HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/22/2002MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chaiiman
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman
Fran 13. Adams
Caroline D. Ginn
Kenneth R. Macht
District 2
District 4
District 1
District 5
District 3
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION Rev. Elmer Vogelsang
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Paul G. Bangel
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA /
EMERGENCY ITEMS
BACKUP
PAGES
Add Item 11.0.2., Report on County's Habitat Conservation Plan.
PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
APPROVAL OF 1VHNUTES
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
1. Delta Farms Water Control District Financial State-
ment, Auditor's Report and Annual Local Govern-
ment Financial Report FY 2000/01
CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
A. (cont'd.):
2. Delta Faims Water Control District, Minutes
of the Board of Supervisors for FY ending
September 30, 2001
3. Vero Lakes Water Control District — Annual
Local Government Financial Report FY 2000/01
Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated January 10, 2002)
BACKUP
PAGES
Proclamation Designating March 7-9, 2002 as Mentally
Handicapped Week 12
Proclamation Honoring Ralph W. Sexton 13
Out -of -County Travel for Commissioners to Attend
the 73rd Annual Florida Association of Counties
Annual Conference June 26-28, 2002
(memorandum dated January 8, 2002)
Out -of -County Travel for Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge
to Attend a Meeting of the Historic Preservation Grant
Review Panel on February 11-12, 2002 in Tallahassee
(memorandum dated January 3, 2002)
Election of P&Z Chaiunan and Vice Chaizman
(memorandum dated January 16, 2002) 21
Approval of Contract with Barth Construction, Inc. for
Dental Clinic Addition at Health Department
(memorandum dated January 16, 2002)
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Lot 1, Block 17, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 3
(memorandum dated January 9, 2002)
Temporary Water Service Agreement Between Indian
River County and David McCarthy and Carol McCarthy
(memorandum dated January 11, 2002)
Beazer Homes Corporation Request for Partial Release of
Easement at 1438 W. Island Club Square (Lot 77, Island
Club Riverside — Phase IV)
(memorandum dated January 15, 2002)
CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd ):
L. Request to approve Joint Participation Agreement
(JPA) with Florida Department of Transportation
(FDOT) for 16th / 17th Street Project Design Services
(memorandum dated January 8, 2002)
BACKUP
PAGES
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
REGARDING TREE PROTECTION AND LAND CLEAR-
ING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING LAND DEVELOP-
MENT REGULATIONS (LDRs) CHAPTER 901,
DEFINITIONS; AND CHAPTER 927, TREE PROTECTION
AND LAND CLEARING; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL
OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Board Consideration to Approve Proposed Revisions to
the County Land Clearing and Tree Protection Ordinance
(Legislative)
(memorandum dated January 15, 2002)
PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
Request by City of Sebastian to address the Commission
and conduct a brief presentation relative to the City's
long range planning regarding discretionary sales tax
(letter dated January 2, 2002)
PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
Scheduled for Public Hearing on February 5, 2002:
Suburban Acres 32nd Terrace, Petition Water Service
IRC Project No. UCP -2054, Resolution III
(memorandum dated January 10, 2002)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
BACKUP
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development PAGES
1. Board consideration to purchase the historic Rodney
Kroegel parcel on South Indian River Drive (follow-
up to 01/08/02 Board consideration)
(memorandum dated January 16, 2002) 119-128
Request to Reconsider Affidavit of Exemption Process
(memorandum dated January 14, 2002) 129-152
Emergency Services
None
G eneral Services
Change Order #2 North County Library/Chilberg
Construction Co., Inc.
(memorandum dated January 15, 2002)
Leisure Services
None
153-159
O ffice of Management and Budget
None
P ersonnel
None
P ublic Works
Submittal of PEP Reef Final Report
(memorandum dated January 14, 2002)
Utilities
1. Bent Pine Subdivision Water Services
Replacement Project
(memorandum dated January 7,. 2002)
2. Developer's Agreement with King's Baptist
Church (for force main installation on 58th Ave.
between 32nd Street and 49th Street
(memorandum dated January 11, 2002)
H uman Services
None
161-169
170-186
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Updates
BACKUP
PAGES
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
Solid Waste Disposal District
None
Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of
meeting.
Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fi.us
Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office,
Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library
Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 — rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00
p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m.
Meeting broadcast same as above on AT & T Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.
INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
JANUARY 22, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. Reports -2-
7 B List of Warrants -3-
7.C. Proclamation Designating March 7-9, 2002 as Mentally Handicapped
Week (Knights of Columbus Tootsie Roll Drive) -11-
7.D. Proclamation Honoring Ralph W. Sexton -12-
JANUARY 22, 2002
7 E Out -of -County Travel - 73`d Annual Florida Association of Counties
Annual Conference - June 26-28, 2002 - Commissioners -13-
7.F. Out -of -County Travel - Historic Preservation Grant Review Panel Meeting
- February 11-12, 2002 - Tallahassee - Chairman Stanbridge -14-
7.G. Planning & Zoning Commission - Election of Chairman Gene Winne and
Vice Chairman Dr. David Cox -15-
7.H. Health Department - Dental Clinic Addition - Barth Construction, Inc.
-16-
7.I. Burgoon Berger Construction - Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver -
Lot 1, Block 17, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 3 (92nd Avenue) -17-
7.J. David and Carol McCarthy - Temporary Water Service Agreement - 5285
94th Lane, Sebastian (Lot 9, Durrance Development) -19-
7.K. Resolution 2002-007 Releasing a Portion of a Lake Maintenance Easement
on Lot 77, Island Club Riverside - Phase IV (1438 W. Island Club Square)
(Beazer Homes Corporation) -20-
7 L Resolution 2002-008 Approving a Joint Participation Agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation to Fund a Portion of the Local Match
for Design Services Associated with the 16th/17th Street Widening Project
-23-
9.A. PUBLIC HEARING - TREE PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING
REQUIREMENTS -27-
JANUARY 22, 2002
-2-
Oats
3
•
9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS - CITY OF SEBASTIAN (MAYOR
WALTER BARNES AND CITY MANAGER TERRENCE MOORE) -
PRESENTATION RELATIVE TO THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN'S LONG
RANGE PLANNING REGARDING DISCRETIONARY SALES TAX
-38-
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
FEBRUARY 5, 2002 -39-
Suburban Acres 32nd Terrace Petition Water Service - Project No. UCP -
2054 - Resolution III -40-
11A.1.
RODNEY KROEGEL PARCEL ON SOUTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE
(FOLLOW-UP TO CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE HEARD AT
THE JANUARY 8, 2002 BOARD MEETING) -41-
11.A.2. AFFIDAVIT OF EXEMPTION PROCESS RECONSIDERATION . -48-
11.C. NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY - CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO.,
11.G.1.
INC. CHANGE ORDER tt2 -55-
PREFABRICATED EROSION PREVENTION (PEP) REEF FINAL
REPORT - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION - UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER -56-
JANUARY 22, 2002
-3-
REPORT ON COUNTY'S HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
(BEACH PRESERVATION, SCRUB JAYS, MARINE TURTLES -
GERSTNER AND SUMMERPLACE SEAWALLS - CARIBBEAN
CONSERVATION CORPORATION - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
SERVICE - BUREAU OF PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT)
11.H.1. BENT PINE SUBDIVISION - WATER SERVICES REPLACEMENT
PROJECT - GEORGE E FRENCH -61-
KING'S BAPTIST CHURCH DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT - FORCE
MAIN INSTALLATION ON 58TH AVENUE BETWEEN 32ND STREET
AND 49TH STREET -63--
13.A. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - UPDATES -64-
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT -64-
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT -64
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD -65-
JANUARY 22, 2002
January 22, 2002
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, January 22, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman; John
W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also
present were James E Chandler, County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney;
and Patricia "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stanbridge called the meeting to order.
INVOCATION
Reverend Elmer Vogelsang delivered the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
County Attorney Bangel led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
JANUARY 22, 2002
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Adams requested 1 addition to today's Agenda:
1. Add Item 11.G.2., Report on the County's Habitat Conservation Plan.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously made the above change to the Agenda.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
None.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None.
7. CONSENT AGENDA
7.A. REPORTS
The following have been received and are on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board
1. Delta Farms Water Control District Financial Statement, Auditor's Report and
Annual Local Government Financial Report for FY 2000/01.
2. Delta Farms Water Control District Minutes of the Board of Supervisors for FY
Ending 09/30/01.
3 Vero Lakes Water Control District Annual Local Government Financial Report for
FY 2000-01.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-2-
t
•
•
•
7.B. LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 10, 2002:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: January 10, 2002
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., F
ANCE 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 January 8, 2001 to January 10, 2002.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the list of Warrants as issued by the Clerk
to the Board for January 8 through January 10, 2002,
as recommended by staff.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-3-
BR
1
•
CHECK NAME
NUMBER
CHECK
DATE
CHECK
AMOUNT
O 021548 AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA)
O 021549 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
O 315677 AT&T WIRELESS
O 315678 ACE PLUMBING, INC
O 315679 ALPHA ACE HARDWARE
0315680 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
O 315681 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
O 315682 ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED
O 315683 ADDISON OIL CO
O 315684 APPLE BOOKS
O 315685 A T & T
O 315686 AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
0315687 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
0315688 AMERICAN REPORTING
O 315689 ARCH WIRELESS
O 315690 ARCO GARAGE DOOR CO
O 315691 ALTERATIONS
O 315692 A T & T
O 315693 APOLLO ENTERPRISES
O 315694 AMERITREND HOMES
0315695 ATLANTIC REPORTING
O 315696 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADM
O 315697 ALLIED TRAILER SALES & RENTALS
0315698
O 315699
O 315700
O 315701
0315702
O 315703
O 315704
O 315705
O 315706
0315707
O 315708
O 315709
O 315710
O 315711
O 315712
O 315713
O 315714
O 315715
O 315716
O 315717
O 315718
O 315719
O 315720
O 315721
O 315722
O 315723
O 315724
O 315725
O 315726
O 315727
O 315728
O 315729
O 315730
O 315731.
O 315732
O 315733
O 315734
O 315735
AIR TECHS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
BRIDGESTONE SPORTS, INC
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
BRODART CO
BOWKER
BENNETT TRUCK EQUIPMENT INC
BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION
BELLSOUTH COMMUNICATION
BELLSOUTH DIRECTORY SALES
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
BOOKS ON TAPE INC
BELLSOUTH
BEAZER HOMES, INC
BEELER, THOMAS T
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
BLACKSTONE AUDIOBOOKS
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
BUZA, PAUL W DO
B & S SOD INC
BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF IRC
BARROW, MARIA E
B UMPERS, JAY
B ELLSOUTH
CAMERON & BARKLEY CO
CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC
CITRUS MOTEL
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
COLE PALMER INSTRUMENT
CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC
CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO
CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA
CALL ONE, INC
2002-01-08
2002-01-08
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
933.88
162.86
41.64
54.00
113.35
459.96
1,451.91
59.90
669.98
51.73
76.11
1,259.77
8,515.74
27.00
723.40
540.00
104.50
477.75
1,555.73
1,000.00
93.60
50.61
150.00
2,150.00
5,008.38
33,041.44
6,041.25
207.36
1,486.38
2,634.75
3,195.00
8,288.00
16.65
200.00
100.07
200.00
33.95
5,335.71
2,000.00
770.00
96.02
6.00
915.00
1,800.00
200.00
150.00
CO
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
5,146.32
25.00
1,020.00
492.97
867.76
22,996.40
72.00
43.00
525.00
24,402.99
380.59
2.91
193,295.00
64.60
26.30
JANUARY 22, 2002
-4-
Pita
•
O 31573
O 31573
O 31573
d315739
O 315740
O 315741
O 315742
O 315743
O 315744
O 315745
O 315746
O 315747
O 315748
O 315749
O 315750
O 315751
O 315752
0315753
O 315754
O 315755
O 315756
O 315757
O 315758
O 315759
O 315760
0315761
O 315762
O 315763
O 315764
O 315765
O 315766
6 CROSSROADS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
7 CARSONITE INTERNATIONAL CORP
-
8 C4 IMAGING SYSTEMS INC
CLIFFORD, MIKE
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
COPYCO INC
COLUMBIA HOUSE
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
CUSTOM CANVAS
CITGO PETROLEUM CORP
CINGULAR WIRELESS
CGI MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS INC
CAVER, JR. LARRY
CAMELOT PUBLISHING COMPANY
CHANDLER, JANITA
DAILY COURIER SERVICE
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
DAVES COMMUNICATIONS
D IAMOND R FERTILIZER, CO. INC
D ICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
DOLPH MAP CO
DEALERS COST CORPORATION
DATA SUPPLIES, INC
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
DUNMEYER, MR
DAY -TIMERS, INC
DADE PAPER COMPANY
DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC
O 315767
O 315768
O 315769
O 315770
O 315771
O 315772
O 315773
O 315774
O 315775
O 315776
O 315777
O 315778
O 315779
O 315780
O 315781
O 315782
O 315783
O 315784
O 315785
O 315786
O 315787
O 315788
O 315789
O 315790
O 315791
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
D IRECTORY DISTRIBUTING ASSOC
DEAN, CYNTHIA
DEPT OF STATE/RA GRAY BUILDING
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
ELLIS K PHELPS AND CO, INC
ELSEVIER SCIENCE, INC
EXCHANGE CLUB CASTLE
EDWARDS, DONALD B DMD PA
EVERGLADES FARM
FELLSMERE, CITY OF
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY LLC
FLORIDA BOLT AND NUT CO
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC
FWPCOA
FLORIDA VETERINARY LEAGUE
FLORIDA DATABASE SYSTEMS, INC
F & W PUBLICATIONS INC
FPL
FACSSE
FIRSTLAB
O 315792 FIRESTONE
O 315793
O 315794
O 315795
O 315796
O 315797
O 315798
TIRE & SERVICE
FELIX EQUITIES, INC
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FIRST LAB
FLORIDA BEACH PATROL CHIEFS
GALE GROUP, THE
GENE'S AUTO GLASS
JANUARY 22, 2002
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
-5-
uo
•
15.00
824.36
415.05
200.00
48.75
256.50
81.87
22.75
836.42
203.00
3,499.07
781.83
171,323.80
38.50
473.85
15.00
1,062.50
576.48
182.79
60.00
117.00
12,845.30
33.70
145.50
15.00
408.40
521.16
204.69
33.98
253.44
72.61
2,583.20
68.60
10.44
82.49
365.50
141.75
583.00
2,899.02
72.00
478.66
20.33
5,292.05
535.95
384.45
7,046.50
56.78
31.17
9,356.34
600.00
15.00
4,225.00
36.11
398.14
70.00
217.00
283.30
242,325.81
20.91
1,026.00
100.00
953.66
355.49
O 315799
O 315800
O 315801
O 315802
O 315803
O 315804
O 315805
O 315806
O 315807
O 315808
O 315809
O 315810
O 315811
O 315812
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
GOVERNMENT FINANCE
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
GREYHOUND LINES, INC.
GRAVES AND HALL
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
GROWERS FERTILIZER CORP
GEAR FOR SPORTS
GINN, CAROLINE D
FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE
GHO HOMES INC
GORHAM, JONATHAN
GATRELL, SHARON
HARRISON COMPANY, THE
O 315813 HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH
O 315814
O 315815
O 315816
O 315817
O 315818
0315819
O 315820
0315821
O 315822
O 315823
O 315824
O 315825
0315826
0315827
0315828
0315829
O 315830
O 315831
O 315832
O 315833
O 315834
O 315835
O 315836
O 315837
O 315838
O 315839
0315840
O 315841
O 315842
O 315843
O 315844
O 315845
O 315846
O 315847
O 315848
O 315849
O 315850
O 315851
O 315852
O 315853
O 315854
O 315855
O 315856
O 315857
O 315858
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
HOLIDAY BUILDERS, INC
HERITAGE BOOKS, INC
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
HOMETOWN PET CARE CENTER
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
HANSEN, SUSAN
HARRIS, GREGORY PHD CVE
HAMPTON INN
INDIAN
INDIAN
INDIAN
INDIAN
INDIAN
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
COUNTY SOLID
COUNTY
BATTERY, INC
BLUEPRINT CO INC
COUNTY UTILITY
INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES
INDIAN
INDIAN
INDIAN
INDIAN
INDIAN
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
RIVER
FARMS WATER
COUNTY
COUNTY
ALL -FAB, INC
COUNTY UTILITY
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
INDIAN RIVER CUSTOM HOMES
JIM WRIGHT CONSTRUCTION
JAMEISON PUBLISHERS
JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
JOHNSON CONTROLS INC
JANNACH PROPERTIES LTD
JOSLIN, F R-
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES,
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
K MART
KRUGER CONSTRUCTION CORP
KOLHAGE, DANNY L
HEATH, TODD
K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC
KRISS, HOLDEN E
KEMIRON INC
L IBERTY FLAGS, INC
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
LEWIS, RUTH A
L B SMITH, INC
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
LETTS, BRIAN
JANUARY 22, 2002
INC
-6-
2002-01-10 V
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2,002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
62.13
120.00
124.75
153.00
3,850.00
265.72
939.19
1,402.16
27.96
5,299.67
500.00
52.37
75.00
467.29
16,785.00
840.78
130.00
158.00
94.50
52.00
500.00
98.31
1,094.70
395.00
667.70
245.00
1,078.15
215.04
3,423.68
78.64
200.00
1,116.39
907.81
162.18
1,048.63
1,025.00
196.03
60.39
500.00
22,275.00
526.50
482.74
708.50
5,850.00
24.00
3,860.77
130.22
465.14
30.00
6.00
272.00
27.73
169.65
1,103.53
490.80
715.43
32.36
1,037.06
1,543.92
1,348.78
n
• •
O 315859
O 315860
O 315861
O 315862
O 315863
O 315864
O 315865
O 315866
O 315867
O 315868
O 315869
O 315870
O 315871
O 315872
O 315873
O 315874
O 315875
O 315876
O 315877
O 315878
O 315879
O 315880
O 315881
O 315882
O 315883
O 315884
O 315885
O 315886
O 315887
O 315888
O 315889
O 315890
O 315891
O 315892
O 315893
O 315894
O 315895
O 315896
O 315897
O 315898
O 315899
O 315900
O 315901
O 315902
O 315903
O 315904
O 315905
O 315906
O 315907
O 315908
O 315909
O 315910
O 315911
O 315912
O 315913
O 315914
O 315915
O 315916
O 315917
O 315918
O 315919
O 315920
O 315921
0315922
LOWE'S COMPANIES,INC
L INDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION
L IGHTNING LEASING INC
LATORTUE, EVENS
LOWTHER CREMATION SERVICES INC
MARRIOTT ORLANDO WORLD CENTER
MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC
MAXWELL & SON, INC
MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC
MIKES GARAGE
MATTHEW BENDER & CO, INC
MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC
MID -STATE MECHANICAL
METAL CULVERTS
MULLER MINTZ, P A
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
M C B COLLECTION SERVICES INC
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
MARC INDUSTRIES
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC
MURPHY, DEBBIE
MALONE, GEORGE
MCDONALD, LARRY
MIDLANTIC DATA SYSTEMS
N A D A APPRAISAL GUIDES
NEW YORK TIMES, THE
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
NACPRO
NEC BUSINESS NETWORK SOLUTIONS
NATIONSRENT
NITRO LEISURE PRODUCTS, INC
OCALA HILTON
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
OSCEOLA PHARMACY
ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO
OSWALD, GERALD
PAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING CO
PARKS RENTAL INC
PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC
PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
POSTMASTER
PUBLIC DEFENDER
PUBLIX
PETTY CASH
PORT CONSOLIDATED
PATIO RESTAURANT
POSTMASTER
PAGE, LIVINGSTON
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
PUBLIX PHARMACY #0385
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES, INC
PUBLIX PHARMACY #0642
PUBLIX PHARMACY
PROFORMA
PENWORTHY COMPANY, THE
PALM TRUCK CENTERS, INC
POINTE WEST LTD
PAULSIN, CURTIS A
PICKERILL, JOHN
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
RINGHAVER EQUIPMENT COMPANY
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
JANUARY 22, 2002
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
24.04
60.00
1,500.00
125.00
80.00
300.00
276.00
16.20
174.90
78.50
245.00
227.22
12.80
711.44
1,572.83
2,846.92
1,008.55
7.49
366.00
123.78
1,000.00
70.00
75.00
500.00
2,212.05
90.00
533.00
579.91
60.00
3,361.92
1,178.05
304.80
474.00
1,319.95
1,023.66
286.29
2,272.50
52.97
255.00
101.45
269.61
862.89
15,000.00
4,846.48
289.47
34.00
6,869.56
77.28
136.00
273.00
24.30
109.00
1,000.00
37.85
25.90
39.90
1,021.94
12,896.66
50,222.38
215.00
500.00
577.88
458.75
611.00
7UA Cm.3
-7-
O 315923
O 315924
O 315925
O 315926
O 315927
O 315928
O 315929
O 315930
O 315931
O 315932
O 315933
O 315934
O 315935
O 315936
O 315937
O 315938
O 315939
O 315940
O 315941
O 315942
O 315943
O 315944
O 315945
O 315946
O 315947
O 315948
O 315949
O 315950
O 315951
O 315952
O 315953
O 315954
O 315955
O 315956
O 315957
O 315958
O 315959
O 315960
O 315961
O 315962
O 315963
O 315964
0315965
O 315966
O 315967
0315968
O 315969
O 315970
O 315971
O 315972
O 315973
O 315974
O 315975
O 315976
O 315977
O 315978
O 315979
O 315980
O 315981
0315982
O 315983
0315984
O 315985
O 315986
O 315987
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
RAYMOND, ROY SHERIFF OF
RUDD, ALAN E
RECORDED BOOKS, LLC
R & G SOD FARMS
RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE
ROYAL CUP COFFEE
RUSHING, KAREN E, CLERK OF
REXEL CONSOLIDATED
REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING
REHABILICARE INC
ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET
S COTT'S SPORTING GOODS
S EBASTIAN, CITY OF
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING,
REXEL SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
S T LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
S UN COAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC
S UNRISE FORD TRACTOR &
S UNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY
S HAFRANSKI CONSTRUCTION
SAFESPACE INC
SEMBLER, CHARLES W
SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL
S ELIG CHEMICAL IND
SOLINET
SYSCO OF SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
S TARCK, DONNA
SEBASTIAN, CITY OF
SOUTHEAST DESALTING ASSOC
STANBRIDGE, RUTH
SOUTHERN/ALARM PARTNERS
S TAGE & SCREEN
SOUTHERN COMPUTER SUPPLIES INC
SOUTHERN EMBROIDERY WORKS
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL
S UMMERLIN SEVEN SEAS INC
SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY
S UNNYTECH INC- FL
S TEPHENS, LARRY
SVI INC/SEMINOLE OF OKEECHOBEE
S OUTHERN PLUMBING, INC
SQUARE TWO GOLF
TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP
TIMOTHY ROSE CONTRACTING
THOMSON LEARNING
THOMSON FINANICAL PUBLICATION
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN
SMITH, TERRY L
TREASURE COAST BUILDERS
S CRIPPS TREASURE COAST
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP
TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL
TIM HERMES & ASSOCIATES, INC
TERRILL, THOMAS E ARBITRATOR
UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOC
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
U S WIRE -TIE SYSTEMS
U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP
U SA AQUATICS INC
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
JANUARY 22, 2002
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
1,464.40
60.00
7,443.46
41.41
212.85
405.00
99.95
25.05
7.00
331.00
679.65
237.70
1,483.18
160.00
380.00
73.69
395.90
128.40
116.60
11.79
251.45
107.63
75.00
500.00
2,785.58
50.85
1,257.21
6,503.15
407.39
468.05
661.11
21.81
7,626.13
15.00
339.10
753.00
51.43
521.60
852.00
218.00
2,500.00
114.10
1,168.24
301.00
45.00
251.00
216.44
79.86
338,131.38
158.88
1,161.25
713.00
29.29
500.00
452.30
1,958.00
53.76
500.00
4,417.32
100.00
45.00
585.50
57,947.08
90.00
7.25
-8-
ji
1
• •
0315988
O 315989
O 315990
O 315991
O 315992
O 315993
O 315994
O 315995
O 315996
O 315997
O 315998
O 315999
O 316000
O 316001
O 316002
O 316003
O 316004
O 316005
O 316006
O 316007
O 316008
O 316009
O 316010
O 316011
O 316012
O 316013
O 316014
O 316015
O 316016
O 316017
O 316018
O 316019
O 316020
O 316021
O 316022
O 316023
O 316024
O 316025
O 316026
O 316027
O 316028
O 316029
O 316030
O 316031
O 316032
O 316033
O 316034
O 316035
O 316036
O 316037
O 316038
O 316039
O 316040
O 316041
O 316042
O 316043
O 316044
O 316045
O 316046
O 316047
O 316048
O 316049
O 316050
O 316051
VELDE FORD, INC
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,ZNC
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS
VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
VERO BEARING & BOLT
VANDEVOORDE, RENE G
VETERANS COUNCIL OF INDIAN
VERO BEACH WOMAN S CLUB, INC
WALSH, LYNN
WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY
WINN DIXIE STORES INC
WORLD BOOK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
W ILLHOFF, PATSY
WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC
W ILSON, MARGARET F
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
WILLOW BEND BOOKS & FAMILY
WASTE MANAGEMENT
WATERVIEW PRESS INC
W W GRAINGER INC
WOMEN'S GOLF UNLIMITED
W INGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE
WORK, LOIS
WALKER AVE CLUB LTD
XEROX CORPORATION
ZEPHYRHILLS NATURAL SPRING
S KUBIC, FRANK
ROSENBERG, LORETTA
ZORC, RICHARD
TRINN HEATING & AIR CONDITION
GROOM CONSTRUCTION CO
TORY, TERESA R
W INDSOR PROPERTIES
S TEWART, DAVID
W ISSEL CONSTRUCTION
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
FILOSA, ALFRED
FOSS, WAYNE
MAGEE, MICHAEL P
JOHNSON, ROBERT L
GUY, SANDRA L
COLANDREA, JAMES A
GHO VERO BEACH INC
MITCHELL, SUSAN
D E VOE, BARBARA
KEARNEY, EDWARD R
S UN VIEWS
S YBIL INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
S EA OAKS INVESTMENT LTD
P ENDLETON, THOMAS AND
MC GRAIL, MARY
HUNTER, MICHAEL F
CARVILLE, JESSICA
D USENBERRY, PHILIP B
GAROZZO, PAULINE
SAMPERI, JOHN
KALTENBACH, SE -FERRY
MC CORMICK, IDELLA
S COTTS METAL FRAMING & DRYWALL
NOLAN, DENNIS B
O DELL, SEAN M
JANUARY 22, 2002
-9-
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
3,898.24
55,223.91
410.40
64.70
11.40
20.00
50.00
263.58
10,000.00
2,986.75
1,435.00
46.40
33.35
237.97
799.00
73.00
214.85
89.90
5,879.00
41.45
433.11
56.86
754.90
891.96
2,344.84
477.44
6,930.00
264.48
9.50
3.43
61.22
37.10
23.74
53.95
12.59
34.65
37.60
40.59
165.15
15.49
62.55
40.32
74.98
19.95
39.72
129.17
2.98
60.32
49.84
60.09
79.11
31.57
50.54
88.62
103.22
58.40
45.65
33.26
89.92
32.98
103.66
22.73
35.19
42.15
r = j
O 316052
O 316053
O 316054
O 316055
O 316056
O 316057
O 316058
O 316059
O 316060
O 316061
O 316062
O 316063
O 316064
O 316065
O 316066
O 316067
O 316068
O 316069
O 316070
O 316071
O 316072
O 316073
O 316074
O 316075
0316076
O 316077
O 316078
O 316079
O 316080
O 316081
O 316082
0316083
O 316084
0316085
O 316086
O 316087
O 316088
O 316089
O 316090
O 316091
O 316092
O 316093
O 316094
O 316095
O 316096
O 316097
O 316098
O 316099
O 316100
O 316101
O 316102
O 316103
O 316104
O 316105
O 316106
O 316107
O 316108
O 316109
O 316110
O 316111
O 316112
O 316113
O 316114
O 316115
S MITH-CERISIER, SUSAN
FORBERG, TRYGGVI
B & T ALUMINUM
S CHUSTER, BREYNN H
FORNABAIO, MICHELE Y
GRAY, TODD
ALBRITTON, RUBY
S CHLITT, J THOMAS
S URLES, MAJOR
CAL BUILDERS INC
WHITCRAFT, JAMES S
HERON CAY
FLOODTIDE INC
MGB CONSTRUCTION
CHESSER, PHILIP 0
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
DANIELS, JUANITA
COUNTRYSIDE N MOBILE HOME PARK
BROOKS, HAROLD JR AND
GEE, DEBORAH L
JOHN LLOYD BUILDERS INC
KUBITZ, JACK A
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC
FRANCIS, MELANIE
BEAZER HOMES CORP
AUTO PARTS OF VERO
TERRY, RICHARD
DREW, ALFRED C JR
S YBIL INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP
JARVIS, KARL AND
S MITH, SCOTT F
NOACH, LORRAINE AND
HALL, RICHARD
HOLLEN, PEGGY
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMEES INC
CHANNING CORP XXIX
JACKSON, CASSANDRA
GUYETTE, MICHAEL
WERNICKI, JO ANNE
TICE, CHUCK
BADERA, JULIE ALISON
S ANTIAGO, TASHIMA
S TEWART, DARLA
REAVIS, RAYNOR, B
PAVCO CONSTRUCTION INC
P IPGRASS, JASALINE C
SWEET, DALE E
P ENAFIEL, SANTIAGO
RUSELL PAYNE INC
WOEHLE, LUCY LAKE AND
HENSLEY, BRIAN
GRB CONSTRUCTION INC
AKINS, JAMES I JR
MEHR, CHARLES
AMERITREND HOMES
BEAZER HOMES
CHANNING CORP
GHO VERO BEACH INC
WILLIAM GLOVER INC
HOLIDAY BUILDERS
MGB CONST
PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES
W ISSEL CONST
BARTON, CHRISTOPHER
JANUARY 22, 2002
-10-
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
2002
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
- 01-10
-71(
Li n
5.69
63.05
43.32
33.47
24.74
34.62
38.04
34.94
38.63
24.00
74.80
69.07
15.09
76.12
5C.16
108.93
26.95
32.46
38.59
37.89
44.80
44.70
296.75
51.18
206.80
181.35
40.21
52.41
69.33
44.52
35.27
79.33
38.58
22.82
49.62
120.58
10.13
106.02
17.21
30.63
30.29
74.60
5.22
535.31
3.00
21.98
38.05
56.87
36.50
16.71
49.72
41.60
55.53
69.52
115.23
31.78
65.93
14.53
23.52
49.08
141.04
31.78
43.10
21.72
•
0316116
O 316117
O 316118
O 316119
O 316120
O 316121
O 316122
O 316123
O 316124
O 316125
O 316126
O 316127
O 316128
O 316129
0316130
O 316131
BLANCHARD, STANFORD
COASTAL COTTON CO
CUNNINGHAM, MARK
DAY, TERRIE
ERNEST, HELEN
GUY, SANDRA
HARDING, DAWN
HENDERSON, SUE
PHELPS, PAMELA
PRIMEAU, CHERYL
RILEY, SCOTT ALLEN
RIVERSIDE NATIONAL BANK
SMITH, SUSAN MICHELLE
SUN VIEWS
SWEEZEY, KENT
MCGRATH, DEBORAH
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
53.70
31.78
21.72
19.15
18.16
9.59
61.58
12.64
23.14
88.77
24.28
9.66
40.33
34.15
38.49
39.41
1,574,491.19
7. C. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MARCH 7-9, 2002 AS MENTALLY
HANDICAPPED WEEK (KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS TOOTSIE ROLL DRIVE)
The Chairman entered the following Proclamation upon the record:
CONSENT AGENDA
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING MARCH 7 - 9, 2002
AS MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK
WHEREAS, the Knights of Columbus, Vero Beach Council #5629, will be conducting its 29th
annual Tootsie Roll Drive to help the mentally handicapped citizens of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the proceeds from the donations will be used by the Knights of Columbus for
local programs and activities such as the mentally handicapped workshop and Special Olympics
program; and
WHEREAS, on a nationwide basis, the Knights of Columbus Councils will be conducting
similar events during the same time span; and
WHEREAS, with the help of many friends and local organizations who have volunteered to
assist the Knights of Columbus in this year's endeavor, it is anticipated that the proceeds
generated will be far in excess of last year's total; and
WHEREAS, it is altogether fitting and proper to officially recognize this worthy cause, and to
help create a public awareness and appreciation for all those who will be "aproned and canistered"
on March 7, 8, and 9, 2002, and most of all, for all those who will contribute what they can from
their hearts and pockets to assist the mentally handicapped.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that March 7 through March 9, 2002,
be officially observed as
MENTALLY HANDICAPPED WEEK
in Indian River County, and that special recognition be given to these dates in support of this
worthwhile endeavor.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-11-
u
•
•
Adopted this 22n° day of January, 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
x
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
7.D. PROCLAMATION HONORING RALPH W. SEXTON
The Chairman entered the following Proclamation upon the record:
CONSENT AGENDA
PROCLAMATION
HONORING RALPH W. SEXTON
WHEREAS, Ralph W. Sexton has been a lifelong resident of Indian River County,
having been raised on a farm on 12th Street and graduating in Animal Husbandry from the
University of Florida in 1950; and
WHEREAS, Ralph Sexton is a Southern gentleman with a charismatic personality.
Ralph was never interested in running for a political office, but he has been an active participant
throughout his life in supporting local, state and federal candidates who adhered to the same
philosophies as he does. He has been a strong advocate of private property rights and
preservation of Agricultural land, and has devoted most of his life to explaining the importance of
prohibiting encroachment of business and residential into the limited Agricultural area; and
WHEREAS, at the age of 29, Ralph was appointed to the Indian River County
Planning and Zoning Commission, where he served for 22 years, 11 of those as Chairman.
During that period of time, Ralph was instrumental in coordinating workshops with business and
environmental groups to develop the County's most ambitious planning effort that had been
mandated by state regulations; and
WHEREAS, for more than 30 years, Ralph has been heavily involved in prevention of
coastal erosion and has attended local, state and federal seminars and technical meetings to
meet with experts and discuss preservation of the beaches in Indian River County. He has
worked tirelessly to get sand on the beaches and has been instrumental in establishing Save
Our Shores to help inform the public of possible solutions to the erosion problem. While serving
as its President for 15 years, he has maintained personal contact with state and federal political
leaders.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-12-
• •
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board expresses its
appreciation and admiration to Ralph Sexton for his hard work and commitment to Indian River
County.
Adopted this 22nd day of January, 2002.
mos, tall 4 I
«us,.c
Ili IS C c
.j.. �«4csC....
•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
7.E. OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL - 73RD ANNUAL FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
COUNTIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE - JUNE 26-28, 2002 -
COMMISSIONERS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 8, 2002:
FLORIDA. °'
ASSOC/AT/ON:
°f COUNTIES.,
MEMORANDUM
TO:
County Commissioners
County Administrators
County Attorneys
P.O. Box 549 / Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Phone: 850/922.4300 Suncum: 292-4300 FAX: 850/188-7501
Vehsife: w ww.0-co un(ies.tom
RECEIVED
JAN I. U l}
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION
FROM: Mary Kay Cariseo, Executive Director
Jill Jackson, Meeting Planner
DATE: January 8, 2002
RE: 2002 FAC Annual Conference Hotel Information
IIISTR16UTIDN LIS?(
Commissioners
A'i nilnist r 0l Cr
A113f ney
Personnel
"„!S( Hocks
flr,vcr*i De;
if tic
.70rtr_
:7A3'
i11=rq
The Florida Association of Counties will be holding its 731d Annual Conference June 26-
28, 2002, in Collier County (Marco Island). We would like for our membership to have
advance notice of the conference hotel information to help accommodate everyone
wishing to stay at the conference hotel In addition, having these dates in advance, we
are hopeful that counties will schedule their Board meetings around the FAC Annual
Conference to allow for greater participation.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-13-
'It
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SF CONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -county travel for the
Commissioners to attend the 73rd Annual
Conference of the Florida Association of Counties
(FACo) on June 26-28, 2002 in Collier County,
Florida, as requested.
7.F. OUT--OF-COUNTY TRAVEL - HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRANT REVIEW
PANEL MEETING - FEBRUARY 11-12, 2002 - TALLAHASSEE - CHAIRMAN
STANBRID GE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 3, 2002:
MEMORANDUM Florida Department o f Stat e
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Historic Preservation Grants -In -Aid Applicants
2003 State Cycle Historic Preservation Grants
Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources
Bureau of Historic Preservation, Grants and Education Section
January 3, 2002
Meeting of the Historic Preservation Grant Review Panel for
Survey and Planning Grants
This is to inform you that we have received your organization's application for historic
preservation grant-in-aid assistance. The meeting of the Historic Preservation Grant Review
Panel to review the Survey and Planning applications and make funding recommendations has
been scheduled for February 11-12, 2002. All Interested parties are invited to attend
A meeting agenda, a listing of the members of the Historic Preservation Grant Review Panels,
and listing of the Survey and Planning applications to be reviewed are enclosed. Please note
that applications have been numbered in the order of review before the Grant Review Panel.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-14-
• •
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved out -of -county travel for Chairman
Stanbridge to attend the Historic Preservation Grant
Review Panel Meeting on February 11-12, 2002 in
Tallahassee, Florida, as requested.
7. G. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION - ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN GENE
WINNE AND VICE CHAIRMAN DR. DAVID COX
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 16, 2002:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commission (BCC)
FROM: Peggy Ball, Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) Secretar
DATE: January 16, 2002
SUBJECT: Election of P&Z Chairman and Vice Chairman
This is to notify the BCC that at the P&Z meeting of January 10, 2002, the P&Z voted
(7-0) to ratify the election of Mr Gene Winne as Chairman and Dr. David Cox as Vice
Chairman of the P&Z for the year 2002.
No BCC action is required.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-15-
44.
r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECOND 1- D
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
acknowledged the appointment of Gene Winne as
Chairman and Dr. David Cox as Vice Chairman of
the Planning & Zoning Commission.
7.H. HEALTH DEPARTMENT -DENTAL CLINIC ADDITION- BARTH
CONSTRUCTION, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 16, 2002:
Date: January 16, 2002
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director - sktc4
Subject: Approval of Contract with Barth Construction, Inc. for Dental Clinic
Addition at Health Department
BACKGROUND:
On January 15`h, the Board awarded the bid for the constniction of the dental clinic addition to
the Health Department. That award was to Barth Construction, Inc. for a lump sum bid of
$341 000.
Attached, please find an agreement to be executed between Barth Construction, Inc., and the
Board. The documents have been reviewed by the County Attorney's office and are acceptable
in language to the attorney.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the attached contract documents and recommends the
execution of the documents upon the receipt of all required insurance certificates and recording
and receipt of all required payment and perfounance bonds in accordance with the requirements
of Indian River County along with the contract documents being fully executed by
representath es of Barth Construction, Inc., prior to execution by the Chaim -Ian.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-16-
• •
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the contract documents and authorized the
Chairman to execute same upon receipt of all
required insurance certificates and recording and
receipt of all required payment and performance
bonds in accordance with the requirements of Indian
River County along with the contract documents
being fully executed by representatives of Barth
Construction, Inc., prior to execution by the
Chairman, as recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.L BURGOONBERGER CONSTRUCTION FLOODPLAIN CUT AND FILL
BALANCE WAIVER - LOT 1, BLOCK 17, VERO LAKE ESTATES, UNIT 3
(92"° AVENUE)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 9, 2002:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. 0
Public Works Director
AND
Christophcr J. Kafer, Jr , P
County Engineer
JANUARY 22, 2002
-17-
8I
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E., Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 1, Block 17,
Vero Lake Estates, Unit 3
REFERENCE: Project No. 2001110123-29203
DATE: January 9, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
CONSENT AGENDA
Burgoon Berger Construction has submitted a building permit application for a single family
residence on the subject property. The site is located in an AE special flood hazard zone, base flood
elevation 22.4 ft. N.G.V.D. In the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated January 4
2002, a waiver of the cut and fill requirements is requested The lot area is 1.07 acres. The volume
of the 100 year floodplain displaced by the proposed grading plan is estimated to be 149.4 cubic
yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The waiver request has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4. of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance for lots located in the
Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit.
Alternative No. 1
Grant the cut and fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the cut and fill waiver. Require an on site retention area be provided to compensate for the
proposed floodplain displacement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
granted the cut and fill balance waiver based on the
criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4. as recommended
by staff.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-18-
• •
7.J. DAVID AND CAROL MCCARTHY TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE
AGREEMENT - 5285 94TH LANE, SEBASTIAN (LOT 9, DURRANCE
DEVELOPMENT)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 11, 2002:
DATE: JANUARY 11, 2002
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
W ERIK OLSON
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SF VICES
JAMES D. CHASTAIN
MANAGER OF A
DEPARTMENT
cfy
NT PROJECTS
TILITY SERVICES
TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN
LNDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND DAVID MCCARTHY AND
CAROL MCCARTHY
BACKGROUND
David McCarthy.and Carol McCarthy have requested that a temporary service be installed from
an extension of a water line on 95th Street to service their home at 5285 94th Lane, Sebastian,
Florida. prior to the installation of a water system in Durrance Development.
ANALYSIS
The Agreement states that the Indian River County Department of Utility Services shall provide
temporary water service to Mr. And Mrs. McCarthy, until such time that a water line may be
constructed in Durrance Development, by assessment. They agree to pay all fees required to
make this connection. They further agree to participate in the assessment, and to reconnect to this
water line as required by the Indian River County Department of Utility Services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached Agreement with Mr. And Mrs McCarthy on the Consent Agenda
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the Agreement, as recommended by staff.
JANUARY 22, 2002
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
_19_
CI{
4»
..,,
c1 2
i✓
7.K. RESOLUTION 2002-007 RELEASING A PORTION OFA LAKE
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ON LOT 77, ISLAND CLUB RIVERSIDE -
PHASE IV (1438 W ISLAND CLUB SQUARE) (BEAZER HOMES
CORPORATION)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPS • TIV ENT HEAD ONCURRENCE:
ert M. Keating, AICP
Co =unity Development Director
TI -TROUGH: Roland M. DeBI ' , CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Kelly Zedek v1/11
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: 1/15/02
RE
BEAZER HOMES CORPORATION REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF
EASEMENT AT 1438 W. ISLAND CLUB SQUIRE ( LOT 77, ISLAND
CLUB RIVERSIDE -PHASE IV)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 22, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by Beazer Homes Corporation, owner of a lot at 1433 West Island
Club Square, for release of a 2 1/2 foot wide portion of a 10 foot wide lake maintenance easement.
The purpose of the easement release request is to accomodate a pool and deck encroachment (see
attached map).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The subject lake maintenance easement is dedicated to the Island Club Homeowners Association
(HOA). The County's interest relates to emergency lake maintenance access. The request has been
reviewed by the HOA and county engineering staff which have no objection to the partial easement
release. Other utility providers did not review the proposed release, since the easement is for lake
JANUARY 22, 2002
-20-
•
maintenance and not for utilities. Therefore, it is staffs position that the requested easement release
would have no adverse impact on lake maintenance or to utilities being supplied to the subject
properties or to other properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached resolution, release the portion
of the lake maintenance easement, as more particularly described in said resolution.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECO\DED
by Commissioner Adams. the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 2002-007 releasing a portion of
a lake maintenance easement on Lot 77, Island Club
Riverside -Phase IV (1438 West Island Club Square,
Beazer Homes Corporation).
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -QQ7
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING
A PORTION OF A LAKE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT ON LOT 77, ISLAND
CLUB RIVERSIDE -PHASE IV
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a lake maintenance easement on Lot
77 of Island Club Riverside - Phase IV; and
WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of the easernent, as described below, serves no public
purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to
BEAZER HOMES CORPORATION
1233 WEST ISLAND CLUB SQUARE
VERO BEACH, FL 32963
its successors in interest, heirs and assigns, as Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby release and abandon all right, title, and interest that it may
have in the following described easement(s):
the north two and one-half feet of the rear (south) ten foot -wide lake maintenance
easement of Lot 77, Island Club Riverside Phase IV according to the plat thereof as recorded in
Plat Book 15, Page 94 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-21-
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 007
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner GI pa
by Commissioner Adamsand adopted on the 22nd day of January
2002, by the following vote:
seconded
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Ary e
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22nd day of
January ,2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Ruth M. Stanbridge, airman
Attested By:
Deputy Clerk
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisc'4A-n4' day of
2002, by RUTH M. STANBRIDGE, as Chairman of the Board of County Corn 'ssioners o Indian
River County, Florida, and by F'ATRIC!A M. RIDC:71.1 , Deputy Clerk for JEFFREY K.
BARTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who are
personally known to me.
NOTA'_ PUBLIC
C.
Print d Name:
Commission No.: CC 96 9'//5
Commission Expiration: 9/Zo/o,L
STA /27. grimy
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
William G. Collins II
Deputy County Attorney
JANUARY 22, 2002
-22-
Cf(
GO RETAMSMITH
�
l J MY COMMISSION M CC 969415
,}. a EXPIRFS: Sep 20, 2804
Fur it-
-800-3-NOTARY
A Bonding, Inc.
_800.3 -NOTARY FL Notary Sei
ytce
E l
La 4
•
• •
7.L. RESOLUTION 2002-008 APPROVING A JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOR TA TION
TO FUND A PORTION OF THE LOCAL MATCH FOR DESIGN SERVICES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE 16TH/17TH STREET WIDENING PROJECT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 8, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP/-,Yt
Community Development Director
DATE: January 8, 2002
SUBJECT: Request to Approve Joint Participation Agreement (JPA) with Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) for 16`h/17`h Street Project Design
Services
It is requested that the data provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board
of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 22, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
For a number of years, the widening of 16`h/17`h Street, from U.S.41 to 500 feet west of
14th Avenue, has been on the Metropolitan Planning Organization's (MPO) Long Range
Transportation Plan and the MPO's list of priority projects. As an MPO priority project,
the 16th/17th Street widening was a candidate for federal funding.
While federally funded projects on the State Highway System (SHS) are entirely funded
by FDOT that is not always the case with projects off the SHS. For projects off the SHS
most federal funding programs require a 25 percent match In these cases, FDOT pays
half of the 25 percent match, while the local government having jurisdiction over the
project roadway pays the other half of the 25 percent match.
In this case, 16th/17th Street is not on the State Highway System. Therefore, the County
must pay half of the 25 percent match for each of the projr.et's phases. At present, FDOT
is in the process of awarding a contract for the project's design services. To provide for
the County to conunit to the payment of its share of the project's design costs, FDOT has
drafted the attached Joint Participation Agreement. This agreement must be approved by
the Board of County Commissioners for the 16`h/17`h Street project to proceed.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-23-
1
ANALYSIS:
According to the MPO's adopted 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan, a number of
roadway improvements will be needed to accommodate the growth projected through
2025. Federal money is one source of funding those improvements. Even on non -SHS
roadways where the County must pay a portion of the match, the County receives the
benefit of 87.5 percent federallstate funding for a project.
With 16`h/17`h Street, the County's share of the roadway design match is $103,125.00.
The source of this match will be the Traffic Impact Fee District 5 fund. There are
sufficient funds in that account to provide the required match.
In the future, the County will be required to pay its share of the match costs for
subsequent project phases As programmed, the right-of-way phase is scheduled for FY
2002/03, and the construction phase is scheduled for FY 2004/05. Prior to the
commencement of these phases, the attached JPA will need to be amended to reflect the
additional County match.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the attached
Resolution, approving the County/FDOT Joint Participation Agreement authorizing the
Chaiiman to execute the agreement and directing the Community Development Director
to transmit the JPA to FDOT.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the Joint Participation Agreement;
authorized the Chairman to execute same; directed
the Community Development Director to transmit
the Agreement; and adopted Resolution 2002-008
approving a Joint Participation Agreement with the
Florida Department of Transportation to fund a
portion of the local match for design services
associated with the 16th/17th Street Widening
Proj ect.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE FN THE OFFICE OF THE
JANUARY 22, 2002
CLERK TO THE BOARD
-24-
51
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 008
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING A JOINT PARTICIPATION
AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TO FUND A PORTION OF THE LOCAL MATCH FOR DESIGN SERVICES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE 16" / 17TH STREET WIDENING PROJECT
WHEREAS, the widening of 16`h/17`h Street has been an Indian River County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) priority project for several years; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is prepared to
provide federal funds to pay a portion of the cost for Final Design Services for the
16th/17th Street project; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners is
responsible for paying 12.5 percent of the project costs as its portion of the required local
match.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners:
Approves the State of Florida Department of Transportation and Indian
River County Joint Participation Agreement; and
Authorizes the Chairman to execute the Joint Participation Agreement;
and
3. Directs the Community Development Director to transmit the executed
Joint Participation Agreement to the Florida Department of
Transportation.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth Macht
JANUARY 22, 2002
-25-
Ginn
, and upon being
Aye
Aye
Ay e
Aye
Aye
Bt
1
i
v c..
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 008
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
22nd day of January ,2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY (J 7)?.c1._�Ll
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman 0d
Board of County Commissioners
STATE OF FLORIDA
Deputy Clerk
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2Z day of
2002, by RUTH M. STANBRIDGE, as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Flonda, and byPAIRIGIA M. RIDGELY , Deputy Clerk for
JEFFREY K. BARTON Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, who are personally known to me.
NOTARY PUBLIC
4
Printed(Name: kL 7F,' /71 . S/�(l TYf
Commission No.:
Commission Expiration:
eC 51Q9i-t15
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
r
William G. Collins, II
Deputy County Attorney
JANUARY 22, 2002
ct%z.oetf
-26-
.PostT"dc, RETA M SMITH
h
MY COMMISSION M CC 969415 '?p,no-.o
EXPIR FS- Sep 20.2004
1-8D03.NOTARV Fi. Notary Service & Bonding, Inc.
i
•
• •
9.A. PUBLIC HEARING - TREE PROTECTION AND LAND
CLEARING REQUIREMENTS
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 January 15, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
I MEi T H - AD CO CU''RRENCE:
Rc6iert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Direct r
THROUGH. Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM: Brian Poo( -r REP
Senior Planner
DATE: January 15, 2002
RE• Board Consideration of and Adoption of Revisions to the County Land
Clearing and Tree Protection Ordinance
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners foiinally consider the following
information at the Board's regular meeting of January 22, 2002.
BACKGROUND
In May 2000, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to review county tree protection
requirements, to hold a public workshop on tree protection issues, and to report back to the
Board. At that meeting, the Board indicated that staff should focus on revisions to strengthen trae
protection measures, but should also evaluate the adequacy of current penalties and enforcement
regarding tree removal violations.
To that end, staff reviewed tree protection measures from other counties and municipalities, as
well as information from such sources as the National Arbor Day Foundation, the International
Society of Arboriculture, American Forests, and Louisiana State University. On December 7,
2000, staff conducted a workshop to obtain public input on tree protection issues. At the public
workshop, staff discussed a draft matrix of issues and proposed revisions to County Code Chapter
927, the County tree protection ordinance. (Attachment 2 to this memorandum is essentially the
same matrix, but revised with the last column containing information on the current draft
ordinance.)
JANUARY 22, 2002
-27-
On February 13, 2001, staff presented the matrix of proposed revisions to the Board, at which
time the Board directed staff to initiate procedures to amend county tree protection requirements,
with revisions as summarized in the matrix. At the February 13 meeting, the Board directed that
the ordinance revisions include a caveat that "in subdivisions and sensitive clearing areas that the
County have a staff member on-site, paid for by the developer, to supervise the clearing process."
Planning staff developed a revised draft that was a result of the previous meetings and public
input and presented this revised draft to the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC)
on June 28, 2001. At that meeting, the PSAC members voiced concerns over portions of the
revised draft. As a result, the PSAC formed a subcommittee to work with staff and report back to
the PSAC. Assigned members to the subcommittee were Todd Smith, Robert Brackett, and
Randy Mosby.
The PSAC subcommittee held five meetings (July 5, August 20, August 23, September 18, and
October 12). Attendance ranged from one member of the full PSAC to two members of the
subcommittee and three members of the full PSAC. At the last subcommittee meeting, all
previously identified issues were discussed and changes were made to the draft ordinance.
The PSAC reviewed the revised draft on December 20, 2001 (see Attachment 5), and voted 4-2 to
recommend that the Board adopt the proposed Ordinance, with the following two changes:
• When it is determined under the Ordinance that a specimen tree is to be saved on a
private residential lot Less than one acre in size, a `Notice' shall be recorded in the public
records stating that said tree is to be saved and that the tree shall not be removed unless
and until a Tree Removal Permit is obtained.
• Define `waterfront project' sites for the purpose of this Ordinance, as relating to natural
waterbodies.
Staff is in agreement with these recommended changes and has incorporated them into the
proposed Ordinance (see Attachment 1).
The draft Ordinance was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on January
10, 2002. A number of technical editing errors were noted (e.g., incorrect citation references,
sentence structure, numbering system) as well as a few minor changes, additions, and/or
corrections. On a unanimous vote, the PZC recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the draft Ordinance with the indicated modifications (Attachment 6).
A'
ALYSIS
In this section, issues raised by the various groups to which the draft Ordinance has been
presented are denoted with bold lettering and bullets. Staff's response to each issue is noted. In
most cases, the issue is included in the proposed Ordinance (Attachment 1) and is so noted;
however, in several cases a particular issue may have been modified based on subsequent review.
This is also noted. In at least one case, an issue was raised, put into the draft and was later
removed, based on further review of the issue.
Sumrnary of issues resulting from BCC meetings
The BCC provided direction to staff in three areas (bold items are directions from the BCC; the
inforivation following the direction is staffs response):
JANUARY 22, 2002
-28-
• •
• strengthen tree protection measures
To address this issue, staff:
• established a `specimen tree' category that recognizes that larger trees deserve, and
shall get, special protection, without the need for a formal designation by the BCC
(i.e., reasonable efforts must be made to save these trees)
• developed a clear statement that efforts are to be made to protect trees;
• clarified that for projects other than a single-family home, a tree survey is required;
• added language that, for saved trees, tree protection measures must be shown and
must ensure that the trees to be saved will survive; and
• developed the concept of a Critical Root Zone (CRZ). Based on staff research, the
CRZ was defined as a radius from the center of the tree, calculated as 1.5 feet for
every inch of diameter at breast height (dbh) of the tree. The calculation of the size
of the CRZ has been refined as a result of issues raised at the Public Workshop (see
below).
By protecting specimen trees and the CRZ of all trees, the County has more assurance that
significant trees will be preserved and will maintain viability in the future.
• evaluate current penalties and enforcement
To address this issue, staff:
• added a flat $1,000 per tree penalty for protected trees (trees with a dbh of 4 inches
up to and including 30 inches); and
• added a flat $5,000 per tree penalty for specimen trees.
It should be noted that Florida Statutes limits the maximum monetary penalty that can be
assessed by a county or code enforcement board to $5,000 per event.
One purpose of monetary penalties is to act as a deterrent. By increasing the penalty and
making it a flat fee, as opposed to some range, it is staff's opinion that the deterrent effect
will be increased.
• provide onsite monitoring during land clearing and tree removal activities
To address this issue, staff
• concluded that having a staff member on site during tree removal and/or land clearing
activities was impractical due to the large number of ongoing projects and limited
staff. As an alternative, staff proposed that a Certified Arborist be required to be
onsite during these activities. The cost of this would be borne by the developer
and/or property owner.
Having an arborist with project control authority onsite during land clearing and/or tree
removal activities will help eliminate misunderstandings, miscommunication, and
accidental tree removal.
Summary of issues resulting from Public Workshop
1 he Public Workshop produced the following comments (Bold items are issues raised at the
workshop; the infoi uiation following the issue is staffs response):
• Ordinance needed clarified definition of Protected Trees regarding the size of
individual tropical trees.
Language was added that clarifies that individual trees within a erouo of tropical trees are
protected regardless of the size of the individual tree.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-29-
• The definition of a specimen tree as a native tree with a dbh of greater than 24
inches was too broad and included to many trees.
The definition of a Specimen Tree was changed to read 'any native tree with a dbh of
greater than 30 inches.'
• Within the definition of a Specimen Tree there was a requirement that the tree have
"no major insect problem". There was concern that this was too broad, or was not
clearly defined.
A Condition Rating was added that not only clearly defines the condition of the tree, but
also, in conjunction with other information, defines the size of the CRZ
• It is unclear if a tree removal or land clearing permit is required for single-family
home use within agriculture zoning districts.
Language was added that states that a land clearing or tree removal permit is required for
single-family use in agi iculture zoning districts, provided the parceUlot is greater than
one acre.
• There were concerns about overly regulating the removal of non-native plants (i.e.,
requiring land clearing and/or tree removal permits).
A statement was added that the removal of non-native plants by cutting them down, not
removal via or with the root, is exempt; however, removal must be accompanied by
treatment of the stumps using an EPA approved herbicide.
• There were concerns about the size of the CRZ, especially as it may relate to the
species of tree, the age, and/or condition.
The CRZ, was refined by using species of the tree, Condition Rating of the tree, response
to impact, and age of the tree. This results in a range of values from 0.5 to 1.5 feet per
inch of dbh.
• There were comments that the saved trees might be able to withstand some impacts
within the CRZ.
Impacts can be allowed within CRZ for protected trees (1/2 of CRZ may be impacted for
protected trees; no impacts within CRZ for specimen trees).
This issue was later modified by the PSAC subcommittee by adding details on
acceptable impacts that can occur within the CRZ, to within one (1) foot of the trunk of
the tree (either protected or specimen tree). Generally, these are restricted to pavement
impacts.
As a result of the changes noted above, tree protection has been enhanced. Specimen trees
represent only the largest of trees, generally those in need of more protection. 1 he CRZ is now
more representative of actual conditions (i.e., species, age, condition, and impact response).
Removal of non-native trees, by cutting down, is now encouraged because the removal is exempt
from the need for a per mit.
Summary of issues raised at PSAC subcommittee
The following is a list of issues raised at the PSAC subcommittee meetings (bold items are issues
raised by the PSAC subcommittee; the information following the issue is staffs response):
• Use of sampling methods on smaller lots/parcels.
Sampling methods can be used on sites that are greater than '/4 of an acre, instead of the
original one acre size.
This issue has been addressed, as noted above, in the current draft.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-30-
5
•
• •
• Need for a defined area for the tree survey, especially on projects where only
infrastructure is proposed.
During the preapplication process, Environmental Planning will be responsible for
deter mining the need for a tree survey as well as the area where the tree survey is to be
done.
For projects not requiring a preapplication conference, the applicant will have to perforin
a survey as specified in Sections 927.18(])(d)(3) — (7).
1 his issue has been addressed, as noted above, in the current draft.
• Provide, up front, information on the number of trees required on the site after
development.
A minimum tree density requirement was established at 20 units/acre. Units are
converted to dbh using the table in the Appendix of the ordinance. lhis allows for a
variety of tree sizes (dbh) to be used to achieve the required density. This density
represents the tree density at completion of project. Existing saved trees count towards
density.
Ihis reauirernent is not part of the current draft. Planning staff's opinion is that
provisions of the landscape ordinance adeauatety address tree replanting issues.
• Provide options to the requirement of a Certified Arborist on site.
An option was offered to the requirement that a Certified Arborist be on site during
construction activities. This was an option of a compliance bond for the trees that are to
remain. Originally, this was a straightforward calculation After review by the
subcommittee, it became a two tiered approach based on the size of the property, the
property value (indirectly), and the financial burden to the applicant. A maximum bond
amount was also developed. The per tree bond ranges from S500 to S10,000.
Attachment 4 is a list of Certified Arborists from the Melbourne, Palm Bay, Vero Beach,
and Ft. Pierce area.
This issue has been addressed, as noted above, in the current draft.
• Requiring no impacts within CRZs may result in more trees being removed.
A section was added which details acceptable impacts that can occur within the CRZ, to
within one foot of the trunk of the tree. Generally, these are restricted to pavement
impacts. Other methods can be used; however, they must be proposed by a Certified
Arborist
Thus issue has been addressed, as noted above, in the current draft.
Applicants will now have a clearer picture of which areas must be surveyed for trees. In cases
where only infrastructure is to be placed, only those areas of development will be required to be
surveyed; however, all specimen trees still need to be surveyed.
Posting a bond for trees that are to remain was added as an option to having a Certified Arborist
onsite. This will increase compliance with an approved Tree Protection Plan. Impacts within the
CRZ have been expanded to within one (1) foot of the tree, provided certain engineering and/or
construction techniques are used. This will encourage the saving of trees that before could not
have been saved.
Summary of issues raised at December 20. 2001, PSAC meeting
The following are the two issues raised at the December 20, 2001, PSAC meeting that resulted in
the two recommended changes to the Ordinance (bold items are issues raised at PSAC meeting;
the infoiniation following the issue is staffs response).
JANUARY 22, 2002
-31-
EEE(
For new residential developments that will be subject to the new regulations, how will
subsequent lot owners know that a permit will be required to remove a specimen tree that
must be preserved [Section 927.13(4)1?
Currently, trees are designated for saving during the approval process for the overall
development; however, once the overall development site is subdivided into lots that are less than
one acre in size, lot owners are exempted from the need for a tree removal permit to remove the
"saved tree(s)". The effect of the application of this exemption is that trees that were intended to
be saved are removed. To address this issue, the proposed ordinance includes a requirement,
found in Section 927.18(4), that a saved specimen tree may be removed only if the Tree Removal
Peiiint criteria of Section 927.15 are satisfied and a per is issued.
The discussion included creating a 'tree easement', defining a `buildable area' on the lot, or the
recording of a `Notice' in the public records. Ultimately, it was agreed that the Ordinance should
require the recording of a `Notice . It was felt that this method would be the most likely way that,
via a title search, potential owners would be made aware of the existence of a specimen tree on
the prope y. It is staffs opinion that the need to remove a saved specimen tree on a lot after
development, will be a rare event. All issues related to the removal of trees after development
should be resolved during the site plan and/or plat review process, thereby reducing or
eliminating the need for further tree removal. The Notice requirement will help alert future lot
owners of the requirement to either save the tree or obtain a pet mit for its removal.
What constitutes a `waterfront project' when determining the maximum tree bond amount
to ensure proper tree protection during construction [Section 927.13(3)(b)1?
The concern expressed by PSAC members was that most residential, and some commercial,
developments have stormwater ponds or lakes and could therefore be considered `waterfront'
unless a definition was included As a result, the following definition of `waterfront property'
was added:
For the purpose of this subsection, the teiin "waterfront projects" shall mean any
development site that has a natural waterbody wholly or partially within, or adjacent to,
the development and at least 25% of the individual lots or parcels are designed such that
the lots or parcels have any type of physical access to the waterbody.
This definition clarifies that waterfront development projects are those that have substantial
frontage on natural waterbodies. Under the proposed Ordinance, developers of such projects
would be required to post a higher bond amount to ensure compliance during project
construction.
Summary of issues raised at the January 10, 2002, Planning and Zoning Commission
meetinu
The following are issues raised at the January 10, 2002, PCZ meeting (bold items are issues
raised at PSAC meeting; the information following the issue is staff's response):
• Does the exemption for utility easements and rights-of-way include specimen trees as
well as protected trees?
The draft Ordinance, as presented to the PZC, contained an exemption from the need for a
tree removal permit within utility easements and rights-of-way, under most circumstances;
however, the exemption contained only a reference to protected trees not specimen trees.
Upon further consideration, staff decided that an exemption for specimen trees should be
included.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-32-
5
0
•
•
• Table 2 lists five categories of relative tolerance while Table 3 lists only two. There were
questions as to which category in Table 3 a tree with a `moderate -good' tolerance would
fall under.
Staff has reviewed this and reduced the number of categories in Table 2 to three, to match
those in Table 3. This was done by reviewing current information regarding the tolerance of
those species where the tolerance level was between levels (e.g., good -moderate, poor -
moderate) and determining which level was more appropriate.
• What is the status of mangroves under this Ordinance?
Actions relating to the tree itself (e.g., trimming, cutting, removing) are regulated by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection or the appropriate Water Management
District. The County Wetland Protection Ordinance, Chapter 928, regulates the wetland areas
where the mangroves grow.
Summary of issues raised by the County Attorneys Office.
The following is the major issued raised by the County Attorneys Office (the bold item is the
issue raised by the County Attorneys Office; the information following the issue is staff s
response).
• County Ordinance cannot establish specific actions as criminal.
Draft ordinance references to misdemeanors and felonies have been removed.
Summary of changes made based on all comments received to date
Attachment 1 is the proposed Ordinance, including changes to Chapter 901, Definitions. This
proposed Ordinance incorporates changes recommended by the PSAC and PZC.
Attachment 2 (Table 1) represents the original evaluation matrix as presented to the BCC and the
December 7, 2000, Public Workshop. the last column of the matrix represents brief comments
regarding what has changed in the current draft.
Attachment 3 (Table 2) represents a brief summary of:
The existing Tree Protection and Land Clearing Ordinance;
The draft originally presented to the PSAC on June 28, 2001; and
The current proposed Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed revisions to the
County Tree Protection and Land Clearing Ordinance (LDR Chapter 927) and Chapter 901,
Definitions.
ATTACIIENTS
1. Proposed Ordinance: Chapter 927; draft changes to Chapter 901
Table 1
3. Table 2
4. List of Certified Arborist in the area
�. Draft Minutes of December 20, 2001, PSAC meeting
6. Diet Minutes of JanuaFp 1. k2, ZC inectirr �jr,_e_7-
JANUARY 22, 2002
-33-
811 ca
•
Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois stated that this will just be a brief
overview of the subject today as more time has been requested for input. This process was
started in May of 2000 when the Board directed staff to revise the tree ordinance. A public
workshop was held in December of 2000 and the proposed ordinance has also been
reviewed by the Professional Services Advisory Committee and the Planning & Zoning
Commission. This proposal encompasses a lot of investigation and contains new provisions
for Critical Root Zones (CRZ) based on the size, species and age of a tree, as well as its
tolerance to development. The CRZ would be comprised of a defined protected area or a
certified statement from an arborist would be required. The proposal also contains a
requirement that a notice be recorded as to a protected tree contained on a single-family
residential lot under 1 acre in size.
Chairman Stanbridge questioned why mangroves had been eliminated, and Mr.
DeBlois responded that the State had preempted local regulation of mangroves several years
ago In order for the County to regulate mangroves, permission would be required from the
State. Mangroves are also protected under the County's wetland ordinance.
Community Development Director Bob Keating noted that this process had begun
in the spring of 2000; a public workshop was held in December of 2000; it was reviewed
by the PSAC in June of 2001; and then it was reviewed by the P&Z Commission.
Mr. DeBlois noted that after the review by the PSAC, a subcommittee investigated
the proposal from July to October and returned their recommendation to the PSAC in
November of 2001.
Commissioner Ginn was pleased with the requirement for a certified arborist but
believed the need for an Urban Forester should be brought up at budget time.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-34-
nu
L€'t
•
•
• •
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter.
Melissa Webster, 2525 14`x' Street, presented some photographs (COPIES OF
WHICH ARE ON FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MN ETING). She stressed
the appearance of a development on 4th Street west of Kings Highway named Lost
Hammock that looked very nice when first developed but now only contains several large
trees at the entrance, while the rest of the development has been clear cut. She believed that
a fine of $1,000 per tree was merely built into the cost of a million -dollar -plus development
and felt the tree ordinance should preserve the beauty and character of our area.
Jens Tripson, 2525 14`" Street, President of Pelican Island Audubon Society,
recommended another public workshop or another ad hoc committee to include the County
Extension Agent, a professional arborist, and representatives ofthe Forestry Department and
the nursery industry. He also believed the fines were not large enough. He particularly
objected to the size of a specimen tree being 30 inches at breast height. He felt that was too
large and should be reduced to 20 inches.
Janice Broda, 12396 North AIA, agreed that more time was needed as the proposal
is complicated. She is a past president of the Florida Native Plant Society and felt the
definition of a "native" tree should be amended to include scrub and West Indian tropical
trees. She felt that an Urban Forester should be considered with the fees being paid by the
developers. There are only 5 certified arborists in Indian River County and an Urban
Forester could provide follow-up services. She also suggested that the Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services list of invasive noxious plants should be included.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-35-
r
0 r
She stated that many developers clear out these invasive plants but there is no requirement
to keep the land cleared. She asked that the County consider a packet of information for
new property owners such as is supplied by the City of Sebastian. She asked the Board to
table this item until after the upcoming talk scheduled by Environmental Planning before the
Audubon Society and invited them to also speak to the Florida Native Plant Society at their
February meeting.
Richard Baker, 522 Blue Island Lane, Sebastian, asked for clarification on lots
smaller than 1 acre; commercial development; whether grass is being addressed; and whether
already platted lands have been considered. He believed that Indian River County needs to
have the strongest tree protection ordinance in Florida and asked for more time to investigate
the proposals.
Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, defended developers and felt that most ofthem
want to save trees as they make the property more valuable. He also emphasized the rights
of an owner of property to build on that property. The developers can do their best to save
the trees but the owners are ultimately responsible.
Bob Johnson, 535 39`h Court SW, also asked for clarification on exemptions for
individual property owners having lots of under 1 acre in size which contain a specimen tree.
Director Keating responded that if the property is under 1 acre it is exempt.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-36-
•
• •
George Beuttel, 5000 16`h Street, felt there should be more reliance on the good
common sense of the citizens.
Rene Renzi, 340 Waverly Place, believed that something should be done as quickly
as possible as there are more and more developments being built everyday.
Mr. DeBlois noted that there are 2 scheduled public presentations by Brian Poole,
Senior Environmental Planner. The first is scheduled for February 18`'', 2002 before the
Audubon Society and the second is scheduled for February 215`, 2002 before the Eugenia
Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society. Staff will also plan another more formal public
workshop.
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 Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
agreed to continue the public hearing until Tuesday,
March 12, 2002 at 9:05 a.m.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-37-
9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS - CITY OF SEBASTIAN
(MAYOR WALTER BARNES AND CITY MANAGER
TERRENCE MOORE) - PRESENTATION RELATIVE TO THE
CITY OF SEBASTIAN'S LONG RANGE PLANNING
REGARDING DISCRETIONARY SALES TAX
The Board reviewed a letter of January 2, 2002:
CITY 01
SE n JAN
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
1225 MAIN STREET • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE: (561) 589-5330 • FAX (561) 589-5570
January 2, 2002
Mr. James Chandler
County Administrator
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Chandler:
On behalf of the City of Sebastian, Mayor Walter Barnes and myself would like to
address the Indian River Board of County Commissioners at their January 22, 2002
meeting and conduct a brief presentation relative to the City's long range planning
regarding discretionary sales tax. I anticipate this presentation to be approximately 15
minutes.
If you should need any additional information, please feel free to contact me.
City Manager
JANUARY 22, 2002
-38-
• •
City of Sebastian Mayor Walter Barnes stated that the current discretionary sales tax
extension sunsets in 2004 and the City will be requesting a renewal. He wanted to see a
referendum on the November ballot in 2002. In May of 1999 all Indian River County cities
passed a resolution in support of the extension and are all engaged in long-range planning
for projects funded through this program. He is dust initiating the discussion regarding this
today and Fellsmere Mayor Joel Tyson is also present to offer his support. They would be
glad to answer any questions.
City of Sebastian City Manager Terrence Moore had nothing to add but noted that
there are a number of ongoing projects involved and he strongly supports extension of the
program.
County Administrator Jim Chandler noted that some preliminary discussions have
been held and this is a primary source for the County's capital projects. They expect to bring
their recommendations to the Board in the early spring.
Commissioner Ginn noted that 1/3rd of the revenue from this project comes from
tourists and the smaller cities, as well as the County, would be hard-pressed to replace this
revenue.
Assistant County Administrator Joe Baird noted that this program produces revenue
of $16,000,000 county -wide, with $11,000,000 going to the County.
Commissioner Ginn agreed this is a huge benefit and felt we need to begin the
process now.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-39-
9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5, 2002
SUBURBAN ACRES 32N TERRACE PETITION WATER SERVICE - PROJECT NO.
UCP -2054 - RESOLUTION III
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 10, 2002:
DATE::
TO:
THRU:
FROM::
SUBJ::
JANUARY 10, 2002
MARGARET GUNTER
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY/ASSISTANT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION
W. ERIK OLSON,
DIRECTOR OF TJ
RVICES
JAMES D. CHAST
MANAGER OF SSE
DEPARI MEN : '
ENT PROJECTS
TILITY SERVICES
PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM FOR BCC — 2/5/02 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBURBAN ACRES, 32ND TERRACE (SOUTH OFF 8T11 STREET)
PRELIMINARY WATER ASSESSMENT
INDIM RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UCP -2054
The following item is scheduled for public hearing on February 5, 2002; therefore this notice should be
included in the agenda for the meeting prior, on Fanuar} 22,2,T0g77
SUBURAN ACRES 32ND TERRACE, PETITION WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO UCP -2054
RESOLUTION III
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN
JANUARY 22, 2002
-40-
•
• •
11.A.1.
RODNEY KROEGEL PARCEL ON SOUTH INDIAN
RIVER DRIVE (FOLLOW-UP TO CONSIDERATION OF
PURCHASE HEARD AT THE JANUARY 8, 2002 BOARD
MEETING) THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS AND
FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 16, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
D A 1VIENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ra�eh M. eating, AICP
Community Development Direct()
Roland M. DeBloi CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
January 16, 2002
Board Consideration of Purchase of the Historic Rodney Kroegel Property on
Indian River Drive (Follow-up to January 8, 2002 Board Consideration)
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners foinially consider the following information at
the Board's regular meeting of January 22, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On October 23, 2001, the Board considered a proposal to buy the Rodney Kroegel property on Indian
River Drive, in coordination with 1 he Trust for Public Land (TPL). 1 he subject property is one of three
"core" parcels of the homestead of Paul Kroegel, the first wildlife warden of the Pelican Island National
Wildlife Refuge (PINWR), the nation's first refuge. At the October meeting, the Board voted to
conceptually approve purchase of the Rodney Kroegel property, conditioned upon staff finding funds for
the purchase. Subsequently, on January 8, Planning staff and Budget staff recommended that the Board
consider the following acquisition/funding approach:
• Enter into a three-year lease/purchase agreement with TPL, whereby TPL would buy the property this
Spring (under an existing option contract), then sell it to the County for $400,000 or the County's
approved appraised value, whichever is less Under the agreement, the County would pay IPL 25%
at time of IPL's closing ($100,000), then pay TPL the remainder ($300,000) in two equal
installments over the three-year lease period, with interest payable to TPL at prime rate.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-41-
• County funding for the initial payment (--$100,000) would come from a combination of General Fund
contingencies ($50,000) and native upland set-aside mitigation funds (S50,000). Over the three-year
lease period, the County would partner with TPL to apply for cost -share grants for the remaining 75%
of purchase cost. To address the unlikely scenario that grant funding would not be forthcoming, staff
proposed reserving use of Optional Sales Tax contingencies in the amount of $150,000 for FY
2002/03 and $150,000 for FY 2003/04.
At the January 8 Board meeting, staff advised the Board that, in 1994 the Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee (LAAC) concluded that the proper ty (the three core parcels) did not have characteristics that
qualified it for expenditure of environmental land bond funds. Notwithstanding, at the January 8 meeting
the Board directed staff to bring this matter to the LAAC for the LAAC to reconsider whether the
Kroegel property is eligible for purchase with environmental land bond funds. 1 he LAAC considered the
matter at a special meeting on January 16, and staff is now reporting back to the Board.
ANALYSIS
At the January 16 special meeting of the LAAC, staff presented the following infounation for the
LAAC's consideration.
Legal Eligibility of the Parcel for Expenditure of Bond .Funds
1 he Official Statement (OS) for the environmental lands General Obligation Bonds indicates that the
bonds are "to finance the cost of acquiring environmentally significant land..." (emphasis added). The
OS makes reference to the Land Acquisition Guide with regard to County acquisition procedures. The
Guide defines "environmentally significant lands" as:
"Lands with natural features that warrant conservation and protection in the public interest. The term
includes those lands defined herein as "environmentally endangered", "environmentally important", and
"environmentally sensitive". "Environmentally significant lands" also include: native plant communities
which are not necessarily endangered but are pristine and representative of the community type; altered
ecosystems with reasonable potential for restoration to correct environmental damage that has occurred;
and lands with significant archaeological resources." (emphasis added)
In 1993, then Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien wrote a legal opinion on the very issue of
whether or not the Kroegel parcels qualify for use of environmental land bond funds (see Attachment 2).
Mr. O'Brien concluded that the Kroegel parcels could be construed to meet the definition of
"environmentally significant land," but that an appendix to the Guide setting forth "Minimum Criteria for
LAAC Property Review" excludes the parcels from consideration. However, Mr. O'Brien noted that
"these [minimum criteria] restrictions are BCC established and imposed; therefore, they may be BCC
revised within the parameters of the bond referendum."
Staffs current position is that the Kroegel property does not qualify for bond funding under existing
Guide limitations, but could qualify if the "Minimum Criteria for LAAC Property Review" are revised. If
the minimum criteria are revised, the revisions should be narrowly written in that the criteria are applied
on a countywide basis and will lose their purpose if written too broadly.
The Kroegel Homestead parcels are unique from the standpoint of their significance in the natural history
of the county (and of the country), as associated with the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge
Moreover, the Rodney Kroegel parcel contains a portion of an archaeological midden that extends from
the parcel south onto the other taro core parcels. If the Minimum Criteria are to be revised, one alternative
is to add a fourth criterion, as follows:
d. the property contains significant archaeological resources, has alter
ecosystems with reasonable potential for restoration, and the property
is adjacent to a designated greenway or blueway, regardless of property size.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-42-
• •
"Emergency Acquisition" LAAC Guide Procedures
The subject Kroegel parcel is not on the LAAC acquisition list. At the January 16 meeting, Staff advised
the LAAC that, if the Minimum Criteria are revised such that the parcel would then be eligible for
consideration, the parcel could be considered as an "emergency acquisition" consistent with the Land
Acquisition Guide. According to the Guide, an "emergency acquisition" can be declared only if at least
one of the following conditions exists:
• Critical habitat or natural resources not on the priority list are identified as being under an
unforeseen immediate threat of destruction or damage.
• Previously identified habitat or natural resources listed on the priority list are under immediate
and unforeseen threat.
• An immediate opportunity exists for cost -share purchase of critical habitat or natural resources
in conjunction with another agency.
Staff advised the LAAC that the Kroegel parcel could be considered an "emergency acquisition" in that
there is an immediate opportunity for purchase of the parcel in coordination with TPL under an existing
contract.
LAAC Recommendation
At the LAAC's special meeting of January 16, a motion to support county acquisition of the Rodney
Kroegel parcel as a stand-alone purchase, but not using environmental land bond funds, failed to pass.
Subsequently, the LAAC voted 6 to 4 to conceptually support public purchase of all three of the "historic
and park -like" Kroegel Homestead core parcels, but not using environmental land bond funds. As a
result, the LAAC did not vote to recommend amending the Guide or to add the Kroegel property to its
acquisition list as an emergency acquisition.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners not use environmental land bond funds in its
consideration of purchase of the Rodney Kroegel parcel.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Map of the Rodney Kroegel parcel and other Kroegel Homestead "core" parcels
2. Terrence O'Brien memorandum dated 08;26/93
3. November 2001 letter from TPL concerning the Rodney Kroegel property
JANUARY 22, 2002
-43-
2l
0
Kroegel "Core" Parcels
T19s08pp.shp
08313900000002000002.0
08313900000002000003.0
08313900003000000001.0
Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois stated this is a 2.76 acre parcel.
The Trust for Public Land has negotiated with the owners and has an existing contract. The
proposal is for the County to enter into an agreement with TFPL who would buy the
property and sell it back to the County for one-quarter down, with the rest paid over 3 years.
The purchase price is $400,000 .or an approved appraisal price. The County funds would
come from the general fund contingency and native upland funds. The Board had directed
staff to ask LAAO to reconsider the purchase and a special meeting of the LA AC vvas held
JANUARY 22, 2002
-44-
• •
on January 16, 2002. At that time the Committee felt that an amendment to the LAAC
Guide would be necessary in order for the land to qualify for LAAC purchase. The
amendment would be to include historically or archeologically significant lands. The
Committee supported the purchase of the land but not the use of bond funds. Staff is now
asking for direction on whether or not to proceed with the purchase and what funding should
be used.
Naomi Wolf, The Trust For Public Lands, South Florida Office, 7900 Red Road,
South Miami, stated that they have a lot of experience in these areas and have staff available
in Tallahassee to work with Florida Communities Trust. TFPL will commit to working very
closely with the County to secure grants to help offset the purchase costs.
Chairman Stanbridge stated that the Guide does not reflect the current categories,
most of which occurred at the State level. She felt that the minimum criteria requested
should be added to the Guide.
Commissioner Macht noted that at the LAAC meeting discussion was held that there
are no native plants on this site and there is only a very minimal archeological site. The
historical site is the one that contains Paul Kroegel's house which is being sold as a
commercial piece of property. He believed the value of this property is diminished by not
including the other 2 parcels.
Mr. DeBlois stated that staff would obtain an appraisal through the normal process
to use as a basis for the value of the land.
Commissioner Macht was concerned that this property would not be a significant
parcel unless it were attached to at least one other piece of the entire property.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-45-
7
toS
Chairman Stanbridge noted that the Round Island Park property was purchased one
parcel at a time but believed that this parcel could stand alone. She believed the LAAC
Guide should reflect the language necessary to obtain funding in the real world.
Commissioner Adams believed the property should be purchased as the first spoke
in the wheel. Those 3 parcels have a significant story to tell about the area and would be of
benefit to the County, particularly to the City of Sebastian.
Commissioner Macht felt that the historical value of the property is unique but was
concerned that the LAAC had recommended purchasing the property only if all 3 parcels
could be obtained.
Chairman Stanbridge felt this might be the last opportunity to purchase this land and
the County should purchase it.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Chairman Stanbridge, to move
forward with the appraisal process and entertain The
Trust for Public Lands' offer.
Commissioner Tippin supported the purchase of the land but was uncertain about the
funding source. He believed we are in difficult economic times and don't know what our
financial future is. However, this is an archeological piece of land and a national celebration
is corning up to include the Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. He believed it would
be a very legitimate purchase with environmental land funds.
JANUARY 22, 2002
46
• •
MOTION WAS AMENDED by Commissioner
Adams, SECONDED by Chairman Stanbridge, to
use environmental bond funds for the purchase of
the property.
Commissioner Macht suggested that those funds be used for a downpayment only and
that the balance of the funds be pursued through grants.
Mr DeBlois stated that TFPL can be flexible about payment of the funds but wants
some commitment that the County will actually purchase the land.
Ms. Wolf stated that TFPL can be pretty flexible. Their main goal is to conserve the
land.
Mr. DeBlois stated that staff is in favor of buying the property and then applying for
grants for reimbursement.
MOTION WAS RESTATED by Commissioner
Adams, SECONDED by Chairman Stanbridge, to
move forward with the appraisal and purchase the
proper ly with environmental bond funds.
After further discussion, Commissioner Adams WITHDREW THF MOTION and
Chairman Stanbridge WITHDREW HER SFCOND.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-47-
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Chairman Stanbridge, that the
Board move forward with the purchase of the
Rodney Kroegel property, using environmental bond
funds, and that staff be directed to amend the Guide
as proposed by staff to include properties with
historical and/or archeological significance.
Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Lane, stated that he is on the LAAC Committee and
believes that purchasing this one piece of property will make the other 2 properties much
more valuable. He did not believe the Board was aware of how bad the economy is.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and
the Motion passed unanimously.
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
11.A.2. AFFIDAVIT OF EXEMPTION PROCESS
RECONSIDERATION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 14, 2002:
JANUARY 22, 2002
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CO` CLRRENCE:
Ro ert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
FROM: Stan BolingCP
Planning Director
DATE: January 14, 2002
SUBJECT: Request to Reconsider the Affidavit of Exemption Process
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board
of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of January 22, 2002
BACKGROUND:
• Request for Information
In October, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amendment to the
County's land development regulations (LDRs) which had the effect of prohibiting
affidavits of exemption on agriculturally designated properties. Because that LDR
amendment affected several landowners with proposed projects, the Board again
addressed affidavit of exemption related issues at its December 4, 2001 meeting. During
discussion of that issue, the Board expressed an interest in reconsideration of its affidavit
of exemption prohibition on agricultural lands and directed staff to compile information
on the affidavit of exemption process (see attachment #1) and present that infoiuration to
the Board at a subsequent meeting. That infoiination is contained in this report, and is
presented to the Board for discussion at its January 22, 2002 meeting.
• History of County Property Division Regulations
The affidavit of exemption process is one of several processes that can be used to divide
property. The following history and background puts the affidavit of exemption process
in the context of the land division process.
Since 1958, the division of properties in the unincorporated area of the county has been
regulated by the county's subdivision ordinance. That ordinance was updated in 1963
and 1975. In 1983, it was completely re -written. The current subdivision ordinance is
substantially the same as the 1983 version, although it was re -formatted in 1991 along
with all the land development regulations (LDRs), and has been updated by periodic
minor amendments.
In 1985, the county created the P.R.D. (Planned Residential Development) ordinance
which was re -written in 1991 as the P.D. (Planned Development) ordinance. With a few
minor exceptions the current P.D. ordinance is the same as the 1991 ordinance, and
requires all P.D. projects to be platted in accordance with the subdivision ordinance
platting requirements. Thus, all conventional subdivisions and P.D. projects are platted
under the subdivision ordinance requirements.
JANUARY 22, 2002
Since 1983, the subdivision ordinance has allowed certain types of land division to occur
without platting and without providing foumal improvements such as paved roads,
utilities, and formal drainage systems. These "exemptions" from platting and
infrastructure provisions include the following:
(1) Creation of 40 acre tracts.
(2) One-time lot splits (one split of the parent parcel in its 1983
configuration).
(3) Affidavits of exemption, upon county approval.
Based upon a change in the comprehensive plan, the county, in 1991, amended the LDRs
to prohibit the use of the affidavit of exemption and the conventional subdivision platting
processes for subdividing properties located outside the Urban Service Area
(agriculturally designated lands). Those regulations, and the comprehensive plan policy
upon which they were based, limited the subdivision of agriculturally designated
properties to the agricultural P D process.
In the spring of 2001, the county amended the comprehensive plan so that the agricultural
P.D. process, which requires the clustering of lots would no longer be the only process
for subdividing agriculturally designated properties. That amendment became effective
on June 1, 2001. Based upon that comprehensive plan change, staff initiated an LDR
amendment to again allow agricultural properties to be subdivided via the same processes
available prior to 1991, namely: agricultural P.D.s, conventional subdivisions, and
affidavits of exemption. During the process of making an LDR change to implement the
referenced comprehensive plan amendment (from June 1 2001 to October 23, 2001),
staff accepted affidavit of exemption applications to subdivide lands outside the Urban
Service Area. Those applications are reflected in the data contained in attachment #4.
On October 23, 2001, the Board considered staff's proposed LDR amendment and voted
4-1 to change the LDRs to allow the subdivision of agricultural lands through the
conventional subdivision process, but not the affidavit of exemption process (see
attachment #2). Thus, under the current LDRs, agriculturally designated properties can
be subdivided only through the agricultural P.D. and conventional subdivision processes.
Now, the Board is to consider the affidavit of exemption process and determine whether
or not to direct staff to initiate changes to the county's current affidavit of exemption
allowances and regulations.
ANALYSIS:
• Affidavit of Exemption Process and Criteria
The affidavit of exemption process and criteria are contained in subdivision ordinance
section 913.06(5) (see attachment #3). Based on those regulations, affidavits of
exemption are required to meet various development criteria, including the following:
Parcels created must have a minimum area of 200,000 square feet (4.59
acres).
Road right-of-way width and dedication standards apply.
i�OTE: This criterion results in right-of-way being dedicated to the county
from "project sites" where such right-of-way is needed to bring abutting
county right-of-way up to local road minimum width (60 feet).
JANUARY 22, 2002
Environmental, native uplands, and tree protection requirements apply to
the "project site".
OTE: This criterion results in conservation easements for upland
setaside areas and avoidance or mitigation of wetland impacts.
Private property owners associations must be established where common
areas or private road rights-of-way are created.
NOTE: Plats for private road rights-of-way (unpaved private roads) may
be filed in conjunction with affidavit of exemption projects to create new
private road frontage for new parcels. Such roads are dedicated to private
property owners associations.
No affidavit of exemption or aggregation of affidavits of exemption shall
result in the creation of 50 or more parcels.
NOTE: This criterion means that a single affidavit of exemption request,
or aggregation of requests from the same owner on adjacent sites, cannot
exceed a total of 49 new parcels. Such a 49 parcel "project" would cover
a minimum of + 245 acres. To date, the Largest approved affidavit of
exemption request created only 7 parcels. Staff anticipates receiving the
11 parcel Ralph Lindsey request shortly.
No affidavit of exemption shall cover agriculturally designated properties
(lands located outside the Urban Service Area).
NOTE: This criterion means that the affidavit of exemption process can be
applied only on lands inside the Urban Service Area only.
Affidavits of exemption are exempt from platting requirements (unless private road right-
of-way is proposed). In addition, affidavits of exemption are exempt from providing
infrastructure improvements, including: streets, utilities systems, storniwater management
systems, bikeways, sidewalks, and streetlights. After parcels are created, however,
stormwater management and water and wastewater requirements are applied during the
review for single family homes on individual parcels.
Thus, the affidavit of exemption criteria address some of the most basic development
issues (road frontage and access, minimum public road right-of-way standards,
environmental regulations, and overall project size) and defer utility and drainage matters
to the time of building permit review. The exemptions delete infrastructure improvement
requirements that are common in residential subdivisions. In essence, the county exempts
requirements for such improvements to allow a low density rural lifestyle without urban
services and paved roads, at a lower development cost
• Affidavit of Exemption Process
In addition to reduced infrastructure requirements, the affidavit of exemption process is
less extensive than the platting process. Platting requires that an applicant go through a
pre -application process with staff, obtain Planning and Zoning Commission preliminary
plat approval, obtain a land development permit from Public Works, construct or "bond -
out" for improvements, obtain final plat approval from the Board of County
Commissioners, and have the plat and associated documents recorded. The affidavit of
exemption process is shorter, requiring an applicant to go through a pre -application
JANUARY 22, 2002
conference with staff, and obtain approval from the county attorney's office, Public
Works Department, and Community Development Department for the affidavit of
exemption documents. Those documents include a survey depicting the parcels, any
right-of-way dedication, and covenants and restrictions.
Thus, the affidavit of exemption process is less extensive and less costly than the platting
process which is required for conventional subdivisions and P.D.s. Taken together, the
development requirement exemptions and less extensive process for affidavit of
exemptions make creation of ± 5 acre parcels less costly and usually less time-consuming
than other residential development.
• Experience with Affidavits of Exemption and Agricultural P.D.s
Since 1983, relatively few parcels have been created through the affidavit of exemption
process (a total of 64 approved or pending), and relatively few parcels have been created
through the agricultural P.D. process since 1991 (a total of 54). There is, however, a large
potential for creation of± 5 acre parcels, if there is an increase in the availability of lands
fourierly used for citrus and demand for ± 5 acre parcels increases. Such changes could
be in the making, as evidenced by the relative jump in affidavit of exemption
parcels/applications now in process (24 parcels) that were received during a 5 month
window. The attached statistics chart and maps (see attachment 4 and 5) indicate that
most recent affidavit of exemption requests have been for sites located just outside of and
within one mile of the Urban Service Area, usually on former citrus grove sites. Based
upon these data and conversations staff has had with owners of land outside the Urban
Service Area, it appears that there is a significant interest in creating + 5 acre parcels east
of I-95, accessed off of the county's Thoroughfare Plan road grid system.
Staffs experience to date is that affidavit of exemption "projects" have not caused
significant adverse impacts on unpaved county maintained roads. No adverse impacts
have been experienced for three reasons. First, no new unpaved county roads are created
through the affidavit of exemption process. Rather, parcels are created with frontage on
existing county roads or new private road right-of-way is created via a plat. Therefore,
no new unpaved public roads result from the affidavit of exemption process. Second the
total number of parcels created via affidavits of exemption is relatively small. Third,
affidavit of exemption projects are very low density, twenty (20) times less dense than
the areas of Vero Lake Estates that contain 75' x 130' lots. Thus, impacts on unpaved
roads have been small, gradual, and spread -out due to very low density.
ALTERNATIVES:
The existing LDRs require the use of either the agricultural P.D. or conventional
subdivision process to subdivide properties located outside the Urban Service Area.
Agricultural P.D. projects may utilize water and/or sewer services if such services are
made available, and may be approved with waivers from certain conventional
requirements Agricultural P D regulations limit lot sizes to a 1 acre maximum, require
the clustering of lots, and require creation of large permanent green (e.g. agriculture,
conservation) common areas. In staffs opinion the agricultural P.D. process is the best
option for ensuring large green open spaces, preserving overall rural character, and
creating lot clusters that can be more easily served with infrastructure improvements and
services. Conventional subdivisions outside the Urban Service Area are not allowed to
have water and/or sewer service, and require conventional infrastructure improvements
(e.g. paved roads and formal drainage system). Unless there is a change to the LDRs, the
subdivision of agriculturally designated lands will continue to be available through these
two processes only.
JANUARY 22, 2002
An alternative to leaving the LDRs as they are is to amend the LDRs to allow for
affidavits of exemption outside the Urban Service Area, subject to special criteria. Such
cnteria could include paved access or maximum distance to paved roads, or a stricter
limitation on the total number of parcels created by an affidavit of exemption or
aggregation of exemptions (reduced from the current 49 parcel maximum).
The basic policy issue is whether or not the Board wishes to make it easier to create + 5
acre parcels on agriculturally designated lands If it does, then the affidavit of exemption
process is an option the Board should reconsider, subject to whatever access standards,
total parcel limitation, or other criteria the Board would wish to tie to affidavits of
exemption on agriculturally designated lands.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board deteimine whether or not to direct staff to initiate
changes to the existing affidavit of exemption regulations.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Draft Minutes from the December 4, 2001 BCC meeting
2. Minutes from the October 23, 2001 BCC meeting
3. LDR Section 913.06(5)
4. Affidavit of Exemption and Agricultural P.D. Statistics Chart
5. Affidavit of Exemption "Project Sites" Maps
6. Sample Affidavit of Exemption Documents and Survey
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the Memorandum and noted that the 1983
regulations provided for several ways to subdivide a single-family parcel without platting
and without providing formal improvements such as paved roads, utilities and formal
drainage systems: (1) creation of 40 -acre tracts; (2) one-time lot splits; and (3) affidavits of
exemption upon Board approval. In June of 2001 the County's Comprehensive Plan was
amended to allow agricultural properties to be subdivided by (1) agricultural PDs; (2)
conventional subdivisions; and (3) affidavits of exemption. On October 23, 2001 the Board
removed the affidavit of exemption option. The affidavit of exemption process was allowed
JANUARY 22, 2002
outside the urban service area and required the creation ofprivate roadways, which were not
required to be paved. There was always an access to a County paved road.
Commissioner Ginn clarified that those options were allowed outside the urban
service area previously. •
Director Boling confirmed that they had been allowed outside the urban service area
until October 23, 2001.
In response to questioning about further subdivision after the initial affidavit of
exemption process, Director Boling noted that the property owner must record a statement
stating that any further subdivision will require a regular subdivision process. This is a
method for subdividing lands which interface between agricultural lands and urban lands
Marvin Carter asked the Board to reinstate the affidavit of exemption process
outside of the urban service area as he felt there is a need for the process.
George Beuttel, 5000 16' Street, believed the process allows people of modest
means to have acreage and privacy and asked the Board to reinstate the process.
Max Cross, 2100 Oyster Bay, spoke in favor of the process.
Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, also spoke in favor of the process.
John Baker, 1281 Indian Mound Trail, was in favor of the process.
Commissioner Ginn was in favor of low density but wanted people to be aware that
there are no provisions for utilities outside the urban service area.
JANUARY 22, 2002
-54-
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board
unanimously directed staff to move forward with the
process to reinstate the affidavit of exemption
process.
NORTH COUNTY LIBRARY - CHILBERG
CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. CHANGE ORDER #2
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 15, 2002:
Date: January 15, 2002
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
From. Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director1/Lerczic2-1�` `�-
Subject: Change Order # 2 North County Library/Chilberg Construction Co. Inc.
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a memorandum from Lynn Williams regarding Change Order # 2 filed by Chilberg
Constniction Co., Inc. The change order is for several items and includes both changes that
increase the contract cost and changes that decrease the cost. The net effect, however, is an
increase of $31,518.49 increasing the contract from $1,257,259.68 to $1,288,778.17.
Mr. Williams' memorandum identifies the items and briefly explains the reason for the specific
change. Some are staff requested and others were unforeseen items typically associated with
remodeling type projects. Architect John Binkley has also reviewed the change order request.
Both Mr. Williams and Mr. Binkley have recommended approval of the requested change order.
RECOMMENDATION:
In light of the needed reasons identified for these changes, Change Order # 2 has been reviewed
and recommended by the supervising architect, and staff recommends approval of Change Order
#2
JANUARY 22, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board
unanimously approved Change Order 142, as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER WILL BE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
11.G.1. PREFABRICATED EROSION PREVENTION (PEP) REEF
FINAL REPORT - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - UNITED STATES
ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT CENTER
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 14, 2002:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Submittal of PEP Reef Final Report
DATE: January 14, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County has contracted with the US Army Corps of
Engineers Research and Development Center to monitor the
JANUARY 22, 2002
performance of the Prefabricated Erosion Prevention (PEP) reef. The
attached report presents the findings of the final monitoring
period and the conclusions of the entire forty-six month study
period. The report was presented to the Beach and Shore Advisory
Committee on January 21, 2001. If accepted by the Board, the report
will be forwarded to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection for their acceptance.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends acceptance of the PEP reef final report and
transmittal to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection
ATTACHMENT
Environmental Analyst Jonathan Gorham, Ph.D. noted that this report was presented
to the Beach and Shore Advisory Committee yesterday and introduced Mr. Stauble of the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Donald K. Stauble, United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and
Development Center Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, summarized the report for the
Board with the aid of a PowerPointTM presentation (COPY OF PRESENTATION IS ON
FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING).
Commissioner Adams emphasized the significant increase in the volume of sand
which is 8 to 10 feet higher than in 1996 in the area of the reef which had the worst erosion
in the County prior to the installation of the reef. The project began in 1993 with the Beach
Committee and took 3 years to obtain the permit. The Committee is recommending that an
extension be applied for as this is a big benefit to the community. The project has been
efficient and economical, requiring very minimal maintenance. The reef has also been a
tourist boon.
JANUARY 22, 2002
Ralph Sexton also praised the reef and commended Commissioner Adams for her
efforts in pulling the project together. Before the reef was installed he had put in 8500 yards
of sand in that area. Since the installation of the reef, he has not had to haul any sand at all.
Now the City has to dig sand out of the sewer drains. The reef is protecting Conn Beach and
has deposited about 12 feet of sand under the Ocean Grill. Before the installation of the reef
you could not walk down that beach without wading and now there is approximately 175
feet of beach. He asked the Board to continue with the reports on the reef through June of
2002 as the beach did not start to rebuild itself until about 2000.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board
unanimously accepted the Performance of the P E P
Reef Submerged Breakwater Project Final Report as
submitted and authorized staff to forward the Report
to the State of Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, as requested.
COPY OF REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
JANUARY 22, 2002
•
•
11.G.2. REPORT ON COUNTY'S HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN (BEACH PRESERVATION, SCRUB JAYS, MARINE
TURTLES - GERSTNER AND SUMMERPLACE
SEAWALLS - CARIBBEAN CONSERVATION
CORPORATION - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE - BUREAU OF PROTECTED
SPECIES MANAGEMENT)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 7, 2002:
•
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Ery
Public Works
TO: CAROLINE GINN, COMMISSION CHAIR
FRAN ADAMS, COMMISSIONER
THROUGH JAMES W. DAVIS, P.E., PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: JONATHAN GORHAM, ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYST —C6
SUBJECT: REPONSE TO FWC COMMENT LETTER ON HCP DRAFT
DATE: JANUARY 7, 2002
Utilities
finance
OMB
Ernerg. Serv.
Risk Mgi.
Other
The final draft of the Habitat Conservation Plan has been awaiting formal Comment
from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. At the time of the last
stakeholder meeting on October 7, at which FWC staff was present, it did not seem
that the commission had any substantial objections to the document.
However, in the attached formal comment letter signed by the director of FWC, It is
apparent that FWC is taking the position that all their current rules and regulatory
authority with regard to shoreline protection would remain in place even with an
Incidental Take Permit issued to the County following the successful conclusion of
the HCP process. Under this scenario, there would be no value to the County in
committing to the HCP. The County's consultant, the US Fish and Wildlife Service,
and I all feel that that FWC's position is in error. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
indicated that they would be willing to proceed with the HCP over the objections of
JANUARY 22, 2002
-59-
ev.
•
FWC if necessary. It would however be better for all concerned if FWC could be
brought on board and acknowledge in writing that the policies outlined in the HCP
fulfill the Commission s mandate for the protection of sea turtles.
The County's consultant and I have drafted the attached response letter, on which I
would appreciate your comments. Also, please let me know if you think the letter
would be more appropriate going out over the signature of the Commission, rather
than from staff, since we are responding to the FWC director.
Thank you very much.
Environmental Analyst Jonathan C. Gorham briefly reviewed the Florida Fish and
Wildlife Conservation Commission's correspondence of December 21, 2001 (COPY IS ON
FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING) and noted that there are a
number of recommended changes and positions which would make the HCP unworkable.
A copy of that letter has been forwarded to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and they concurred with the County position that the recommendations were
without merit. Staff has prepared a draft letter in response which maps out the County's
position and asks the FFWCC to sign off on the HCP. USFWS has indicated that they are
willing to sign off on the HCP over the objections of FFWCC.
Commissioner Adams commended staff for their hard work and expressed her
disappointment in FFWCC's maneuver. They are basically saying that they were not a part
of the original agreement and are going to insist on doing everything by the book.
JANUARY 22, 2002
•
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the draft letter to Bradley J.
Hartman, Director of the Office of Environmental
Services of the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission and authorized the
Chairman to execute same.
COPY OF LETTER IS ON FILE WITH THE
BACKUP FOR TODAY S MEETING
11.H.1. BENT PINE SUBDIVISION - WATER SERVICES
REPLACEMENT PROJECT - GEORGE E. FRENCH
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 7, 2002:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
JANUARY 7, 2002
JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
W. ERIK OLSON, P C�
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
GENE A. RAUTH, OPERATIONS MANAGER Gp,
GORDON E. SPARKS, P.E. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER ///
SUBJECT: BENT PINE SUBDIVISION WATER SERVICES
REPLACEMENT PROJECT
RACKGROUNF)
Bent Pine is a subdivision consisting of 118 existing single family homes plus a clubhouse,
guardhouse and golf course facility in the 5700 -block 58 Avenue. Construction was begun
in the 1980's and is served by both water and sewer service from the County's facilities.
JANUARY 22, 2002 6 { ' P
-61-
t
•
The water service lines between the water mains and meter boxes were constructed of
polybutylene, which has proven to be an inferior material in this use application, due to
failures. The Board of County Commission's approved staffs request for a similar water
line replacement project for the Cambridge Park subdivision. The Cambridge Park project
was completed on schedule and within budget.
ANAI YSIS
Approximately 10% of the single and double polybutylene water service lines that serve
121 meters have failed within the last several years requiring emergency replacements by
the County's Utility personnel Some of the repairs were made after hours requiring
overtime compensation and at great cost and inconvenience to our customers. Since it is
obviously only a matter of time before all remaining water services will fail and have to be
replaced, the Utilities Department believes it is prudent to be proactive and replace them in
an orderly and timely manner as part of the scheduled line and replacement program
The Utilities Department has reviewed the available options for replacement and
determined the best way to effect the replacement was to use the Utility Department Labor
Contractor, (see attached agreement) The material for the project will be directly
purchased by the Utility. This decision has been made based on man-hour availability of
Utility maintenance crews, continuity of work, existing water table conditions and customer
inconvenience. The total cost of labor and materials for this project is estimated to be
$138,794.55, with a further breakout of $110,198.17 for labor, and $28,596.38 for direct
purchase material Because the contract is for more than $25,000, the Labor Contractor will
have to post a Performance and Payment Bond prior to commencement with the work.
RFCQMMFN.LlATIQNI
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the Board of County
Commissioners approve the project at a total cost of $138,794.55 including 10%
contingency for labor, and authorize the Chairman to execute a Work Authorization
Directive, as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED
by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously
approved the project at a total cost of $138,794.55,
including 10% contingency for labor, and authorized
the Chairman to execute a Work Authorization
Directive, as recommended by staff.
WORK AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
JANUARY 22, 2002
-62-
1
71.1
11.H.2. KING'S BAPTIST CHURCH DEVELOPER'S
AGREEMENT - FORCE MAIN INSTALLATION ON 58TH
AVENUE BETWEEN 32ND STREET AND 49TH STREET
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 11, 2002:
DATE: JANUARY 11, 2002
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COL TY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: W. ERIK OLSON
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED AARON J. BOWLES, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITIES
SUBJECT: DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT WITH KING'S BAPTIST CHURCH (FOR FORCE
MAIN INSTALLATION ON 58TH AVENUE BETWEEN 32s`D STREET AND 49TH
STREET
BACKS'rRQITNI) & A_NAINSIS
King's Baptist Church is an existing church proposing expansion and is located at 3235 58th Avenue. A master
planned force main has been scheduled to be constructed along King's Highway on an as -needed basis driven by
development. Through previous approved developer agreements, the master planned force main has been
constructed along King's Highway from 49th Street north to Eagle Trace Subdivision In conjunction with the
expansion of the Kin's Baptist Church, the Utilities Department has required the force main be extended from
49th Street south to the Church's site. The force math installation will comprise constricting approximately 6,765
linear feet of 6" force main, 2,775 linear feet of 8" force math and 2,560 linear feet of 12" force main along the
58th Avenue right-of-way.
Attached is a proposed developer's agreement with KING'S BAPTIST CHURCH for reimbursement of a
portion of the subject force main. Fhe Developer's Agreement is stipulated to reimburse the Developer for the
County's share of the force main based on itemized invoices of installed materials on a percentage complete
basis -less 10% retainage monthly with final payment and release of retainage at the time said facilities are
dedicated to the County (SC — 1.A of attached agreement).
JANUARY 22, 2002
As shown in Exhibit - B of the attached Agreement, the County Share and Developer's share for
installing the recommended improvements is tabulated below and included in the attached Developer's
Agreement. is as follows:
RF OMIYIFNDATTON•
The staff of the Department of Utility Services reconunends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached Developer's agreement as presented & authorizes the Chairman to execute the same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Developer's Agreement
and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
13.A. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - UPDATES
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
JANUARY 22, 2002
Description
Water
Distribution
System'
Developer's Share
$10 455.51
County's Share
$364,266.09
Total
Project Cost
$374,721.60
RF OMIYIFNDATTON•
The staff of the Department of Utility Services reconunends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the attached Developer's agreement as presented & authorizes the Chairman to execute the same.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board
unanimously approved the Developer's Agreement
and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
13.A. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - UPDATES
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
JANUARY 22, 2002
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 12:07 p.m.
ATTEST:
on, Clerk
Minutes Approved
JANUARY 22, 2002