Obtain public input regarding the county's housing and economic development conditions; ♦ Direct staff to issue an RFP to hire a consultant to prepare a Housing Rehabilitation CDBG application for the east Gifford area; ♦ Direct staff to issue an RFP to hire a consultant to prepare an Economic Development CDBG application; and ♦ Activate the County's existing CDBG Advisory Task Force. OCTOBER 23, 2001 n» €i r) r i,;., 99 G11 1 f_ U s 1 :1 ,, L r, -70- 0 Commissioner Stanbridge noted that Gifford has received a "Front Porch Florida" Designation which will help with any applications. 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. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously directed staff to issue an RFP to hire a consultant to prepare a Housing Rehabilitation CDBG application for the East Gifford area; directed staff to issue an RFP to hire a consultant to prepare an Economic Development CDBG application; and activated the County's existing CDBG Advisory Task Force; all as recommended by staff. 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS - BRIAN HEADY REQUEST TO DISCUSS "GOVERNING BY DECEPTION AND LIES" The Board reviewed a letter of October 17, 2001: OCTOBER 23 2001'-' gg"' 4 j � v i -72' 77 r Y �, Brian T. Heady 406 19`° Street Vero Beach, FI 32960 October 17, 2001 Caroline Ginn Margaret Gunter Indian River County Commission Veno Beach Florida 32960 Dear County Commission Commissioners: Please place me on the citizen input public discussion portion of your agenda for the next meeting in October. My discussion will be about "governing by deception and lies" and the cost to county taxpayers of such malfeasance. Thank you for this opportunity to present to you this timely informative information. If you have any questions I can be reached by telephone at 778-1028. Sincerely, Brian T, Heady Brian Heady referred to the terrorist activity of September 11, 2001 and stated that we cannot allow our freedoms to be hijacked. He then referred to "concessions" given to an out-of-town developer and his belief that there had been deceit and lies regarding jobs being made available to local residents by this developer. Mr. Heady then referred to his belief that the Indian River County School Board was also not willing to tell the truth regarding millions of dollars collected for schools and purportedly spent for "other things". He also believed that if the School Board were to vacate their portion of the County Administration Building, the County would have no need for a new facility. NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -73- par RESOLUTION 2001407 SUPPLEMENTING RESOLU'I 063 PROVIDING FOR SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED SI1 RAL OBLIGATION BONDS; RESOLUTION 2 POINTING ROBERT C. REID SPECIAL C ATTORNEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COORDINATIN APPROVING AND NOTING FINANCING DOCUMEN' TION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF N 5114,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS; AND ON 2001- TABLISHII NT 0 REIMBURSE CERTAIN PROJECT COSTS INCURRED WITH ': OF F -FYFN4PT ACQUISITION ADVISORY COMMITTEE - ENVIRONMENTAL LANDS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 17, 2001: TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Joseph A. Baird, Assistant County Administrator 1P DATE: October 17, 2001 SUBJECT: Resolutions Authorizing the Issuance of $11,000,000 General Obligation Bond Issue for Environmentally Significant Land by Competitive Sale CING - On November 3, 1992, a vote of the electors in Indian River County authorized the acquisition of environmentally significant land by issuance of general obligation bonds not exceeding $26,000,000 to be repaid in 15 years, and structured so that at the time of issuance the rate necessary to fund the maximum annual payments on the bonds shall not exceed 1/2 mill. Indian River County issued a 15 year $15,000,000 General Obligation Bond Issue to purchase environmentally sensitive land on July 11, 1995, leaving $11,000,000 to be issued in the future. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -74- lli'i i L. 01 i J U 7 Recently the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to move forward issuing the remaining $11,000,000 General Obligation Bonds to purchase environmentally sensitive land. Staff has done an analysis (see attached) and is not concerned with Indian River County exceeding the 1/2 mill cap. The $11,000,000 Bond Issue will be done by competitive sale which is presently scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2001. In order for staff to proceed, the Board of County Commissioners must approve the attached Resolutions. Recommendation: It is recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolutions for the competitive sale of the $11,000,000 General Obligation Bond Issue. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 2001-107 supplementing Resolution No. 95-63; providing for the sale of not to exceed $11,000,000 general obligation bonds of Indian River County, Florida; fixing redemption provisions and series designation for the bonds; setting forth the form of the notice of bond sale and summary notice of bond sale relating to the sale of such bonds; directing publication of the summary notice of sale relating to such bonds; providing for the opening of bids relating to the sale of the bonds; setting forth the official notice of sale and bid forms; providing that such bonds shall be issued in full book entry form; approving the form of a preliminary official statement; covenanting to provide continuing disclosure; authorizing the selection of a Registrar and Paying Agent; OCTOBER 23, 2001 -75- L 0 v authorizing the selection of a provider of municipal bond insurance; providing certain other matters in connection therewith; and providing an effective date. EXHIBITS A, B, C AND D ARE ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-107 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 95-63; PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $11,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FIXING REDEMPTION PROVISIONS AND SERIES DESIGNATION FOR THE BONDS; SETTING FORTH THE FORM OF THE NOTICE OF BOND SALE AND SUMMARY NOTICE OF BOND SALE RELATING TO THE SALE OF SUCH BONDS; DIRECTING PUBLICATION OF THE SUMMARY NOTICE OF SALE RELATING TO SUCH BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE OPENING OF BIDS RELATING TO THE SALE OF THE BONDS; SETTING FORTH THE OFFICIAL NOTICE OF SALE AND BID FORMS; PROVIDING THAT SUCH BONDS SHALL BE ISSUED IN FULL BOOK ENTRY FORM; APPROVING THE FORM OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT; COVENANTING TO PROVIDE CONTINUING DISCLOSURE; AUTHORIZING THE SELECTION OF A REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT; AUTHORIZING THE SELECTION OF A PROVIDER OF MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE; PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on May 16, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (the "County" or the "Issuer") adopted Resolution No. 95-63, as supplemented (the "Original Resolution") to provide for the issuance of not to exceed $26,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of Indian River County General Obligation Bonds (the "Bonds") payable from the County's ad valorem taxes without limit on all taxable property in the County as provided in the Original Resolution; provided, however, that the Bonds shall be structured in such a manner that at the time of issuance of any series thereof, the millage rate required to make the maximum annual payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds shall not exceed %2 mil of the then assessed value of all lands situated in the County subject to ad valorem taxation; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the County to provide for the current public sale of not to exceed $11,000,000 of such Bonds as an additional Series of Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: SECTION 1. SERIES DESIGNATION. The series designation for the Bonds is hereby determined to be Series 2001 (and hereinafter are referred to as the "Series 2001 Bonds"). OCTOBER 23, 2001 nil -76- SECTION 2. APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF THE RESOLUTION. The Series 2001 Bonds, herein authorized, shall for all purposes (except as herein expressly provided) be considered to be issued under the authority of the Original Resolution, and shall be entitled to all the protection and security provided therein for Bonds issued thereunder. SECTION 3. PUBLIC SALE. There are hereby authorized to be sold pursuant to a public sale not to exceed $11,000,000 Indian River County, Florida, General Obligation Bonds. SECTION 4. SALE OF SERIES 2001 BONDS; REDEMPTION AND MATURITY PROVISIONS. The County Administrator or his designee, is hereby directed to arrange for the sale of the Series 2001 Bonds utilizing the electronic bid process of PARITY through the publication of the Summary Notice of Sale of the Bonds in a newspaper regularly distributed in Indian River County and in The Bond Bever, such publications to be on such date as shall be deemed by the County Administrator or his designee, to be in the best interest of the Issuer and such publications to be not less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the date of sale as required by Section 218.385(1), Florida Statutes; and to publish such Notice in such other newspapers on such dates as may be deemed appropriate by the County Administrator or his designee. The Series 2001 Bonds shall be subject to optional redemption and shall mature on the dates as is set forth in the Notice of Bond Sale hereinafter approved. Proposals for purchase of the Series 2001 Bonds will be received electronically via PARITY as provided in the Official Notice of Sale, from the time that the Notice of Bond Sale is published until 11:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Savings Time, on such date and time as may be established by the County Administrator or his designee, and if such date is subject to change, communicated through Thompson Municipal Market Monitor (TM3) not less than twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time bids are to be received for the purchase of Indian River County, Florida, General Obligation Bonds, Series 2001; provided that if the internet is not working on the designated bid date, the bid date shall be automatically changed to the next business day, and the County will communicate a confirmation of this change in bid date through Thompson Municipal Market Monitor (TM3), all as provided in the Notice of Sale (the 'Bid Date"). SECTION 5. The proceeds, including accrued interest and premium, if any, received from the sale of any or all of the Series 2001 Bonds shall be applied simultaneously with the delivery of the Bonds to the purchaser thereof, as follows: (A) The accrued interest and capitalized interest, if any, shall be deposited in the Debt Service Fund created by the Original Resolution and shall be used only for the purpose of paying interest coming due on the Series 2001 Bonds. (B) To the extent not reimbursed therefor by the original purchaser of the Series 2001 Bonds, the County shall pay all costs and expenses in connection with the preparation, sale, issuance and delivery of the Series 2001 Bonds. (C) The remainder of the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2001 Bonds shall be deposited in the "Indian River County General Obligation Bonds, Project Acquisition Fund" (the "Acquisition Fund") created by the Original Resolution, which shall be a trust fund for the benefit of the Owners of the Series 2001 Bonds, and used only for the costs of the Projects. The proceeds of the sale of the Series 2001 Bonds shall be and constitute trust funds for the purposes hereinabove provided and there is hereby created a lien upon such moneys, until so applied, in favor of the Owners of said Series 2001 Bonds. Moneys in the Acquisition Fund may from time to time be invested in Authorized Investments. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -77- 10PGI10 SECTION 6. APPROVAL OF FORMS. The Notice of Bond Sale and Summary Notice of Sale of the Bonds to be submitted for purchase of the Series 2001 Bonds shall be in substantially the forms annexed hereto, as Exhibits A and B, respectively, together with such changes as shall be deemed necessary or desirable by the County Administrator or his designee, depending on the bidding method selected in accordance with Section 4 hereof, incorporated herein by reference. The form of the Official Bid Form shall be provided by the internet auction website selected by the County Administrator, and shall be reasonably satisfactory to the County Administrator. SECTION 7. BOOK ENTRY ONLY BONDS. It is in the best interest of the County and the residents and inhabitants thereof that the Series 2001 Bonds be issued utilizing a pure book -entry system of registration. In furtherance thereof, the County has previously executed and delivered a Blanket Letter of Representations with the Depository Trust Company. For so long as the Series 2001 Bonds remain in such book entry only system of registration, in the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Original Resolution and of the Blanket Letter of Representations, the terms and provisions of the Blanket Letter of Representations shall prevail. SECTION S. PAYMENT OF INTEREST. Payment of the interest on the Series 2001 Bonds shall be made by the Paying Agent on each interest payment date to the person appearing on the registration books of the Registrar as of the date fifteen (15) days prior to each interest payment date, as the registered Owner thereof, by check or draft mailed to such registered Owner at his address as it appears on such registration books; provided, however, that for any Owner of $1,000,000 or more in principal amount of Series 2001 Bonds, interest payments will, at the written request and at the expense of such Owner, be made by wire transfer or other medium acceptable to the Issuer and to the Owner. SECTION 9. PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT. The County Administrator is authorized and directed to cause a Preliminary Official Statement to be prepared in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit C. with such changes, insertions and omissions as shall be approved by the County Administrator containing a copy of the attached Notice of Bond Sale and to furnish a copy of such Preliminary Official Statement to interested bidders. The County Administrator is authorized to deem final the Preliminary Official Statement prepared pursuant to this Section for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 (the "Rule") of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Upon the award of the Series 2001 Bonds to the successful bidder, the County shall also make available a reasonable number of copies of the Official Statement to such bidder, who may mail such Official Statements to prospective purchasers at the bidder's expense. SECTION 10. CONTINUING DISCLOSURE. The County hereby covenants and agrees that, in order to provide for compliance by the County with the secondary market disclosure requirements of the Rule, that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of that certain Continuing Disclosure Certificate in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit D. to be executed by the County and dated the date of issuance and delivery of the Series 2001 Bonds, as it may be amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof (the "Continuing Disclosure Certificate"). Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution, failure of the County to comply with such Continuing Disclosure Certificate shall not be considered an event of default, however, any Bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the County to comply with its obligations under this Section. SECTION 11. REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT. First Union National Bank, Jacksonville, Florida, is hereby appointed as Registrar and Paying Agent for the Series 2001 Bonds. SECTION 12. MUNICIPAL BOND INSURANCE. The County Administrator or his designee, is hereby authorized to select a bond insurer to provide insurance to insure the scheduled payment of principal and interest on the Series 2001 Bonds on behalf of the Issuer or, in the alternative, allow each bidder to select whether the Series 2001 Bonds are to be insured by such bond insurer. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -78- ,firs r s U1 ! 2 C O 1 1 11 SECTION 13. AWARD OF BID. The County Administrator or his designee, is hereby authorized to accept the bids for the Series 2001 Bonds. The County Administrator is hereby authorized to award the sale of the Series 2001 Bonds on his determination of the best bid submitted in accordance with the terms of the Notice of Bond Sale provided for herein so long as the true interest cost rate shall not exceed 6.0% on the Series 2001 Bonds. The County Administrator is hereby authorized to award the sale of the Series 2001 Bonds as set forth above or to reject all bids for the Series 2001 Bonds. Such award shall be final. SECTION 14. INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS. All prior resolutions and motions of the Issuer inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution are hereby modified, supplemented and amended to conform with the provisions herein contained and except as otherwise modified, supplemented and amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 15. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED the 23;aqy of Oct. 2001. (SEAL) ATTEST: County errk CD Approved as to form: pecial County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA r CarolineD. OCTOBER 23, 2001, i 2 0 PX 1 12 -79- ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 2001-108 appointing Robert C. Reid Special County Attorney for the purpose of coordinating, approving and noting financing documents presented to the Board of County Commissioners in connection with the issuance of not to exceed $11,000,000 general obligation bonds as authorized by Resolution No. 95-63. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-108 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPOINTING ROBERT C. REID SPECIAL COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COORDINATING, APPROVING, AND NOTING FINANCING DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $11,000,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AS AUTHORIZED BY RESOLUTION NO. 95-63. WHEREAS, Section 102.10(4) of the Indian River Code (Ordinance 90-19) provides that "[all]" contract documents shall be coordinated with and noted by the county attorney and county administrator before presentation to commission," and Section 105.02, of the Indian River county Code (Ordinance 90-24), requires the county attorney's approval as to form and legal sufficiency for certain purchasing contracts in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000); and WHEREAS, the services of Attorney Robert C. Reid have been engaged to prepare documents in connection with the issuance not to exceed $11,000,000 General Obligation Bonds pursuant to Resolution No. 95-63. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Robert C. Reid is hereby OCTOBER 23, 2001 -80- r3V Piro appointed special county attorney for the purpose of coordinating, approving, and noting contract and financing documents presented to the Board of County Commissioners in connection with the issuance not to exceed $11,000,000 General Obligation Bonds pursuant to Resolution No. 95-63. The resolution was moved for adoption by CommissionerMa_ cht__ an the motion was seconded by Commissioner. Stanbridge and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn - ?ve_ Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Ave Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin _ Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of October, 2001. (SEAL) Attest: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk QLLCIerk � .Dep Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Special County Attorney OCTOBER 23, 2001 -81- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By. Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman U 2 0 PC, 1h ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 2001-109 establishing its intent to reimburse certain project costs incurred with proceeds of future tax-exempt financing; providing certain other matters in connection therewith; and providing an effective date. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ESTABLISHING ITS INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN PROJECT COSTS INCURRED WITH PROCEEDS OF FUTURE TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING; PROVIDING CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida (the "Issuer") has determined that the need exists to acquire certain environmentally sensitive lands and related facilities as part of the Issuer's ongoing environmental lands protection program; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. This Resolution (hereinafter called the "Resolution") is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Florida Constitution, Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law. SECTION 2. DECLARATION OF INTENT. The Issuer hereby expresses its intention to be reimbursed from proceeds of a future tax-exempt financing for the acquisition of certain environmentally sensitive lands and related facilities as part of the Issuer's ongoing environmental lands protection program (the "Project"). Pending reimbursement, the Issuer expects to use funds OCTOBER 23, 2001$ ` � 0 P G 1 15 -82- on deposit in its general funds to pay costs of the Project. It is not reasonably expected that the total amount of debt to be incurred by the Issuer to reimburse itself for expenditures paid with respect to the Project will exceed $11,000,000. This Resolution is intended to constitute a "declaration of official intent" within the meaning of Section 1.150-2 of the Income Tax Regulations. SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. If any one or more of the provisions of this Resolution shall for any reason be held illegal or invalid, such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this Resolution, but this Resolution shall be construed and enforced as if such illegal or invalid provision had not been contained therein. SECTION 4. REPEALING CLAUSE. All resolutions or orders and parts thereof in conflict herewith to the extent of such conflicts, are hereby superseded and repealed. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED the 23 day of Oct. -_, 2001. (SEAL) ATTEST: unty Clerk Approved as to form: Special County Attorney OCTOBER 23, 2001 -83- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: �. CHAIRMAN Caroline D. Ginn 1 2 0 PG 16 .A.1. L ON 2 2001-2002 HUMANITY: INENANIff -110 AMENDING THE COI XSSISTANCE PLAN FOR F D 2002-2003 (HABITAT FOI KA & ASSOCIATES [HOM IOMELESS SERVICES CO The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 17, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator N 4EAD CONCURRENCE: L 40n ITI ert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Dire for FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICPS Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 17, 2001 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAIN (LHAPIan) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of October 23, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Y' 2000 - Consistent with state requirements, Indian River County prepared and adopted its Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAPIan) in 1993. The LHAPIan not only qualified the county to receive State Housing Initiatives Program (SHIP) funds, but also has served as the policy and procedural guide for administering the SHIP program. Since June of 1993, the county has provided 495 SHIP loans to individual applicants who applied for assistance. According to state rules and regulations as well as the county's requirements, SHIP funds may also be used to supplement or match other state and federal funds. For the current fiscal year, Indian River County has been allocated $997,562.00 in SHIP funds. Of this amount, $550,000.00 has been set aside by the Board for clients of three groups. These groups are Habitat for Humanity ($300,000), Straka & Associates (HOME Program, $150,000) and the Indian River County Homeless Service Council ($ 100,000). OCTOBER 23, 2001 �}1s 2 0 1 7 [JIB 1 -84- Although each of the three set aside recipients had applied for a SHIP set aside with an acknowledgement that the SHIP funds would be used in a manner consistent with current SHIP (Local Housing Assistance�-Plan) requirements, the Indian River County Homeless Services Council recently indicated that it needs to use the SHIP set aside funds in a manner that is not consistent with the provisions of the county's Local Housing Assistance Plan. Consequently, the Homeless Services Council has requested that the county revise its LHAPlan. As submitted, the Homeless Services Council's SHIP funds set aside application indicated that the SHIP funds would be used to provide downpayment/closing cost and/or rehabilitation assistance to homeless persons who graduate from the council's transitional housing program. When the set aside request was made, Homeless Services Council staff stated that funds used in that manner would constitute an acceptable match for a HUD grant submitted by the council. Recently, the Homeless Services Council determined that SHIP downpayment/closing cost/ rehabilitation loans to homeless graduates will not be acceptable to HUD as a grant match. Instead, Council staff has indicated that the SHIP funds may serve as a HUD grant match only if the funds are used for rehabilitation of the Council's homeless facility (a multi -family, rental facility) and only if the funds are provided as a grant not a loan. Consequently, the Homeless Service Council is now requesting that the Board of County Commissioners revise the county's Local Housing Assistance Plan to allow up to $100,000 of SHIP funds to be used by non-profit organizations for rehabilitation of multi -family facilities. The Council also requests that the LHAPIan be revised to provide multi -family rental rehab funds to non-profit organizations as grants instead of loans. ANALYSIS One of the goals of the county's local housing assistance plan is to increase home ownership for very low and low income households. In the past, the Board of County Commissioners has set aside SHIP funds to match CDBG funds, HOME funds, Habitat for Humanity funds and Homeless Council funds (HUD Transitional Housing Funds), with the requirement that these set aside funds be used consistent with SHIP program rules and regulations. As proposed, the Homeless Services Council's LHAP revisions are consistent with the state's SHIP program requirements and the county's overall SHIP program objectives. If approved, these revisions will ensure that housing assistance will be provided to very low income households and that the funds will be used for construction activities. With this revision, the principal change will be a modification of the County's policy to target SHIP funds for ownership, rather than rental, purposes. Revisions to the plan are shown on pages 27-31 of the plan (copy attached). Deletions are shown as r'Fdek thfu and additions are shown as underlined. If the Board revises the Local Housing Assistance Plan as proposed and if the revised plan is approved by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation, then $100,000 of FY 2001-2002 SHIP funds can be utilized as a SHIP rehabilitation grant by the Homeless Services Council. In such case, the following provisions will apply: The county's Rehabilitation grant will be secured by a mortgage in favor of Indian River County. The repayment of funds awarded as a rehabilitation grant will not be required, except in the case that the assisted units are sold within 10 years from the date of granting the award. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -85- EiR 12!JV 12!J 1 1 8 ALTERNATIVES With respect to the revised Local Housing Assistance Plan, the Board of County Commissioners has three alternatives. These are: ► adopt the revised plan ► adopt the revised plan with changes ► reject the revised plan Staff supports the first alternative. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment of the county's Local Housing Assistance Plan by adopting the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Background on SHIP funds set aside for Homeless 2. Adoption Resolution ( including revised pages 27-31 of the LHAPlan) Community Development Director Bob Keating explained the minor changes being proposed to coordinate with various state requirements. The impetus behind the change is the Homeless Services Council's need to use a portion of the funds for rehabilitation of their facility on 4`" Street. The proposed changes will allow up to $100,000 to be used for rehabilitation of a structure owned by a non-profit organization. These funds are given as a $100,000 grant for this year and not as a loan. Commissioner Stanbridge questioned whether multi -family developers could request these monies, and Director Keating responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Macht explained that the intent is to extend matching funds so Homeless Services can obtain a grant SHIP does. This will not impact the individual loans that Chairman Ginn questioned whether affordable housing could come in if they were a 501-3(c) corporation. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -86- �4 1 i L.. L..t 19 Commissioner Adarns felt they were saying that they still want the monies but they want us to change the rules so they can use it in another way. Commissioner Macht noted that the original intention was to use '/2 of the funds for rehabilitation. We are just making a change to fulfill what we originally authorized. The Homeless Services Council raised a great deal of money to solve a County problem. Commissioner Stanbridge noted that she had questioned the HUD application because she did not feel it would match. She felt that there are other people who could have used these funds and believed that the County owes it to single-family homeowners. Commissioner Tippin agreed that the Council is helping to solve a County problem and was in favor of the change. Chairman Ginn had no objection and felt it is a problem that we need to address. Richard Stark thanked the Board for all their support and noted that he and Dick Van Mele received 2 awards from the Florida Coalition for the Homeless because of actions taken by the County. This change is just to correct a technical glitch. He also expressed his thanks to staff for being so helpful and commented that they had also received $75,000 from the Department of Children and Families which will enable them to accept families with children, a long-time goal. He also expressed thanks to Louise Hubbard, a great asset to our County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Stanbridge opposed) adopted Resolution 2001-110 amending the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan for FY 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -87- X I 11 11 RESOLUTION NO 2001-110 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE COUNTY'S LOCAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN FOR FY 2000-2001, 2001-2002, AND 2002-2003, WHEREAS, Chapter 420, Florida Statutes, describes the State Housing Initiative Partnership Program (SHIP), and states that the principal objective of that program is to increase the amount of affordable housing within the State of Florida; and WHEREAS, on April 61 1993, Indian River County approved ordinance number 93-13, establishing the Local Housing Assistance Program; and WHEREAS, the current county's Local Housing Assistance plan expires on June 30, 2003; and WHEREAS, The county $s current Local Housing Assistance Plan adequately addresses the county's affordable housing needs; and WHEREAS, on October 23rd, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners considered a proposed amendment to the county's Local Housing Assistance Plan; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: Section 1. 4 The above recitals are ratified in their entirety Section 2. Pages 27-31 of the Indian River County Local Housing Assistance Plan for FY 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and 2002-2003 are hereby amended as shown in attachment "A" by the Board of County Commissioners. Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners directs staff to submit two copies of revised pages 27-31 of the Indian River County Local Housing Assistance Plan to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation by certified mail. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -88- L� RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -110 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Macht and seconded by Commissioner Tipoin and being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman, Caroline D. Ginn Aye Vice Chairman, Ruth Stanbridge Nay_ Commissioner, Kenneth R. Macht Ay-e-- Commissioner, ymCommissioner, Fran Adams Aye Commissioner, John Tippin Ave The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of October 2001. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County By: �L2'a Caroline D. Ginn,, Chairman BCC Approved: October 23, 2001 test b zJeffrey K. Barton, (� Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William G. Collins, II Deputy County Attorney L OCTOBER 23, 2001 -89- 1 1L I aC Attachment "A" multiple -family housing unit by the owner, repayment of the outstanding loan amount and applicable accrued interest shall be required and the affordability timeframe requirement terminated. V. Compliance Agreement and Security Instrument The county's Rehabilitation Loan shall be secured by a mortgage in favor of Indian River County. This mortgage may be subordinated to other rehabilitation, construction, and/or permanent mortgages applied to the same unit upon approval of the IRCLHAProgram Review Committee. This mortgage shall serve as the eligible recipient's contractual commitment to comply with the requirements of the IRCLHAProgram. 6. Rehabilitation or Emergency Repair Grants a. Description The IRCLHAProgram anticipates providing rehabilitation grants to eligible non-profit sponsors or very low income persons to fund all or a portion of the cost of rehabilitating existing owner occupied housing units or multiple family rental units owned and managed by a non- profit organization. Rehabilitation grants will not be awarded for rehabilitation work previously completed. All rehabilitation work must be performed by licensed contractors. Rehabilitation grants will not be awarded for rehabilitation activities associated with downpayment/closing cost loan assistance. Rehabilitation grants may be awarded if needed rehabilitation work activities include at least one of the following types of activities which are essential to make a house safe for habitation and/or to maintain the house's structural integrity. Rehabilitation grants may be awarded for rehabilitation of existing units occupied by very low income households. Rehabilitation grants may not be awarded in combination with downpayment/closing cost loan assistance. ► Roof, including replacement of all rotten wood ► Plumbing work as needed ► Electrical work as needed ► Heating and air conditioning, including insulation and ceiling fans ► Replacement of dry wall damaged from a leak ► Replacement of floor and carpeting damaged from a leak ► Replacement of doors and windows, if in poor condition ► Replacement of rotted siding ► Replacement of bathroom tubs, lavatories, and sinks, as needed to bring the OCTOBER 23, 2001 -90- units to a safe and sanitary standard Repairs to make a house accessible for a disabled member of a household Repair or replacement of septic tank, lift station, drainfield or private well as required by the public health department Termite repairs and treatment Other repairs as required by the building department to bring the house up to current minimum housing code Rehabilitation work within any future target areas established by the Board of County Commissioners for concentrated housing and neighborhood improvement activities Energy Gauge Rating and related expenses such as insulation Rehabilitation grant amounts shall be based upon a minimum of two written licensed contractor estimates for the exact same scope of work, identifying all necessary rehabilitation work and the expected costs of the rehabilitation work. Contractors' estimates must be based on a work write-up prepared by the county designated inspector. The applicant, with the county's assistance, shall choose one of the contractors to complete the identified rehabilitation work, provided that the contractor cost estimate does not exceed 110% of the estimate provided by the county designated inspector. Once the contractor estimate is selected and the Rehabilitation Grant Amount established, no additional funds may be awarded. The contractor estimate must identify all potential costs (including building permit fees) to be encountered in completing the rehabilitation work. Change orders must be approved by the county designated inspector and local housing assistance program staff. The applicant or his contractor must obtain a building permit from the corresponding jurisdictional building department for all rehabilitation activities. The funds for rehabilitation grants of less than $5,000.00 shall be delivered upon completion of all rehabilitation work and a satisfactory final inspection by the corresponding jurisdictional Building Department and the county designated inspector that all required rehabilitation activities for the eligible housing unit are completed. Funds for rehabilitation grants of $5,000.00 or more may be delivered in individual draws, not to exceed three draws total, based upon the completion of individual components of the rehabilitation work and inspection by the corresponding jurisdictional building department and the county designated inspector. Each partial draw including the final draw of funds shall not be less than $5,000.00 and it shall be delivered upon completion of all rehabilitation work and a satisfactory final OCTOBER 23, 2001 -91- l�It20IPG124 inspection by the corresponding jurisdictional Building Department and the county designated inspector that all required rehabilitation activities for the eligible housing unit are completed. No SHIP funds will be for any work completed paid proceed. p Prior to issuance of the notice tc Besides general rehabilitation activities, funds may be Provided for emergency repairs. Emergency repairs eligible for SHIP funding are limited to weatherization activities. Weatherization means materials or measures and their installation which are used to improve the thermal efficiency of a residence. For emergency repairs, only one written licensed contractor estimate is needed. No credit verification is needed for emergency repairs. Rehabilitation/emergency repair grants may be leveraged with private funds, small city Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, weatherization funds, HUD transitional housing funds, and other state and federal programs as appropriate. b. Eligibility g; i. Geographic Area Rehabilitation grants may be made for eligible housing units located anywhere in the County, including all municipalities located within the County. ii. Housing Unit Classification Eligible housing units receiving IRCLHAProgram Rehabilitation Grants must be owner -occupied single-family residences or multi -family f: residential rental projects owned and managed by a non-profit organization. Mobile homes are not eligible. Applicant Classification (a) Rehabilitation grants may be awarded to the following eligible persons: 1. Very Low -Income Eligible Persons 2. Non -Profit Organizations (b) Rehabilitation grants shall result in eligible housing for the following eligible persons: 1. Very Low -Income Persons C. Basic Award Terms i. Maximum Monetary Award The maximum monetary award for a rehabilitation grant shall not exceed $20,000.00 per each eligible single-family housing unit. Rehabilitation grants OCTOBER 23, 2001 .92. 11 'E � a.i , �'.✓ a L. �. for multiple family structures shall be limited to P a maximum monetary award of $100,000 for 3 or more unit multi -family rental building owned and managed by a non-profit organization. ii. Repayment Terms/Timeframe The repayment of funds awarded as a rehabilitation grant is not required, except in cases where the assisted housing unit is sold prior to termination of the unit's affordable classification timeframe (10 years). In cases where the unit is sold, the entire original grant amount must be paid back at the time of resale of the unit. Interest Rate There will be no applicable interest rate for rehabilitation grants y, iv. Affordable Classification Timeframe Housing units whose owners receive funds from the IRCLHAProgram Rehabilitation Grant Strategy Program shall be occupied by the same qualified eligible household who received the assistance for a of not less than ten years (10) period years. Any multi- family rental building rehabilitated with SHIP r funds provided pursuant to this strategy owned and managed by the same on -profit f' organization which receives the original assistance for ten (10) years. V. Compliance Agreement and Security Instrument The county's rehabilitation grant shall be secured by a mortgage in favor of Indian River County. This mortgage shall serve as the eligible recipient's contractural commitment to comply with the requirements of the IRCLHAProgram. This mortgage will be satisfied after termination of the unit's affordable classification timeframe (10 years). 7. Land Bank - Market Purchase a. Description The Indian River County, through the Board of County Commissioners and the IRCLHAProgram, may acquire vacant Parcels or lots via the general real estate market for the purpose of providing sites for the development of eligible housing units by eligible sponsors for eligible persons. The funds for acquisition shall be delivered at the time of closing, whereby the transaction transferring ownership of the parcel or lot to the county is completed. This Market Purchase Strategy may be considered a strategy of "last resort", whereby it may be utilized in the event unexpended or unencumbered funds for the IRCLHAProgram are available and expenditure through the remaining IRCLHAProgram Assistance Strategies is unlikely. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -93- The acquired property shall be classified as a monetary asset of the IRCLHATF to be utilized as an equivalent loan to an eligible sponsor or person for the development of an eligible housing unit. Upon transfer of the acquired property to an eligible sponsor, the effective land bank loan shall be secured by a primary or first mortgage upon the subject property until the eligible sponsor obtains the construction and/or permanent loan financing for the development and construction of a housing unit. At the time the construction/permanent financing is provided for the housing unit, the land bank loan shall be subordinated to the construction/permanent mortgage. For the purposes of the IRCLHAProgram, funds expended for property acquisition under the Land Bank Market Purchase Assistance Strategy shall be classified as a homeownership expenditure, and an eligible housing unit must be constructed and certified for occupancy on the acquired property within one year of the closing transaction date. Failure to complete construction of and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for a housing unit within one (1) year of the closing transaction date shall constitute grounds for foreclosure to obtain possession of the property which may be utilized as a land bank acquired property by the IRCLHAProgram. b. Eligibility 1. Geographic Area Parcels acquired through land bank acquisitions for the development of eligible housing units may be located anywhere in the County, including all municipalities located within the County. ii. Housing Unit Classification All housing units resulting from the IRCLHAProgram OCTOBER 23, 2001 -94- 2. ORIC RODNEY KROEGEL P R DRIVE - CONSIDERAT1W 01 GLAND n The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 16, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEY�A*TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. treating, AICP Community Development Dire FROM: Roland M. DeB1oiC�P Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: October 16, 2001 i .F U SUBJECT: Board Consideration of Purchase of the Historic Rodnev Kroegel Property on Indian River Drive in Coordination with The Trust for Public Land It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners formally consider the following information at the Board's regular meeting of October 23, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (PINWR), the nation's first refuge, is celebrating its 100 - year anniversary in March 2003. Leading up to a national celebration of that anniversary, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has partnered with Indian River County and other agencies to make progress toward restoring resources in the refuge and toward providing public access improvements to the refuge. For a number of years now, the FWS has been interested in acquiring and protecting the Kroegel Homestead in conjunction with the PINWR. The Homestead, located at the south end of Indian River Drive near Sebastian, is the former home of Paul Kroegel, PINWR's (and the nation's) first wildlife warden. The Kroegel Homestead acquisition project consists of three "core" parcels and other secondary parcels (see attached FWS letter and map). The Trust for Public Land (TPL) has been working with the FWS in an effort to negotiate purchase contracts with the owners of the Kroegel Homestead parcels. TPL has succeeded in negotiating terms on one of the three core parcels, the "Rodney Kroegel parcel" owned by Doug and Wayne Kroegel (Parcel 2 on the attached map). The negotiated purchase price is $400,000 or the approved appraised value (yet to be determined), whichever is less. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -95- While the FWS is interested in acquiring the Rodney Kroegel parcel as well as the other identified parcels, Congress has not yet allocated funds to the FWS for the purchase. This matter is presented for the Board to consider working with TPL to purchase the subject property; using County funds. for historic resource protection and public use. ANALYSIS Local Funding In 1993, the core parcels of the Kroegel Homestead were nominated for acquisition under the County Environmental Lands Program. In 1994, however, the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC) voted not to include the project on its acquisition list, based on the project being primarily a historic/ cultural resource instead of an undeveloped natural area. It was determined at that time, and it is staff's position today, that the parcels do not qualify for acquisition using environmental land bond funds. In June 1994, the County applied for a $500,000 legislative grant through the State Division of Historic Resources for purchase of the Timinski parcels (the other core parcels). However, those funds were never spent and the application expired, in that the County and other agencies failed to come to terms with the Timinskis at that time. If the County is to consider purchasing the Rodney Kroegel parcel, a source other than environmental land bond funds will need to be used. Alternatives include County general funds; Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) funds, one -cent local option sales tax funds, or a "blend" of those alternatives. These funding sources, however, have been fully allocated under this fiscal year's budget. Cost -share Funding The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) is a possible cost -share partner for after -purchase reimbursement. Although the FCT's program is focused largely on public acquisition of natural areas, the program also applies to lands bought for parks and to lands with historic/cultural resources. If the County acquires the Rodney Kroegel parcel, the parcel could be used as a local match for the County to subsequently apply for an FCT grant for purchase of the overall Kroegel Homestead project. County purchase of the Rodney Kroegel parcel may also serve as a local match that will aid the FWS in its efforts to obtain funds from Congress for purchase of the other parcels in the project. "Stand -Alone" Purchase In contemplating buying the Rodney Kroegel parcel, the County must consider that purchase of other parcels in the Kroegel Homestead project may not be forthcoming, in that the County (or other agencies) may never come to terms with the sellers of the other parcels. As such, the Rodney Kroegel purchase must be looked at as a "stand-alone" purchase. Staff feels that the Rodney Kroegei parcel has potential public benefits justifying its purchase even as a "stand-alone" parcel. Beyond its historic/cultural significance, the parcel could serve the County as a park in an area that would benefit from conserved open space. Pedestrian/ bike path improvements are currently planned for Indian River Drive, and a park on the parcel would tie-in to that planned road improvement. Currently, the parcel is zoned for commercial development, and commercial will probably be the eventual land use if the parcel is not publicly acquired. The Kroegel Homestead is a local landmark as well as a site of national significance. In that respect, local contribution toward protection of the Homestead is appropriate, despite the lack of available federal funding at this time. The owners are willing to sell now, but the property may not be available in the future. Purchase of the Rodney Kroegel parcel will be an important first step toward successful protection of the overall Homestead, which will otherwise be lost to commercial development if not public acquired. OCTOBER 23,2001 P 9 -96- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve County purchase of the Rodney Kroegel parcel at a price of $400,000 (or the approved appraised value, whichever is less), conditioned upon Planning staff and Budget staff finding funds under the sources described in this memorandum (other than environmental land bond funds). Moreover, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to obtain an appraisal to determine the County's approved appraised value, and to coordinate with The Trust for Public Land to take steps as necessary to close the purchase. ATTACHNIENTS• 1. Map of the Rodney Kroegel property and other Kroegel Homestead properties 2. Letter from The Trust for Public Land dated October I, 2001 3. Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dated August 24, 2001 Environmental Chief Roland DeBlois reviewed the project for the Board and noted that the next step would be for staff to get an appraisal for the property which would be tied into the PINWR refuge. Commissioner Stanbridge commented that this property abuts the Scenic Highway and a bike path will connect it with the City of Sebastian Historical Park and Trail. Mr. DeBlois continued that The Public Land Trust has an agreement for the property which is about to expire. If there is no commitment from the County, they will let the agreement expire. However, if the County does commit to the purchase, they will begin to attempt to find the funding. Commissioner Macht questioned whether the County will be obligated for that $400,000, and County Attorney Paul Bangel suggested inserting the word "conceptually" in the recommendation. Beth Kostka of The Public Land Trust clarified that they have the contract and can go back and work with the landowners once they have identified the source of the funding. They are actually asking for County funds. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -97- U FFG 130 Frank Coffey spoke on behalf of the Taxpayers Association Board of Indian River County and felt strongly that the funding for this purchase had not been budgeted and should not be allocated. He mentioned attending the Budget hearings for this fiscal year and noted that several agencies had been chastised at the Budget hearings for requesting funding not previously budgeted. He specifically quoted figures relating to the current tourism decline; the State's revisions to their budget in the upcoming Legislative meetings; and the very expensive purchase of the new voting system. (COPY OF MR. COFFEY' S REMARKS IS ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING.) Jim Egan stated that the Marine Resources Council is very interested in this project and supports the concept. They will be glad to assist the County in finding alternate sources of funding, perhaps associated with the Scenic Highway funding. Chairman Ginn reiterated that the Board is conceptually approving the purchase with the hope we will be able to find the money. The project will come back for another vote. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously conceptually approved the purchase of the Rodney Kroegel parcel at a price of $400,000 (or the approved appraised value, whichever is less) conditioned upon Planning staff and Budget staff finding funds under the sources described in the memorandum (other than OCTOBER 23, 2001 of r' f -98- environmental land bond funds); directed staff to obtain an appraisal to determine the County's approved appraised value; and directed staff to coordinate with The Trust for Public Land to take steps as necessary to close the purchase; all as recommended by staff. 11.C. STORAGE SPACE L <kA-jr t l%k 1" 1 HL BUAxli - r lAAACE DEPARTMEN The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 17, 2001: Date: October 17, 2001 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director � f��t ccs l Subject: Approval to Lease Document Storage Space BACKGROUND: Last year, when the former Health Department Building was leased to the Homeless Coalition of Indian River County, there was a portion of the building which was retained by the County for storage of certain financial and court records maintained principally by the Clerk's Finance Department. At the time of the lease approval, there were no funds that had been budgeted to relocate and properly store these records. The lease provided for the existing area currently occupied by the Clerk's records to continue to be occupied until such time (October 1, 2001) as adequate funding could be properly budgeted. Accordingly, the Board approved an amount of funds to provide for the rental of adequate storage area for the records. In proceeding to find adequate space, it was necessary to locate storage facilities that were logistically convenient to retrieve documents, and a location that offered a secure and a low humidity environment. There are three facilities that we could find that offer storage specifically for records. One firm, Archives Management, is located in Palm City near Stuart,another is Storage Solutions located here in Indian River County just north of Vero Beach on the east side of U.S I. and the third is U -Store -It, an air-conditioned facility with individual 10' x 10' storage units. The records storage firm in Stuart is about forty miles away with an approximate driving time of about an hour. The U -Store -It facility with individual units is approximately seven miles west on 901h Avenue off S.R. 60. Storage Solutions is approximately 2 miles north on U.S. 1. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -99- 120 32 In reviewing the best choice, it was necessary to understand that the Finance Department needs to have access to the records as frequently as daily. Both Archives Management and Storage Solutions offer delivery of those needed records, but the cost is not desirable especially from Palm City. By driving to Storage Solutions, the only charge that is levied would be a one -dollar retrieval fee. Archives Management in Palm city is clearly too far to drive. While U -Store -It is located in Indian River County, its remote location makes it inconvenient for staff to retrieve a document. The cost for the storage is based on cubic foot displacement and the fee charged by Storage Solutions is $.47 per cubic foot. Based on an estimate of files that might have to be stored, the estimated monthly charlue would be $603.01 monthly. The charge for the same storage by Archives Management is S.25 per cubic foot, which is less expensive, but the distance negates the savings and the delivery costs are also high. U -Store -It provides storage in individual 100 square foot units that are air-conditioned and under scrutiny of closed circuit TV cameras. Each of those units can be rented for S75 per month. It is estimated that at least 6 units would be necessary. There is no retrieval service offered and the time and distance to send an employee to obtain a record is not cost effective. Overall, this type of storage is likely to continue until such time as more comprehensive solution to record storage is determined. That could be resolved with either a new facility providing for storage or space in existing county facilities becoming available. RECOMMENDATION: In light of the sensitivity of these particular financial records and the need for Finance personnel to have quick reasonable access to these documents, Storage Solutions offers the best value for the storage currently needed. Staff recommends that the Board waive the normal bidding procedure and authorize the use of Storage solutions for reasons stated above and authorize the Chairman to execute a rental agreement with Storage Solutions subject to the County Attorney's approval of the agreement documents. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously waived the normal bidding procedure and authorized the use of Storage Solutions and authorized the Chairman to execute a rental agreement with Storage Solutions subject to the County Attorney's approval of the agreement documents; as recommended by staff. OCTOBER 23, 2001 AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD -100- `� nr ' �; � t; J 11.G1. RESOLUTION 2001-111 DEQ CONDITION STATED IN M JNG FAILURE OF ICATION TO COUNTY DEED AND AUTHORIZING PAYMEN THE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY (REACQUIRE PARCEL OF LAND) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 1, 2001: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Cr - Public Works Director Terry B. Thompson, P.E. Manager, Capital Projects FROM: William M. Napier, SRPA, SRA 0,1 Right -of -Way Agent SUBJECT: Children's Home Society - Oslo Road Property Re -acquisition of Land Parcel by County DATE: October 1, 2001 n ra DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In 1991, the Board of County Commissioners deeded the subject property to the Children's Home Society of Florida (The Society), at a price of $25,000. A condition of the transaction was that within one year, the Society would build and maintain a shelter for runaway children. No shelter was ever built on the property. In 1995, the Board granted a five year extension to the Society. At that time, a modified conveyance was provided stating that, should the Society fail to build the facility within the extended time period, the County could record a resolution declaring a failure of a condition of the conveyance of the property and return the $25,000, and the property would revert to Indian River County. In July 1999, Amanda McGee, Executive Director of the Society again came before the Board and asked for permission to be able to sell the property on the open market, without restrictions. Public Works Director, Jim Davis indicated that the parcel might be needed for stormwater use in conjunction with the proposed Oslo Road improvements, and asked that the County be given first right -of -refusal on the property. The Society agreed with this, and the Board approved the request, with Administrator Chandler pointing out that the matter would have to come back before the Board, should Public Works determine the site is needed for stormwater use. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -101- At T It was determined by the Public Works Department that the parcel is necessary for Oslo Road stormwater management. The Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of March 21, 2000 unanimously agreed to exercise the County's rights under the modified deed to pay the Society $25,000 and retake possession of the parcel. The Society asked that, in addition to the $25,000, the County reimburse the Society for maintenance and insurance expenses. The Board approved this, but asked that the Society document the expenses. Since March 2001, 1 have repeatedly requested a list of the reimbursable expenses from the Society. The Society did not respond to these requests. On June 27, 2001, 1 wrote to Amanda McGee by Certified Mail, advising her that I would go before the Board for a Resolution for the County to re -acquire the property for the original $25,000 unless I received the list in 10 days. The Society still has not responded or provided the list. Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve for adoption, the accompanying Resolution, authorize the Chairman to execute the Resolution, authorize its recording, and arrange for payment of $25,000 to the Children's Home Society. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 200 1 -111 declaring a failure of the condition stated in the modification to County Deed and authorizing payment of $25,000 to the Children's Home Society of Florida. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -102- ui 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 111 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DECLARING A FAILURE OF THE CONDITION STATED IN THE MODIFICATION TO COUNTY DEED AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF $25,000 TO THE CHILDREN'S HOME SOCIETY OF FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Indian River County by County Deed, dated January 8, 1991, recorded in O.R. Book 884, Page 1694, of the Indian River County Public Records, transferred title to certain property described on the -.attached Exhibit "A", to the Children's Home Society of Florida (hereinafter The Society"); and WHEREAS, that deed was amended by modification to County Deed, dated May 16, 1995, recorded in O.R. Book 1058, Page 2718, of the Indian Rive and r County Public Records, to The Society; WHEREAS, the Modification to County Deed contained a condition that within five years of the Modification, The Society shall build and put into operation a shelter and counseling service for runaway children or the property will revert back to County ownership; and WHEREAS, this condition has not been met by The Society; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: I. The Board hereby declares the failure of The Society to fulfill the condition of the Modification to County Deed, and 2. The Board directs the recording of this resolution and the payment of the reimbursement Of $25,000 to The Society as specified in the Modification to County Deed so that the title, use, and interest in the property shall revert to the County. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbridge and the motion was seconded by Commissioner to a vote, the vote was as follows: Macht , and, upon being put Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of nrtab-&r ,2001. Attest: J.K. Barton, Cler By Deputy Clerk OCTOBER 23, 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Gc� Caroline D. Ginn Chairman -103- r)'� l 9L_ IJ i J0 .G.2. BID #4012 - VE N I - C. z The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 16, 2001: TO: James Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Directof� FROM: W. Keith McCully, P.E., Esq., Stormwater Engineer OA l 1� SUBJECT: VERO LAKE ESTATES STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I DATE: October 16, 2001 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On Wednesday, September 12, 2001, the County received bids for Phase I stormwater improvements to the Vero Lake Estates subdivision. Two bids were received: 1. C.E.M. Enterprises, Inc. had a base bid price of $1,777,000. 2. Sheltra & Son Construction Co., Inc. had a base bid price of $1,973,030. Although there were several alternative bid items, they will make no change in the selection of the apparent low bidder, C.E.M. Enterprises, Inc. The engineer's estimate for the project was $1,200,000. We believe that the current building construction boom in the County led to the higher than anticipated bid prices. We are negotiating the contract price with C.E.M. Enterprises and we expect to reduce their bid by approximately $250,000 through a Change Order. Savings will be accomplished by the County hauling excess excavated material to the North County Park, County purchase of pipe material to eliminate state sales tax, Contractor concessions, and other miscellaneous deductions. C.E.M. Enterprises has never performed work for Indian River County. However, we interviewed several agencies and municipalities for whom C.E.M. Enterprises has performed construction work, and all comments regarding the company's quality of work and overall performance ranged from "good" to "excellent." OCTOBER 23, 2001 -104- f RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the Board of County Construction Bid to C.E.M. Enterprises, for amount the base bid issioners authorize the Chairman to award the at of$1,777,000. FANG 1 Indian River County's share of the funding will come from account No. 315.243-538-068.11. A breakdown of all the funding follows: a• 319(h) Grant = $400,000 b• Vero Lake Estates Municipal Service Taxing Unit = $250,000 C. Indian River County Local Option Sales Tax = $661,550 d. Indian River Lagoon Program = $250 000 e St. Johns River water Management District Cost -Share Grant = $305000 f Florida Yards & Neighborhoods — IFAS = S81450 ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously awarded construction bid #4012 to C.E.M. Enterprises, Inc. for the base bid amount of $1,777,000; as recommended by staff. OCTOBER 239 2001 -105- 11.Hele 32ND TERRACE OFF 8TH STREET — PETITIO SERVICE — ONE OF TWO STREETS IN SUB ACRES SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 10, 2001: DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2001 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRAT R FROM: W. ERIK OLSON '�. DIRECTOR OF UT�Y I� SERVICES PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAI - AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS - MENT PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: PETITION WATER SERVICE — 32 ND TERRACE —OFF 8T" ST, ONE OF TWO STREETS IN SUBURBAN ACRES SUBDIVISION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO, UCP -2054 BACKGROUND A petition has been received from the residents of 32"D Terrace (one of the two streets in Suburban Acres Subdivision), requesting the County supply potable water to its residents. We are now coming to the Board of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin design of the above- mentioned project. (See ATTACI-LMENTS-1-Plat Map, 2 -Petition & temporary service agreement and 3 -Schedule of Properties.) ANALYSIS The _7_ owners signing this petition including one (1) temporary service agreement, represent 50 % of the owners. All of the 14 owners to benefit from this project have been contacted in person by the petitioner or by mail. On August 10, 2001 an addendum was mailed to the 7 owners who had not signed the petition, with a request of obtaining either the support or opposition for this proposed project, on or prior to August 30, 2001. As of August 31, 2001, 3 owners responded with an addendum opposing the project. On July 21 1992 a final water assessment project was approved by the Board of County Commissioners for the If' Street Project which included the four Suburban Acres lots abutting Sd' Street. On November 19, 1996 the Board of Countv Commissioners approved a final assessment for 34'h Terrace. These two projects provided water service to 1S (56.25410) of the 32 lots in Suburban Acres. Several owners on 32"d Terrace have complained of substandard water quality from their wells since p^or to the above referenced neighboring projects and they have attempted to obtain a majority of owners on 32nd Terrace to support a petition project. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -106- TE C] Construction and related costs of water installation projects continues to increase difficult to justify continuing advising the owners requesting water service that the and staff finds it another signature or two! Several owners on this street who wanted county y need to get waiting, and moved! ty water got tired of The attached map (ATTACHMENT.1)displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners along the proposed water line route. Funding will be from the assessment fund No. 473. Design services will be provided by the Department of Utility Services. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the above -listed project, and requests authorization for the Department to proceed with the desi award a contract for survey services through the ieenng work ssuance of a purchase ordergbased on the a d favorable quote, in preparation for the special assessment project. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: I -Plat Map 2 -Petition & Temporary Service Agreement 3 -Schedule of Properties ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the project; authorized staff to proceed with the design engineering work and award a contract for survey services through the issuance of a purchase order based on the most favorable quote in preparation for the special assessment project; as recommended by staff. OCTOBER 239 2001 -107- 1) P.1 1 L 1, ) h Y 1LHe2e WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMI FACILITY — UTILITY MAINTENANCE BUILD ENSION — CHANGE ORDER #1 — BAR CONSTRUCTION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 10, 2001: DATE: OCTOBER 10, 2001 TO: JANIES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMLNISTRATOR THROUGH: W. ERIK OLSON, DIR. OF UTILITY SERVICES FROM: GENE A. RAUTH, OPERATIONS MANAGER6 SUBJECT: LNDIAN RIVER DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES UTILITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXTENSION BACKGROUND: On May 22, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with Barth Construction for design and construction of a 7200 sq. ft addition to the existing 7200 sq ft maintenance building at the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. (See attached agenda item and contract). ANALYSIS As outlined in the contract, the project is administered in two phases. Phase One of the project is the permitting and design portion of the building addition, (524,000.00), and Phase Two is the actual construction of the addition. (S 174,769.00). Phase One of the project has been completed. During this phase of the project, a structural review of the existing 4 -inch concrete floor slab was performed. The structural engineer has recommended increasing the slab thickness of the new addition to 6 -inches. The slab thickness of the existing building is 4 -inches. (See attached letter dated 09/17/01). The additional 2 -inches of floor thickness will avoid the problems of cracking that the existing slab has had, due to large, heavy equipment and truck traffic on this slab. The increased cost for this change is 54,772.00. (See attached Change Order). RECONINIENDATION• The Staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends Board authorization and approval for Change Order No. 1, in the amount of 54,772.00. The Funding Source will be from: 471- 268-536-066.29. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -108- ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Change Order # 1 in the amount of $4,772 with Barth Construction, as recommended by staff. Moved to Item 5.C. �"Ivx IT11331t)IN Ks SOMERSET. PFNIvcvT t7 A Arr . iv one. 'None. me Un11 airman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Environmental C Minutes are being prepared separately. Control Board. Those OCTOBER 239 2001 D Xi 12 0 P tG - l 09- ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Change Order # 1 in the amount of $4,772 with Barth Construction, as recommended by staff. 13.A. CHAIRMAN CAROLINE D. GINN — SOMERS] COMMISSIONERS SOMERSET PENNSYLV LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 26 2001 Moved to Item 5.C. *Be VICE CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGF — None. 14.A. EMI None. 14.B. SOL None. 14.C. FNV ENCY TE D NTAL ( 3W L z COUNTY The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Environmental Control Board. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. OCTOBER 23, 2001 -109- LP31 12 i ( G ! 4 3 There being no further business, on Motion duly made seconded Board adjourned at 12:45 p.m. and carried, the ATTEST: J. K. arton, Clerk --- Caroline D. Ginn, Chairrn Minutes Approved: D �� anal OCTOBER 239 2001 -110- t ��