HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2002MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
IN IAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
John W. Tippin, Vice Charman
Fran B. 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. Bernie Van Eyk
Indian River Presbyterian Church
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE James E Chandler
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA /
EMERGENCY ITEMS
BACKUP
PAGES
1 Add Item 5.A.2., Proclamation Honoring Ruth M. Stanbridge.
2. Move Item 14.B.5., 2nd Annual Green Business Award Recipients — Solid Waste Disposal District— Keep Indian River
Beautiful, to Item 5.E.
3. Add Item 5.F., Character Counts! — Support for "Communities of Character" Program.
4. Delete Item 7.E., Supervisor of Elections Submittal of Annual Report for 2001/2002 and Check #7350 in Amount of
$3,735.03 (Contains the Same Information as Item 7.C.).
5. Additional backup for Item 7.N., Pointe West Central Village Phase III P.D., First Sub -Phase — Request for Final Plat
Approval.
6. Additional backup for Item 9.A.2., Ordinance 2002-030 Regarding Tree Protection and Land Clearing Requirements.
7. Additional backup for Item 9.A.3., Ordinance 2002-031 Amending Existing Interim Regulations Which Established New
Requirements for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities.
8 Add Item 11.0.5., East Indian River County Master Stormwater Management Plan — Southwest Industrial Stormwater Park
— Application for Water Project Funding Under House Bill 851 — Department of Environmental Protection — W. Keith
McCully, Stormwater Engineer (Calpine/Blue Heron Energy Center, LLC).
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
A. Presentation of Proclamation Hononng John W. Tippen
B. Presentation of Award of Excellence to Supervisor of
Elections Kay Clem and Staff
1-2
3
C. Presentation of Proclamation Designating Nov. 24-30,
as Christian Heritage Week In Indian River County, FL 4
D. Presentation of Proclamation Designating \ov. 22-28,
2002 as National Faim-City Week
1
JI►
10
0.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Property Appraiser, Constitutional Officers Financial
Report for FY. Ending 09/30/02
(letter dated October 30, 2002)
B. Tax Collector, Constitutional Officers Financial Report
for FY Ending 09/30/02
(letter dated October 31, 2002)
C. Supervisor of Elections, Constitutional Officers
Financial Report for FY Ending 09/30/02
(letter dated October 30, 2002)
BACKUP
PAGES
6-9
10-18
19-23
D. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated October 31, 2002) 24-32
E Supervisor of Elections Submittal of Annual Report for
2001/2002 and Check #7350 in Amount of $3,735.03
(letter dated October 30, 2002)
33-37
F. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
(memorandum dated November 6, 2002) 38-39
G. Pinnacle Grove, Ltd c/o Pinnacle Housing Group
Developer's Agreement for Construction Off -Site
Sanitary Sewer Force Main Utilities and Reim-
bursement by County to Developer
(memorandum dated October 30, 2002) 40 52
H. Indian River County Bid #5019 Annual Bid for
Concrete Sidewalks, Driveways, and Curbing
(memorandum dated November 4, 2002)
Resolution of Support for the Indian River Lagoon
Blueway Acquisition Project
(memorandum dated November 6, 2002)
J. 4th Street Widening and Intersection Improvements
Amendment No. 4
(memorandum dated November 5, 2002)
K. Release of Retainage, Woods Hole Group, Inc.
(memorandum dated November 4, 2002)
2
U
53-56
57-59
60-63
64-66
•
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
L Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 001
(memorandum dated November 5, 2002)
M. GEN Development Inc. Request for Final Plat
Approval for The Preserve at Vero Beach Phase II
(memorandum dated November 1, 2002)
N. Pointe West of Vero Beach LTS's Request for
Final Plat Approval for Pointe West Central Village
Phase III P.D , First Sub -Phase
(memorandum dated November 1, 2002)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2001-036
BY DELETING THE ZONING REVERTER CLAUSE
FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS `THE COLONY, P.D."
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 297 ACRES OF
LAND GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN 13th ST.
SW ON THE NORTH, 17th ST SW ON THE SOUTH,
27th AVENUE ON THE EAST, AND 43`d AVENUE
ON THE WEST; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Colony Development Associates L L C 's Request
to Delete the Zoning Reverter Provision in the
Planned Development Zoning Ordinance for The
Colony (Legislative)
(memorandum dated November 1, 2002)
2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, REGARDING TREE PROTECTION AND
LAND CLEARING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDR s)
CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS; AND CHAPTER 927
TREE PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING; AND
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PRO-
VISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE
(continued next page)
3
?1
UR
9
•
BACKUP
PAGES
67-73
74-87
88-99
100-124
•
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont.'d):
2. (Item 9A 2 continued)
County Initiated Request to Adopt Revisions to
the County Land Clearing and Tree Protection
Ordinance (Legislative)
(memorandum dated November 6, 2002)
3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA AMENDING EXISTING INTERIM
REGULATIONS WHICH ESTABLISHED NEW
REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRELESS TELECOM-
MUNICATIONS FACILITIES, AUTHORIZING
THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR
WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES IN A MANNER CONSISTENT
WITH THE COUNTY'S WIRELESS FACILITY
MASTER PLAN. AMENDING THE FOLLOW-
ING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDR s); CHAPTER 911, ZONING;
CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC
LAND USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Consideration of Amending Certain Sections of
LDR Chapters 911 and 971 (Wireless Facilities
Final Ordinance), and Approving the Indian River
County Wireless Facilities Master Plan (Legislative)
(memorandum dated November 5, 2002)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request by Frank Coffey to Speak Regarding
Extension of Optional Sales Tax
(letter dated November 6, 2002)
2. Request by Jerry Summers to discuss the Vero
Beach Recreation Department Cultural and
Performing Arts Program
(letter dated November 6, 2002)
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
4
�\
BACKUP
PAGES
125-140
141-197
198
199
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
Emergency Services
BACKUP
PAGES
General Services
1. New Lease for the Gifford Youth Activities
Center to be Leased to the Gifford Youth
Activity Center, Inc.
(memorandum dated November 6, 2002)
?. Request by the City of Sebastian for the Broad-
cast of Prerecorded Sebastian City Council
Meetings on South County Government Access
Channel 13
(memorandum dated November 6, 2002)
Leisure Services
200-211
212-216
Office of Management and Budget
Human Resources
None
Public Works
1. Calpme Agreement Concerning Delivery and Use
of Stormwater
(memorandum dated November November 6, 2002)
2. Fla. Dept. of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Grant Program for Construction of a Fairgrounds
Exhibit Pavilion Scope/Cost Alternatives and
Amendment No. 2 to Design/Build Professional
Services Contract
(memorandum dated October 29, 2002)
Fellsmere Grade Road Agreement with Osceola
County
(memorandum dated October 28, 2002)
217-250
251-265
266-270
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.):
G. Public Works (cont'd.):
4. Conservation Easement Agreement between St.
Johns River Water Management District and
Indian River County
(memorandum dated November 1, 2002)
Utilities
1. Subordination of Utility Easement at the Inter-
section of 6th Avenue and US Highway One
(memorandum dated October 28, 2002)
BACKUP
PAGES
271-278
279-287
Work Authorization 17 — Increase to the Upper
Limit
(memorandum dated October 29, 2002)
Grant Application to Department of Environ-
mental Protection
(memorandum dated November 5, 2002)
Central Regional Sludge Processing Facility
Odor Control Blower Replacement
(memorandum dated November 4, 2002)
288-300
301-307
308-316
Human Services
1. Needs Assessment Sub -Committee's Report
Entitled Indian River County Children's Services
Advisory Committee 2002-2005 Assessment and
Plan
(memorandum dated November 5, 2002)
(action deferred from BCC meeting of October 22, 2002)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
North County Regional Park; Sublease Amendment; Airmasters
Radio Control Club, Inc ; Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc
(memorandum dated November 6, 2002)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Updates
318-337
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.):
B. Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
BACKUP
PAGES
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes — reg. meeting of 9/3/02
2. Approval of Minutes — reg. meeting of 9/10/02
3. Approval of Minutes — reg. meeting of 9/17/02
4. Approval of Minutes — reg. meeting of 10/1/02
5. Recognition for 2nd Annual Green Business
Award Recipients
(memorandum dated October 28, 2002)
5. Modification of Lease Agreement between
Perfection Trusses and Indian River County SWDD
(memorandum dated November 5, 2002)
Environmental Control Board
15. ADJOURNMENT
338-339
340 343
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://www.ircgov.com
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 bebroadcast 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
OF NOVEMBER 12, 2002
1. CALL TO ORDER 1
2. INVOCATION 1
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 3
5.A.1. PROCLAMATION HONORING JOHN W. TIPPIN 3
5 A 2 PROCLAMATION HONORING RUTH M. STANBRIDGE 6
5.B. AWARD OF EXCELLENCE TO SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS KAY CLEM AND STAFF 7
5.C. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 24-30 AS CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WEEK [N INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY 8
5.D. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 22-28, 2002 AS NATIONAL FARM -CITY WEEK 9
5.E. 2ND ANNUAL GREEN BUSINESS AWARD RECIPIENTS - SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT/KEEP INDIAN
RIVER BEAUTIFUL - 1. PERFECTION TRUSSES; 2. VILLAGE BEACH MARKET; AND 3. INDIAN RIVER
MALL 10
5.F. CHARACTER COUNTS COALITION - SUPPORT FOR "COMMUNITY OF CHARACTER" 12
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 13
7. CONSENT AGENDA 13
7.A. PROPERTY APPRAISER, CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FY ENDING 09/30/02 13
7.B. TAX COLLECTOR, CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FY ENDING 09/30/02 17
7.C. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FY ENDING 09/30/02
1 �. 1' 1.
7.D. LIST OF WARRANTS
7.E. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS SUBMITTAL OF ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2001-2002 AND CHECK #7350 IN
AMOUNT OF $3,735.03 34
7.F. PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT -RELATED COSTS 34
7.G. PINNACLE GROVE, LTD. C/O PINNACLE HOUSING GROUP - DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN UTILITIES AND REIMBURSEMENT TO
DEVELOPER 36
7.H. BID #5019 - ANNUAL BID FOR CONCRETE SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS AND CURBING - CLAY'S ASPHALT
38
7.I. RESOLUTION 2002-095 SUPPORTING PROMOTION OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON BLUEWAY PROJECT TO
THE 'A' ACQUISITION LIST UNDER THE FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM 39
7.J. 4T" STREET WIDENING AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - KEITH & SCHNARS - AMENDMENT #4 TO
CONTRACT 42
7.K. WOODS HOLE GROUP, INC. - BEACH PRESERVATION - RELEASE OF RETAINAGE 43
7 L RESOLUTION 2002-096 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET - BUDGET AMENDMENT #001
44
7.M. GEN DEVELOPMENT, INC. - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PRESERVE AT VERO BEACH PHASE II 51
7.N. POINTE WEST OF VERO BEACH LTD - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR POINTE WEST CENTRAL VILLAGE
PHASE III P D , FIRST SUB -PHASE 53
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2002-029 AMENDING ORDINANCE 2001-036 BY
DELETING THE ZONING REVERTER CLAUSE FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS "THE
COLONY, P.D." CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 297 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY
LOCATED BETWEEN 13TH STREET SW ON THE NORTH, 17TH STREET SW. ON THE SOUTH,
27TH AVENUE ON THE EAST, AND 43RD AVENUE ON THE WEST (COLONY DEVELOPMENT
ASSOCIATES LLC - THE GRALIA GROUP) (LEGISLATIVE) 55
9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2002-030 REGARDING TREE PROTECTION AND
LAND CLEARING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
(LDRS) CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS; AND CHAPTER 927, TREE PROTECTION AND
LAND CLEARING (COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ADOPT REVISIONS TO THE
COUNTY LAND CLEARING AND TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE) (LEGISLATIVE)..61
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
2
1
•
9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2002-031 AMENDING EXISTING INTERIM
REGULATIONS WHICH ESTABLISHED NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, AUTHORIZING THE PROCESSING OF
APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S WIRELESS FACILITY MASTER PLAN. AMENDING
THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS);
CHAPTER 911, ZONING; CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES
(WIRELESS FACILITIES FINAL ORDINANCE - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WIRELESS
FACILITIES MASTER PLAN) (LEGISLATIVE) 82
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - FRANK COFFEY - DISCUSSION REGARDING EXTENSION
OF OPTIONAL SALES TAX 118
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - JERRY SUMMERS - DISCUSSION REGARDING VERO
BEACH RECREATION DEPARTMENT CULTURAL AND PERFORMING ARTS PROGRAM
119
11.C.1. LEASE WITH THE GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER, INC. FOR THE OPERATION
OF THE GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITIES CENTER (FORMERLY LEASED TO THE
PROGRESSIVE CIVIC LEAGUE OF GIFFORD, FLORIDA, INC.) 119
11.C.2. SOUTH COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 13 - AT&T CABLEVISION - CITY
OF SEBASTIAN REQUEST FOR BROADCAST OF PRE-RECORDED SEBASTIAN CITY
COUNCIL MEETINGS - CITY OF VERO BEACH - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
BOARD 121
11.G.1. CALPINE/BLUE HERON ENERGY CENTER, LLC - AGREEMENT CONCERNING
DELIVERY AND USE OF STORMWATER (INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL
DISTRICT) (1¢ LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX) 126
11.G.2. FAIRGROUNDS EXHIBIT PAVILION - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND
CONSUMER SERVICES GRANT PROGRAM - PCL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES -
SCOPE/COST ALTERNATIVES AND AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO DESIGN/BUILD
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT (1¢ LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX) 130
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
3
11.G.3. FELLSMERE GRADE ROAD - OSCEOLA COUNTY AGREEMENT (LOCAL OPTION GAS
TAX) 132
11.G.4. CR -512 IMPROVEMENTS - PROJECT 9611 (DENTON PROPERTY) CONSERVATION
EASEMENT AGREEMENT - ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 134
11.G.5. EAST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MASTER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN -
SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL STORMWATER PARK - APPLICATION FOR WATER
PROJECT FUNDING UNDER HOUSE BILL 851 - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION - W. KEITH MCCULLY, STORMWATER ENGINEER (CALPINEBLUE
HERON ENERGY CENTER, LLC) 135
11.11.1. RESOLUTION 2002-097 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A SUBORDINATION OF
COUNTY UTILITY INTERESTS WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION - INTERSECTION OF 6TH AVENUE AND US HIGHWAY #1
(SCHINDLER EASEMENT) 137
11.11.2. SOUTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT - WORK
AUTHORIZATION 17 INCREASING THE UPPER LIMIT - CAMP, DRESSER, MCKEE 140
11.H.3. REVERSE OSMOSIS - BRINE TREATMENT - INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - ST. JOHNS
RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - GRANT APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTEGRATED
WATER RESOURCE SUPPLY PLAN 141
11.11.4. CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - CENTRAL REGIONAL
SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITY - ODOR CONTROL BLOWER REPLACEMENT (BID
#5030) - WGC, INC. - JACOBS AIR WATER SYSTEMS 143
11.I. CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 2002-2005 ASSESSMENT AND PLAN -
NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUB -COMMITTEE'S REPORT 144
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
4
12. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK - DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
OFFICE OF COASTAL AND AQUATIC MANAGED AREAS AMENDMENT #1 TO SUBLEASE
4118-01 - AIRMASTERS RADIO CONTROL CLUB, INC. AND SEBASTIAN AREA SOCCER
ASSOCIATION, INC. 146
13.A.1. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - ELECTION OF ACTING CHAIRMAN AND ACTING
VICE CHAIRMAN 147
13.A.2. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - APPOINTMENT TO TRANSPORTATION
DISADVANTAGED LOCAL COORDINATING BOARD AND OTHER COMMITTEES 149
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 150
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 151
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 151
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
November 12, 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, November 12, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman; John
W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; and Commissioners Fran B. Adams, Caroline D. Ginn and Kenneth
R. Macht. Also present were Joe Baird, Assistant County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County
Attorney; and Patricia ` PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Stanbridge called the meeting to order.
2. INVOCATION
Reverend Bernie Van Eyk, Indian River Presbyterian Church, delivered the Invocation.
3. PLEDGE. OF AI,I,EGIANCF,
Assistant County Administrator Joe Baird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
The Chairman announced the following changes to the Agenda:
1. Add Item 5.A.2., Proclamation Honoring Ruth M. Stanbridge.
2. Move Item 14.B.5., 2nd Annual Green Business Award Recipients — Solid Waste
Disposal District — Keep Indian River Beautiful, to Item 5 E
•
•
3. Add Item 5.F., Character Counts! — Support for "Communities of Character"
Program.
4. Delete Item 7 E , Supervisor of Elections Submittal of Annual Report for
2001/2002 and Check #7350 in Amount of $3,735.03 (Contains the Same
Information as Item 7.C.).
5. Additional backup for Item 7.N., Pointe West Central Village Phase III P.D., First
Sub -Phase — Request for Final Plat Approval.
6. Additional backup for Item 9.A.2., Ordinance 2002-030 Regarding Tree
Protection and Land Clearing Requirements.
7. Additional backup for Item 9.A.3., Ordinance 2002-031 Amending Existing
Interim Regulations Which Established New Requirements for Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities.
8. Add Item 11.G.5., East Indian River County Master Stormwater Management
Plan — Southwest Industrial Stormwater Park — Application for Water Project
Funding Under House Bill 851 — Department of Environmental Protection — W.
Keith McCully, Stormwater Engineer (Calpine/Blue Heron Energy Center, LLC).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously made the above
changes to the Agenda.
Chairman Stanbridge then thanked her friends from Sebastian and the Sebastian Chamber
of Commerce for the beautiful roses and cookies she received this morning.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
2
5. PROC'I,AMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
5.4.1. PROCLAMATION HONORING JOHN W. TIPPIN
The Chairman presented the following Proclamation to Vice Chairman John Tippin.
PROCLAMATION
HONORING JOHN W. TIPPIN
WHEREAS, JOHN W. TIPPIN has announced his retirement from the Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners, effective November, 2002, at the end of his term of office; and
WHEREAS, JOHN was elected by the citizens of Indian River County in 1992, and re-elected
in 1994 and 1998, and was elected Chairman of the Board by his fellow Commissioners in 1994 and
1998; and
WHEREAS, JOHN has served with distinction as Chairman of the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee, Economic Development Council, Metropolitan Planning Organization, Tourist
Development Council and the Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments; and as a member of the
Court Administrator's Budget Committee, Economic Development Private/Public Task Force, Medical
Examiner Budget Committee, State MPO Advisory Council, Transit Strategic Plan Advisory Committee,
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium, Nineteen Judicial
Circuit Conflict Committee and liaison between the County and the Chamber of Commerce's Economic
Development Division; and
WHEREAS, JOHN's forefathers settled in Indian River County even before the arrival of the
Mayflower, and John himself was barn an Storm Grove Road. He has a keen sense of humor and freely
shares stories about the history of the County and the days of his youth to all who will listen.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board expresses its deep
appreciation for the dedicated service
JOHN W. TIPPIN
has given to Indian River County, and his fellow Board members extend warmest wishes for his future
success in his chosen field of Aquatic Research and Hydrological Studies.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
i.
Ruth m
M. Stanbridge, Chairarj
Fran B. Adams
Caroli pe D. Ginn
/l��
Kenneth R. Macht
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Vice Chairman Tippin thanked everyone and said that he was at a loss for words except
to add "God bless every one of you".
Chairman Stanbridge also presented the following Retirement Award to Vice Chairman
Tippin, and noted that he will have to add another wall to his fishing camp to accommodate all
his awards:
Alis is to rrrtify that
John W pippin
is fru* prrsrntrb this
igPttrrntnnf Aninrd
for nutsManhing prrformanrr anij faithful
srrnirr to
Indian River County
Board Of County Commissioners
for len grays of srruirr
18th hail of
November 20 02
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Commissioner Adams then read the following letter to Vice Chairman Tippin from
Florida State University Seminole Coach Bobby Bowden:
Florida State University
Athletic Department
University Center C. Roan C5406
Tattahse, FL 32306
Nos -ember 12. 2002
The Honorable John Trppin
County Commissioner
Florida State University Alumni
13402_5° Street
Vero Beach.. FL 32960
Dear Commissioner Ttppin:
I want to congratulate you on your ten years of smite to Indian River County as
County Commissioner. Your quiet wisdom and common sense has guided your county
well. A5 you embark on your journey of retirement. know that your decisions have laid
the foundation for the future opportunities available to our children and grandchildren
\Iay your short days of fishing end in time to watch our Seminoles ploy the
games we lost so well! Thank you for your sen ice to our people and your loyalty to
FSI:. GO \OI I.S"" With best wishes I remain
Bobby Bowden
Hind Coach
Seminole Football
Vice Chairman Tippin called Coach Bowden "my hero" and stated that he would move
the big bass on the wall at his fishing camp in order to put this letter in that place of honor.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
5.4.2. PROCLAMATION HONORING RUTH M. STANBRIDGE
Commissioner Ginn then read the following Proclamation honoring Chairman
Stanbridge:
PROCLAMATION
HONORING RUTH M. STANBRIDGE
WHEREAS, RUTH M. STANBRIDGE was elected to the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners by the citizens of Indian River County in 1998, and was elected Chairman of the Board by her
-fello'w Commissioners in 2002; and
WHEREAS, during her term, RUTH. M. STANBRIDGE served as Chairman of the Community
-Development Block Grant Advisory Committee. Historic Resources Advisory Committee andj he Tfansporfation
Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board; as a member of the Steering Committee for the SC .[ours=American
Heritage. River, Indian River Lagoon Scenic Highway Committee, Jobs and Educational-fPaitherafilp%-Regionai
Board, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the State Health and Human Services Committee and as an
altemate member of the Metropolitan Planning Organization; as liaison for the St. Johns River Water Management
District and the Community Oriented Police Enforcement Committee and was on the Board of Directors of the
Indian River County Council on Aging and Keep Indian River Beautiful; and
WHEREAS, RUTH M. STANBRIDGE was appointed by Indian River County as the County Historian in
1995, a position she holds to this day; and
WHEREAS, RUTH M. STANBRIDGE was instrumental in obtaining grants and recognition for the
Gifford Community as a Front Porch Florida Community; and
WHEREAS, over the years RUTH M. STANBRIDGE received many awards for her conservation efforts
on behalf of the Indian River Lagoon, Jungle Trail and the Pelican Island National Wildlffe Refuge; and
WHEREAS, RUTH'S tireless work on stornwater management has resulted in her affectionately being
dubbed "Stormwater Queen of Indian River County-.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board appreciates the many hours of dedicated service and recognizes the
outstanding contributions of
RUTH M. STANBRIDGE
and her fellow Board members wish her the very best in her future endeavors.
Adopted this 12"' day of November, 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVERCOUNTY, FLORIDA
i r
rrli / i
Jot Titlark Vice �
ce Cha'
,e ,c —
1
Kenoei R. Macht
Fran B. Adams
Caroline D. Ginn
92"
Chairman Stanbridge stated that it has been a joy to serve as Commissioner and as
Chairman of the Board and reminded everyone that she will still be in the County.
Commissioner Macht noted that he did not know anyone who had ever worked as hard
and effectively for the County as Chairman Stanbridge.
Vice Chairman Tippin quipped that when Jungle Trail is 4-laned, Chairman Stanbridge's
name would be put on it.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
6
S.B. A WARD OF EXCELLENCE TO SUP_ERYISOR OF ELECTIONS KAY CLEMAND
STAFF
The Chairman presented the following Award to Supervisor of Elections Kay Clem and
her staff:
Supervisor of _Acct. ons
and Staff
In recognition of their dedication and
outstanding performance in preparing
Indian _River County citizens
for the introduction and use of the new
Touch Screen Voting System
ber 10, 2002
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Mrs Clem thanked the Board for listening, understanding and providing the necessary
resources to enable her to do the job. She then thanked her staff and noted that she has quite a
team who jumped right in there with the "big" guys (referring to Palm Beach, Broward and
Miami -Dade Counties) and did a wonderful job. She noted that her staff has worked more than
one long weekend since 1999 and countless overtime hours. She also thanked the families of her
staff for coping with the many overtime hours which enabled her office to complete the recent
elections in an excellent manner.
Chairman Stanbridge added her thanks to the Building and Grounds staff and to General
Services Director Tom Frame for their excellent work and cooperation in preparing for and
completing the move of the Elections Office.
5,C. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 24-30 AS CHRISTIAN HERITAGE
WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Commissioner Ginn presented the following Proclamation which was accepted by Bob
Johnson*
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 24 - 30, 2002, AS
CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WEEK IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, during the season and in the spirit of Thanksgiving, it is right and just to
recognize the contributions and sacrifices of our Founding Fathers; and
WHEREAS, the preamble of the Constitution of the State of Florida provides: "We,
the people of the State of Flonda, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional
liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility,
maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all...."; and
WHEREAS, the Constitution of the State of Florida guarantees the free exercise of
religion; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners opens its meetings with an
avocation.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
8
t
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Flonda that the week of November 24 - 30, 2002, be known,
designated, and set aside as
CHRISTIAN HERITAGE WEEK
in Indian River County, in recognition of the American Family Association's contribution to
the quality of life in Indian River County.
Adopted this 12th day of November, 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
(, zee
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Charmed.
S.D. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 22-28, 2002 AS NATIONAL FARM -
CITY WEEK
Commissioner Adams presented the following Proclamation to Alan Temple, President
of the Indian River Farm Bureau:
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 22 - 28, 2002
AS NATIONAL FARM-C;TY WEEK
WHEREAS, since our earliest days as a nation, farmers have tilled the soil of this
great land to feed their families, other citizens and people around the world. Over the years, our
economy has changed, but the American farm and ranch has remained a vital thread in the
fabric of our lives; and
WHEREAS, by providing an abundant supply of safe, high-quality food and fiber, our
farmers and ranchers contribute to a quality of life in our country that is unmatched around the
world; and
WHEREAS, farmers and ranchers do not work alone. Farm workers, researchers,
educators, processors, shippers, truck drivers, inspectors, agribusinesses, wholesalers,
marketers, retailers and consumers, many of whom are in urban and suburban areas, all play
important roles in the incredible productivity of our nation's food and fiber system, and
WHEREAS, as we gather with family and friends around the Thanksgiving table, it is
fitting that we count among our blessings the vital farm -city partnerships that have done so
much to improve the quality of our lives. Rural and urban communities working together. have
made the most of our rich agricultural resources, and they continue to contribute to the health
and well being of our people and to the strength of our economy.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that November 22 =28;2002 be
designated as
FARM -CITY WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board calls upon citizens in rural and _urban areas to
acknowledge and celebrate the achievements of all those who, working together, produce an
abundance of agricultural products and strengthen and enrich our community and our nation.
Adopted this 12°i day of November, 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mr. Temple thanked the Board on behalf of the Farm Bureau for raising the awareness of
the public to the importance of agriculture to the economy. He reminded everyone that farmers
were the original stewards of the land and asked everyone to be sure to eat their 5 servings per
day of fruit and vegetables.
DISTRICT/KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL - 1. PERFECTION TRUSSES; 2.
The Chairman introduced Sarah Nichols, Education and Business Outreach Coordinator
of the Solid Waste Disposal District:
DATE: October 28, 2002
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
ERIK OLSON, DIRECTO)
UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
MICHAEL L. FREY, MANAGING DIRECTOR
SOLID WAS 1 E DISPOSAL DISTRICT
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
FROM: SARAFi NICHOLS ./“..2.4c---
EDUCATION
2K--EDUCATION & BUSINESS OUTREACH COORDIi iATOR
SUBJECT: RECOGNITION FOR 2ND ANNUAL GREEN BUSLNESS AWARD
RECIPREANTS
BACKGROUND
In an attempt to continue promoting awareness and rewarding IocaI business for their recycling efforts,
the Solid Waste Disposal District together with Keep Indian River Beautiful (KIRB) presented the
GREEN BUSTVi ESS AWARDS on September 19`h 2002 to three local businesses at the IRC Chamber of
Commerce's Industry Appreciation Awards Luncheon.
Three categories for recycling achievement have been established for the awards. Tney are
Manufacturing/Agricultural, Hospitality and Retail/Office. The winners are chosen with the highest
recycling tonnage from the previous year's Solid Waste Disposal Assessment list.
The winners were:
Perfection Trusses — Dave Turner
Manufacturing/Agricultural
241.82 tons scrap lumber & cardboard
Village Beach Market -Jerry Keen
Hospitality
30.35 tons cardboard, meat & grease
Indian River Mall — Patricia Jamar
Retail/Office
114.24 tons cardboard
RECONBIENDATION
It is requested that these three businesses be recognized at the November 12, 2002 Board of County Commissioners
meeting during the proclamations and presentations portion for their environmental commitment and the example
they present for the rest of the IRC business community.
Ms. Nichols named the recipients of the 2nd annual Green Business Awards and expressed
her regret that they were not able to be here today. She hoped that all businesses will recycle and
make an effort to keep Indian River County beautiful.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
11
pit
•
5.F.
CHARACTER COUNTS COALITION- S UPPORT FOR "COMMUNITY OF
CHARACTER"
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 7, 2002:
TO: MRS RUTH STANBRIDGE, CHAIRMAN OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSION
FROM: CAROL JOHNSON, PROGRAM CONSULTANT
SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR "COMMUNITY OF CHARAC I'ER"
DATE: 11/7/2002
Character Counts! is a national program developed several years ago by the Josephson Institute of
Ethics to address the growing need in our country for accountability for our actions and responsibility for
educating by example.
In Indian River County, the public school district is entering its fourth year of character education
and a state mandate last year requires every district to have "Character Counts! or similar program in place by
the 2004/2005 school year." We are working closely with the district on this goal and have also extended
our programs into charter, private and faith based schools this year.
After the attacks of September 11, President Bush launched a program called "Communities of
Character" and your local Character CountsCoalition is aggressively pursuing this initiative through various
collaborations including the local Chambers of Commerce and law enforcement agencies. Our first
expansion was the October 23rd recognition of `Employees of Good Character" where nominations were
made from the community and ranked by a committee of business leaders. These nominations were
cleansed of reference to employee names or place of work Special congratulations, again, to your own
Kim Massung on her award for being one of the first Employees of Good Character recognized with a plaque,
pin, flowers and cash award. There was also a plaque for your board office.
We would request assistance from the Commission as we strive to make Indian River County a
"Community of Character". Our new Character Counts in Indian River County bumper stickers will be
available in January and we hope you will consider using these on your fleet of county vehicles similar to
the Be Counted - Census 2000 bumper stickers. Our hope is to work with Mr Chandler and Mr. Camicella to
schedule presentations to employees prior to distributing the bumper stackers The Six Pillars of Character.
Trustworthiness, Respect, Responsibility, Fairness, Caring and Good Citizenship are common ground
among religious, secular, conservative and liberal beliefs and a firm foundation to help restore basic ethics
in America.
On behalf of Judge Joe Wild, Chairman, and all members of the Character Counts!Coalition I thank
you for your time. Your consideration to assist with this visual reminder to all citizens and visitors that we
must personally embrace the principle that Character Counts! in Indian River County is greatly appreciated_
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
12
r0
•
Carol Johnson, Program Consultant for Character Counts' Coalition, asked the Board
for their support of a program called "Communities of Character" and expressed her appreciation
at being added to a very busy agenda.
Ms. Johnson stated that it was her privilege to be a part of the committee recommending
the first awardees in the County. She noted that the Board's Executive Aide, Kim Massung, was
one of the first honorees receiving a plaque, a pin, flowers and a nice cash award. A plaque is
also being presented to the Board in recognition of their employee of good character.
Ms. Johnson expects bumper stickers to be available in January, 2003 and asked that
consideration be given to placing them on County vehicles. She asked the Board to support in
any visible way possible the recognition of this important program.
CONSENSUS was reached to have Ms. Johnson meet with the County Administrator and
the Human Resources Director regarding this program.
6. APPROVAL, OF MINUTES
None.
7 CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Stanbridge pulled Item 7.N. for an explanation.
7.A. PROPERTY APPRAISER, CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS FINANCIAL REPORT FOR
FY ENDING 09/30/02
The Board reviewed a letter of October 30, 2002:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
13
•
WE ARE HERE
TO SERVE YOU!
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER
October 30, 2002
Hon. Ruth Stanbridge
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, F132960
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 200?
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION
1840 25T1-1 STREET
VERO BEACH, FL
32960
Dear Ruth,
Enclosed please find a copy of our annual report for the year ending September 30, 2002.
Sincerely,
(561) 567-8000x469
SUN -COM 224-1469
FAx (561) 770-5087
E-mail: prop -appraiser
@indian-river.fl.us
David C. Nolte, ASA
Property Appraiser
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
ASSESSING OFFICERS
FLORIDA CHAPTER IAAO
HONORARY MEMBER
TENNESSEE CHAPTER
IAAO
RECEIVED
OCT 3 0 2002
LAAO
MEMBER OF THE YEAR
1989
CLERK TO THE BOARD
DiSTRIBBUTlCN.LiST
Commis, oners-° i`–e. e.
Administrator 0.?-' • ✓ia< r:
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Immunity Der.
1..tili1 es
irinonte
0*B
Envg. Sery
Risk Mgt
Diber 'l`i> ��
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF
APPRAISERS
PROFESSIONAL
APPRAISERS
ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF
P- `ERN APPRAISERS
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA
PROPERTY APPRAISER
BALANCE SHEET
ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,2001
ASSETS
CASH -UNRESTRICTED
PETTY CASH
EQUITY IN POOLED CASH
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS
DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS
INVESTMENTS
OTHER ASSETS
OTHER ASSETS
OTHER ASSETS
AMOUNT TO PROVIDE -OTHER LNBILTIES
ACCOUNT NUMBER
GENERAL
FUND
SPECIAL
REVENUE FUND
NON AD VALOREM
PROJECTS
AGENCY
FUM)
DEFERRED
COMPENSATION
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
LIABILITIES:
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
DUE TO OTHER FUNDS
DUE TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DUE TO STATE OF FLORIDA
DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
DEPOSITS
OTHER LIABILITIES
OTHER LIABILITIES
OTHER LIABILITIES
CAPITAL LEASES
ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES
TOTAL LIABILITIES
FUND EQUITY:
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
CASH AND CASH EOUIVALENTS
INVESTMENTS
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS
INVENTORIES
INT REC ON INVESTMENTS
TOTAL ASSETS
$0 $0
101
102
104
115
131
133
151
189
202
207
298
206
208
220
239
239
271.20
GENERAL LONG
TERM DEBT
5170
$59,800
$89
52,670
$58,435
$62,729 — �------__
SO SO
."""'�'....� ..�..+.._�._.�__� �._._....�.e� $56,435
.w.
_....S
$51,108
$9,682
51,739
$62,729
$58,435
30 30
358,435
SO
$O $0
$2.7...
SO
so
$0 SO
_. =
PROPERTY APPRAISER
wammw10/01/99 BALANCE :n ADDITIONS =
ADDITIONSDEDUCTIONS 9130/00 BALANCE
$0
eSit MUM ACCOUNTS PAYABLE �e'T�==app n�_ f0
DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
DUE TO OTHER FUNDS
DEFERRED COMPENSATION
ESCROW DEPOSITS
TOTAL LIABILITIES
SO
SO
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OTHER GOVERNMENT
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
EXCESS FEES
BCC
EMERGENCY SERVICES
ST. JOHNS RIVER WMD
SEBASTIAN INLET DISTRICT
MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT
HOSPITAL MAINTENANCE
FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
LAND ACQUISITION BOND
TOTAL
16
S9
AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED OR DUE
$7,925.12
51,071.18
$241.11
$18.78
$142.30
$351.79
$20.75
$110.67
59,681.70
PERCENTAGE
60.20%
10.84%
2.44%
0.19%
1.44%
3.56%
0.21%
1.12%
100.00%
•
1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner
Macht, the Board unanimously accepted the report.
7. B. TAX COLLECTOR, CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FY
ENDING 09/30/02
The Board reviewed a letter of October 31.
October 31, 2002
Honorable Mrs. Ruth Stanbridge
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Chairman Stanbridge:
vew
-r
r-IARLES W SElMBLEE
Tax Collector
I am enclosing the 2002 Excess Fee Report of the Indian River County Tax
Collector's Office.
Total income for fees from all sources and investment income for 2002 was
$3,997,257, an increase of $219,315 over projected income, total expenditures were
$2,378,565, an increase of $161,371 over projected expenditures. This increase
included $160,814 related to the acquisition of our new computer system which was
not included in the projected expenditures. The excess fees were $1,618,692, an
increase over projected excess fees of $57,944. This breaks down to $1,417 077 being
returned to the Board of County Commissions up from our projected amount of
$1,357,851 and $201,615 being returned to the other taxing districts.
Comparable figures for 2001 include total income from all sources $3,914,554; total
expenditures were $2,112,565; producing excess fee of 51,801,989.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
/
• -.
tesi
ow (v
� G�G,'Iri
Charles W. Sembler jh
Tax Collector
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
c
- err 47
.".ed
P.O.
Box 1509 • VERo BEACH, FL 32961-1509
Pxote (561) 567-8000 • }iv (561) 770-5009
www .MyIndianRiverCounw. com
17
r•1
•
_�;1 v.)2-
FINST021(A)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
CHARLES W SEMBLER, TAX COLLECTOR
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TAX COLLECTOR
BALANCE SHEET
ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
AGENCY FUNDS
ASSETS
ACCOUNT NUMBER
FUND 100
GENERAL
FUND
FUND 200 FUND 300 FUND 900
TAXING OTHER DEFERRED GENERAL LONG
AUTHORITIES GOVERNMENT COMPENSATION TERM DEBT
CASH -UNRESTRICTED
PETTY CASH
EQUITY IN POOLED CASH
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
INTEREST RECEIVABLE
SUPPLIES INVENTORY
INVESTMENTS
OTHER ASSETS -FLOWER FUND
OTHER ASSETS
OTHER ASSETS
AMOUNT TO PROVIDE -OTHER LIABILITIES
101
102
104
115
135
141
151
$5,800
($426,730) $1,104,079
$36,046 $13,319
$698
$716
$2,421,399
$288
$280,568
$176,162
$336,674
TOTAL ASSETS
$2,038,217
$1,117,398
$280,568
$176,162
$336674
LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
LIABILITIES:
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
DUE TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DUE TO STATE OF FLORIDA
DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
DEPOSITS
OTHER LIABILITIES - FLOWER FUND
OTHER LIABILITIES
OTHER LIABILITIES - LONG TERM
ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES
202
208
208
208
220
$263202
$1,417,077
$280,568
$201,615 $1,117,398
$155,910
$413
$176,162
$282,821
$53,853
TOTAL LIABILITIES
$2,038217
$1,117,398
$280,568
$176,162
$336,674
FUND EQUITY:
FUND BALANCE
TOTAL FUND EQUITY
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
271.20
$2 038 217
$1,117,398
$280,568
$176,162
$336,674
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
FINSTOO(B)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
CHARLES W. SEMBLER, TAX COLLECTOR
INANCIAL STATEMENTS
OR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
TAX COLLECTOR
STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND
CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES -BUDGET AND ACTUAL
ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
REVENUES
CHARGES FOR SERVICES:
COUNTY OFFICERS COMMISSIONS
MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES:
INTEREST
OTHER REVENUES
OTHER REVENUES
TOTAL REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL FUND
ACCOUNT NUMBER BUDGET
VARIANCE
FAVORABLE
ACTUAL (UNFAVORABLE)
341.80 $3,632,942
361.10
GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES:
FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE:
PERSONAL SERVICES 513.10
OPERATING EXPENDITURES 513.30
CAPITAL OUTLAY 513.60
DEBT SERVICE:
PRINCIPAL RETIREMENT 513.71
INTEREST 513.72
OTHER DEBT SERVICE
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
TRANSFERS IN
LEASE PURCHASE PROCEEDS
TRANSFERS OUT
TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES)
EXCESS OF REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OVER
(UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES
FUND BALANCES 10/01/01
FUND BALANCES 9/30/02
$145,000
$3,938,363
$58,894
$305,421
($86,106)
$3,777,942
51,540,712
$699,179
$98,241
$39,264
$4,695
$3,997,257
$1,538,504
$697,908
$98,241
$39,217
$4,695
$219,315
$2,208
$1,271
50
$47
$0
$2,382,091
52,378,565
$3,526
51,395,851
$1,618,692
$222,841
(51,395,851) ($1,618,692) (5222,841)
(51,395,851)
($1,618,692) ($222,841)
$0
$0
$0
50
I do solemnly swear that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete report of all revenues and exp pditures of my office for the
year ending the 30th day of September, 2002. j
(Signature)
Office of Tax Collector, Indian River County
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
19
•
II
II
Om O c n n ! z Z c n z n n
n -n mm n II m n co. n
TC II
jlII II
zm-+iO''OOz—im Cy
OCZZm..Iip0 i11
n
oESii.m0Fco .0nmO D n D z -Imo
n
V mm 1S O m 0> uD m 1
--imC00 11 Nmomm 11 „n OD c n
>N2 ny1 mm < n °
II
O m I N 2 m n CO
Z z z n Z
en m N n 0 Z
I y n Tp Z y
n I
II 1 i 3 i m c m z
1 3 O
1I m 0 1 K p z _
11 m m m
DDI,
1 coII co co 1 a m 7D -I 0 Di_ 1
1 m 1p m u = 1 c z n � 0
1 00
m Q gin
O 11 -
11
11 mCG)mm 1i r
4.46
11 0 m OD N W 0 1 J 0— OII M
11 W tv- W IJ 0 mF z FT o
11 a j 1 a
11 r 0 0 ± 1 d 0 m
II
w IW Z1 2i (Tl ni En F nm
vbi b ,o 0 Ng cct0ii D 01 i
II so
0 1 O w N Z D O
nn 0 p Z
n
m 0 0 i m 0 II 11
N O O It
I' m l W 6 m �, 11 0 5 " 11 11N
n W hl
i W W j - n n m I O
j n a O n m it
m
0 0 o n o n
n O j O 1 0 1 O 8 N n N O N 0
11 n
ii I co 11 u1 n j u n a
11 II O It n
II 0 II II
II 7 _ 11 I + N II n
11 a -an-+ 1 b CO n II SI
-
II N N II N W 0 D II
n 1;
II a 0 0 0 0+ 0 1i w 00000-4 n 1 II II m
II b b b b b I b bboobo
n O 0 0 c 00000,10 ,11 0 c 0 0 o 0 0 m 'I W
GTrn O C D Z z c D Z n
N m . n H< C n< D
n T m m n In
Fm -I -IO mm m m N
Z T ONC
° 2 0 0 c n O C z-4 D
in 00=ov 0 Omp7Zn
2 - N
0p3SF,D< r GN�nv'N
�mCOm p (D/1 1 F Fri z m I
a'zymmum
Omc nn m D 0 y m
m it � 2 m m
z z 11 3 z z
N II ZIT N I
-n
11 --I 1 0
11
N i F D
11 I o u
11 - n m m z
11
dm m 0
r li I w o CO ti D D 1 z
01
1"1:-.4-0
J ',fill'
,I W IJ rDr 11 111z P �y1 F
II O a 0 m D" Z DTX T
U C 1I b„..2m Z 1, OG)nnF
a 11- i -6,0 mm O n m Z S O n
„I
M 11 p n z 0
1, i II
11 N K ci m C
n T m n Z
D c N
itNN Oii mzz 0-<
11 0 0 O n
II m v 7 1 nein D m
" O MCG ' m N 0
n a o m- Z, z m
1I a, -4 a. N N I O •--1
ii " j V W 1'
O Z
II I m O O O D u
m m c n n-nmmnn -i C n D II
II N m C C n" i 2---;0>E0 z CC n Z D
m�.� n j mZTO[mi�2 u ill
1 Fm -i -1O n I FZTOy2
°zooZn InaFc�D n n°s°OZn 0ooz-iz
n�j Cm00-1° i O°O-zimz n 1111 �m0 O...i" O rri
II D i mn22.y III 01 zyo�z� 11 u D mon TO --Imoi I z547S--440
II
II
r i _y 3 27 T F{ n r m m rn N 2 u 0 7r i F� u 1_ I n<II 1 0 N S
n m i MIT 0Dm II v0i j El F< m n i -1mCOm y I -Ni F< m
" r N y D m m n m 3 O m C 11 n N y O m mr. m i 3 O Dm c n
n _11 DNF 0 "I I Z <r < n O ={ i DNF I -I j Z <r < 0
n m -i Z n N i ..1 m m D u g I m --I Z I N i -a m m D
II co 5 K n N F r n [til 1 (n l 5 K 1 j N F r m
11 Z m n I Z m n z 1 z m 1 I z m I Z
" z " j -zi '1 z ' -zi 3 D z
II f0a n i z co I m O 1 N Z N .n 411 iii
n n N ii F "N'1 I i i I y I F n '1
D D
II I 0 11 S m z 11 11 j 0 n = M m z
u n m O 3 0 u 1 n u m= 3 0
17 to <TImm 5 n u n m{ m 5
II �. I �. M D R z II N i N 11 Y N I N 11 D .p -I Z
II Os m m 1 m j n F v p -I ii 0 j (co JI 11 .r:01 1 co
y 11 F O p -1 Xi
I' fT in U 11 m'�T < '1 m W " m II m0 m
11 m m 10 m SD 11 Z m m O m m n m Co S m
ii • v .1 v r = n p p n n F u N 11 •
u m " 0 m n n F
n o 0 1 o n n m 0 0 0 n p c 0 1 o n u m F 5 O n
II m .' p O z 0 .1 1 m 11 O O Z O
1 u 11 N 3 0 T C u n I N O C m C
ii v m m�-I n II
Null m< m n- z1
I II D 11, -IZ < n i 11 1 D 11 -'9iz N0<
11 O p mm$.T°T u CO i UI a m OI n mZ ZFT
coW1P n _OWi GWl -_i n C y N 0 1 Co n7 11 m Co 1 II 5 m to 0
D r
II .a. p n mOcA F ' N N n N j N p n m Z CO F
" v Z n F' Z m O 1 '� 1 11 go 0 11 F m
C O 11 O I O N" W D IDI 0 n •
0 con OCN D
91
li N D ; 11 I0 N Z D
II n 0 Z n n 0 Z
0 O u n 0 0
V
i m0 II h' r n j I u i .. m it h' o r
II � l C i m 11 g in
II
m l m c o `m
m m n m m n n r ii m i w II
rn m n n r
m m n m 1 to - 11 =1 II R+ GI Il O i m "'I n
N I N 1II N 1 N U Z 11 11 II 0 0 11 m CO Z n y
b O It b i O N II 11 b b n b I O con
o f 0 n 0 • o u n o o n o o n
11 II n i n
n I m 1 P 1 1 1 0
n O 1 11 n 0
n I 1
11 _ j N 1 it
11 t
11 1 n N N 1 N N
11 a 0I m 11 II 0 CO I CO CO 1
W II O IP D II 11 0 0 1 0 o D
11 n it oh Ir I U
N i O N 0 0 0 II N COCONO Z It II 11 ¢ O O O m 0 1 m 0 0 0 0 0 fD Z
b b b c o 0 p O b b b b O b 0 Il c o c 0 0' O l O O b 0 0 n
os
O O ... 0 O O II O 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 11 f. b b 11 ❑ O O O O O 1 O I 000000 m'
ID
Id
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
EXCESSO1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
CHARLES W SEMBLER, TAX COLLECTOR
EXCESS FEE DISTRIBUTION
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002
AGENCY
COMMISSIONS
COLLECTED
01-02
01-02
EXCESS FEES
1,618, 692.00
GENERAL FUND
EMS SERV DIST
ROCKRIDGE SLD
LAURELWOOD SLD
GIFFORD SLD
LAUREL CT SLD
VERO LAKES MSTU
VB HIGH SLD
IXORA PK SLD
PORPOISE PT SLD
VERO SHORES SLD
POINCIANA SLD
ROSELAND RD SLD
GLENDALE LK SLD
WALKERS GLEN SLD
FLORALTON SLD
TIERRA LINDA SLD
WHISPERING PINES SLD
MOORINGS SLD
LAND ACQ BOND
LIBRARY BOND
LANDFILL
BEACH BOND
FIND
SCHOOL BOARD
ST JOHNS WMD
SEB INLET DIST
MOSQUITO CONT
HOSPITAL
FELLSMERE WCD
IR FARMS WCD
ST JOHNS WCD
SEB RIVER WCD
VERO LAKES WCD
DELTA FARMS WCD
SEBASTIAN STORM DRAIN
E. GIFFORD WATERSHED
2,178,943.00
320, 740.00
98.00
97.00
1,167.00
15.00
1,531.00
1,054.00
101.00
10.00
84.00
215.00
29.00
54.00
29.00
29.00
31.00
26.00
353.00
31, 846.00
3.00
133, 505.00
0.00
6,299.00
111,146.00
75, 603.00
5,789.00
43,028.00
115,160.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
1,500.00
1,086.00
121.00
1,500.00
15,645.00
26.00
71.444%
10.517%
0.003%
0.003%
0.038%
0.000%
0.050%
0.035%
0.003%
0.000%
0.003%
0.007%
0.001%
0.002%
0.001%
0.001%
0.001%
0.001%
0.012%
1.044%
0.000%
4.377%
1,156,461.00
170,230.00
52.00
51.00
619.00
8.00
813.00
559.00
54.00
5.00
45.00
114.00
15.00
29.00
15.00
15.00
16.00
14.00
187.00
16,902.00
2.00
70,857.00
0.207%
3.644%
2.479%
0.190%
1.411%
3.776%
0.049%
0.049%
0.049%
0.036%
0.004%
0.049%
0.513%
0.001%
3,343.00
58,990.00
40,126.00
3,072.00
22,837.00
61,120.00
796.00
796.00
796.00
576.00
64.00
796.00
8,303.00
14.00
TOTAL
3,049,863.00
100.000%
1, 618, 692.00
CUE TO COUNTY
DUE TO OTHER GOVT
1, 417, 063.00
201, 629.00
TOTAL EXCESS FEES
1,618,692.00
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Record of Deposit - Distribution
Indian River County Tax Collector
Charles W. Sexabler
Taxing District
Attention:
Direct Deposit Account:
Distribution:
Date:
Record #:
Indian River County
Ed Fry
First Union National Rank of Florida - A/C #2658503960194
Excess Fee Distribution - Fiscal Year 2001/2002
October 31, 2002
02-031
CO GENERAL FUND
CO MUNICIPAL SVC DIST
EMERGENCY SVCS DIST.
ROCKRIDGE SLD
LAURELWOOD SID
GIFFORD SLD
LAUREL COURT SLD
VERO LAKE ESTATES MSTU
VERO HIGHLANDS SLD
1XORA PARK SLD
PORPOISE POINT SLID
VERO SHORES SLD
POINCIANA PARK SLD
ROSELAND RD SLD
GLENDALE LAKE SLD
WALKERS GLEN SLD
FLORALTON BEACH SLD
TIERRA LINDA SLD
WHISPERING PINES SLD
MOORINGS SLD
LIBRARY BOND
LAND ACQUISTION BOND
CO LAND FILL
BEACH BOND
SCHOOL DISTRICT
E. GIFFORD WATER SHED
510119 10/71200:
1,086,257.00
70,204.00
170,230.00
52.00
51.00
619.00
8.00
8I3.00
559.00
54.00
5.00
45.00
114.00
15.00
29.00
15.00
15.00
16.00
14.00
187.00
2.00
16,902.00
70,857.00
0.00
0.00
14.00
TOTAL 1,417,077,00
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner
Macht, the Board unanimously accepted the report.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
REPORT FOR FY ENDING 09/.30/02
The Board reviewed a letter of October 30, 2002:
lay Clan
Supervisor of Elections
Indian River County, Florida
October 30, 2002
Ruth Stanbridge, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Ruth:
RECEIVED
NOV 052002
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Please find enclosed our Annual Report for 2001/2002, along with check #7350 in the
amount of 33,735.03 broken down as follows:
List/label and interest income
Excess Retirement Budget
Excess Budget
Monitor donated by Dell
BOCC Underpaid Worker's Comp
$ 863.06
$1,938.00
$ 81.22
$ 964.45
$ -111.70
Total
$3.735.03
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Kay Clem
1750 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960-3363 . (772) 567-8137 • FAX (772) 770-5367
voteindianriver.com
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
S:07 PM.
10/30/02
Accrual Basis
KAY CLEM, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
Balance Sheet
As of September 30, 2002
ASSETS
Current Assets
Checking/Savings
101.009 • CASH REGISTER "BANK"
102.000 • PETTY CASH
103.000 • CHECKING - RIVERSIDE NATL.
103.001 • PAYROLL - RIVERSIDE NATL
103.003 • MONEY MARKET - RIVERSIDE
103.004 • CAFETERIA ACCT. - RIVERSIDE
Total Checking/Savings
Accounts Receivable
BOARD OF CO. COMMISSIONERS
1200 • Accounts Receivable
Total Accounts Receivable
Total Current Assets
Other Assets
130.000 • Postage on Deposit/Orlando
1301 • Provide for Compensated Absence
Total Other Assets
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES & EQUITY
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Other Current Liabilities
208.010 • DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS
214.000 • ACCRUED ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
216.000 • ACCRUED WAGES PAYABLE
218.000 • ACCRUED P/R TAXES PAYABLE
219.000 • ACCRUED BENEFITS PAYABLE
220.001 • EMPLOYEE OPTIONAL DED.
Total Other Current Liabilities
Total Current Liabilities
Long Term Liabilities
2501 • ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES
Total Long Term Liabilities
Total Liabilities
TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
24
Sep 30, 02
25.00
1.01
9,094.33
132.44
518.55
92 00
9,863.33
10, 000.00
3,519.97
13, 519.97
23,383.30
8,511.00
11, 704.70
20,215.70
43,599.00
3,735.03
18,462 97
7,947.68
608.00
423.51
717.11
31,894.30
31, 894.30
11,704.70
11,704.70
43,599.00
43,599.00
L%
f -L
PAY TO THE
ORDER OF
3Ad 03/100****************s*+***4*********************
$ **3,735.03
ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
IANRIVER COUNTY
r.l 4E0 5•TH STREET`" • • ;
"I ERO'BEACH, EL -329 0
•
�.
RFTT,RN OF FTJNDS & FXf FSS RT1T)GRT
406 70 L 2':
KAY CLEM, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
ADMINISTRATION BLDG.
215.00 • DUE OTHER GOVERNMENT
10/30/2002
007350
3,735.03
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner
Macht, the Board unanimously accepted the report.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
7.D. LIST OF WARRANTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 2002:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: October 31, 2002
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County
Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the
time period of October 25, 2002 to October 31, 2002.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the list of
Warrants as issued by the Clerk to the Board for October 25-31,
2002, as recommended by staff.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
252002
.52002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
-152002
52002
10252002
VENDOR NBR CHECK NI3R CK DATE VENDOR
868
875
876
877
879
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
833
890
891
892
893
894
895
396
897
898
899
900
902
903
904
905
907
908
915
917
913
919
920
921
924
925
926
927
923
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
941
942
943
10095
0 10/25/200
100951
100952
100953
100954
100955
100956
100957
100958
100959
100960
100961
100962
100963
100964
100965
100966
100967
100963
100969
100970
100971
100972
100973
100974
100975
100976
100977
100973
100979
100980
100981
100982
100983
100934
100985
100986
100987
100983
100939
100990
100991
100992 1
100993 1
100994 1
100995 1
100996 1
100997 1
100998 1
100999 1
101000 1
101001 1
10t25/200
10/25/200
10/25/20
10/25/200
10/25/200
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/15/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
0/25/2002 L
2 BILKEN GROUP
2 BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN
2 KIMBERLY BROWN AND FP&L
02 ALPHONSO JONES
2 ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND
2 STUART HOUSING AUTHORITY
SANDY PINES
TOWN & COUNTRY LEASING
VERO FIRST CORPORATION
ALL FLORIDA REALTY SERVICE INC
DEAN BABCOCK
JERE L BAXTER
PETER M BEUTTELL
STEPHANE H BOUYSSOU
HUBERT BROWN
LYDIA BROXTON
GERALD T CAPAX
RICHARD CAPPELLUTI
LEONARD CARLUCCI A
PAUL CARONE
RHODA L CORR
WILLIAM F DEEHAN
N ROB DESRUISSEAUX
E WILSON DOVE
CHERYL DOYLE
EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113)
ALFRED EVANS
GEORGE A FOGERTY
ROBERT J FORD
ROBERT GASKJLL
GIFFORD GROVES LTD
GRACE'S LANDING LTD
GINA HODGES
LEO HOLM
GLORIA HUITRON
J MICHAEL HUNLEY
MICHAEL JACKOWSKI
MARK OR ANNA KNOWLES
PHILLIP G LANGLEY
101002 1
101003 1
101004 1
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
ANN OR RONALD LAPPERT
TERRY A LAWRENCE
BRUCE LEIFER
CHARLES LEWIS
LINDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS
E D LLERENA
MOD INVESTMENTS
PRISCILLA MALGERIA
THOMAS H OR HELEN S MEAD
WILLIAM MONTGOMERY
DOUGLAS OR BARBARA NORMAN
PALMER TRAILER PARK
OUIS PALUMBO
0/25/2002 E
0/25/2002
0/25/2002
RNEST RAUDENBUSH
WILLIE C REAGAN
RIVER PARR PLACE
?7
AMC
1,509.00
230.00
18.00
308.00
906.59
504.59
6,013.00
222.00
729.00
4,533.00
232.00
275.00
278.00
423.00
947.00
232.00
227.00
395.00
392.00
333.00
245.00
304.00
385.00
426.00
292.00
155.00
299.00
233.00
388.00
273.00
9,453.00
8,651.00
581.00
410.00
240.00
66.00
795.00
255.00
855.00
333.00
182.00
513.00
266.00
10,367.00
323.00
977.00
431.00
330.00
234.00
372.00
277.00
573.00
292.00
695.00
10,720.00
•
ne/
at;
3e
10252002
10252002
?52002
.j252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002..
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10252002
10312002.
'112002
12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
'12002
12002
10312002
10312002
VENDOR NBR
945
946
947
949
950
951
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
982
1035
1089
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1095
1
7
8
21
27
30
35
42
43
44
45
48
49
55
62
63
74
77
80
84
90
100
105
113
131
136
138
139
140
142
159
160
CHECK NBR
101005
101006
101007
101008
101009
101010
101011
101012
101013
101014
101015
101016
101017
101018
101019
101020
101021
101022
101023
101024
101025
101026
101027
101028
101029
101030
101031
101032
101033
101034
101035
101036
101037
101038
101039
101040
101041
101042
101043
101044
101045
101046
101047
101048
101049
101050
101051
101052
101053
101054
101055
101056
101057
101058
101059
CK DATE
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25,2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/25/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/3I/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
VENDOR
BETTY DAVIS SCROGGS
ROBERT L SHELTON
MICHAEL R STARCK
WAN SUNDMAN
THE TEDDIE TRUST
RICHARD C THERIEN
ANHONY E VALENTINO
KEVIN WALTERS
FRED WESSENDORF
EDITH WILLIAMS
RICHARD WOODEN.
WOODS OF VERO BEACH
DAVID YORK
LILLY B YORK
ST FRANCIS MANOR OF VERO BEACH
IVEY WILLIAMS
CPE CITRUS WOODS APARTMENTS
CPE CITRUS WOODS APARTMENTS
DANANT PROPERTIES
GULFSTREAM PROPERTIES
SALLIE (WYNN) BLAKE
VIVIEN LANDERS
ROGGOW-HADDAD REALTLY INC
TARGET STORES
EVERGLADES FARM EQUIPMENT CO INC
AERO PRODUCTS CORP
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
PORT CONSOLIDATED INC
PARK'S RENTAL & SALES INC
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD
PRAXAIR DISTIBUTION SOUTHEAST
GENERAL GMC TRUCK SALES & SERVICE
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT INC
SUNCOAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC
ATLANTIC ROOFING OF VERO BEACH INC
COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL
LENGEMANN OF FLORIDA INC
HARRISON UNIFORMS
TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS FLORIDA
ALARM PARTNERS
KIIMLEY HORN & ASSOCIATES
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
VERO BEACH LINCOLN MERCURY JEEP INC
RINKER MATERIALS CORP CSR
LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
VERO BEACH PRINTING INC
SEWELL HARDWARE
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS WAREHOUSE
DELTA SUPPLY CO
E -Z BREW COFFEE & BOTTLE WATER SVC
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY
GRAINGER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY
KELLY TRACTOR CO
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
AMOUNT
308.00
205.00
383.00
371.00
700.00
506.00
355.00
344.00
309.00
237.00
397.00
12,411.00
403.00
249.00
3,029.00
128.00
735.00
4,964.00
711.00
298.00
314.00
285.00
299.00
97,959.18
402.11
15437
962.90
43.00
9,452.56
67.30
21.73
16.24
485.97
18.76
60.99
17,693.10
221.73
343.20
87.76
23.80
320.00
3,444.30
73.87
31.68
17.50
472.00
148.50
197.72
79.90
153.28
104.25
321.50
203.55
125,436.56
183.42
585.10
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
28
•
,a.
s,_
•
10312002
'12002
12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
'-'12002
.2002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
'" '2002
2002
10312002
10312002
10312002
VENDOR NBR
168
172
176
184
190
192
202
204
205
207
211
214
217
221
227
230
232
233
236
238
241
245
246
247
249
251
255
257
263
265
263
270
273
298
306
325
336
338
342
391
409
421
424
437
450
455
460
466
469
475
476
434
433
498
509
514
515
518
520
529
CHICK NBR CK DATE VENDOR
101060 10/3 i/2002 PORT PETROLEUM
101061 10/3/2002 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTORS INC
101062 10/31/2002 WILLIAM THIES & SONS EVC
101063 1.0/31/2002 SAFECO INC
101064 10/31/2002 ALPHA ACE HARDWARE.
101065 10/31/2002 DEMCO INC
101066 10/31/2002 HERITAGE BOOKS INC
101067 10/31/2002 BBC AUDIOBOOKS AMERICA
101068 10/31/2002 MICKLERS BOOKS INC
101069 10/31/2002 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES INV
101070 10/31/2002 F&W PUBLICATIONS
101071 10/31/2002 THE GALE GROUP
101072 10/31/2002 WOODYS PAPER & PRINT
101073 10/31/2002 QUALITY BOOKS INC
101074 10/31/2002 MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP
101075 10/31/2002 GROLIER PUBLISHING CO INC
101076 10/31/2002 SCHOLARLY RESOURCES
101077 10/31/2002 MIKES GARAGE & WRECKER SERVICE
101078 10/31/2002 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLY
101079 10/31/2002 ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET INC
101080 10/31/2002 SUBWAY STAMP SHOP
101081 10/31/2002 FLOW TECHNOLOGY INC
101082 10/31/2002 GAYLORD BROTHERS INC
101083 10/31/2002 VIDEO PALACE
101084 10/31/2002 INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO INC
101085 10/31/2002 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
101086 10/31/2002 BENSONS LOCK. SERVICE
101087 10/31/2002 HACH CO
101083 10/31/2002 SYSCO FOOD SERVICE
101089 10/31/2002 DATA SUPPLIES INC
101090 10/31/2002 BOYNTON PUMP AND SUPPLY
101091 10/31/2002 CLASSIC AWARDS & PROMOTIONS
101092 10/31/2002 EDUCATIONAL RECORD CENTER INC
101093 10/31/2002 WINGFOOT COMMERICAL TIRE SYSTEM INC
101094 10/31/2002 DADE PAPER COMPANY
101095 10/31/2002 MASTELLER & MOLER INC
101096 10/31/2002 DUVAL FORD GOVT SALES
101097 10/31/2002 HUSTONS COMMERCIAL INTERIORS
101098 10/31/2002 PERKINS MEDICAL SUPPLY
101099 10/31/2002 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION
101100 10/31/2002 TELEMETRIC SYSTEMS INC
101101 10/31/2002 CHEMSEARCH
101102 10/31/2002 EGP INC
101103 10/31/2002 BRODART VIDEO
101104 10/31/2002 INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING CO
101105 10/31/2002 GARAGE EQUIPMENT
101106 10/312002 PROFORMA IMAGING
101107 10/31/2002 OCLC FOREST PRESS
101108 10/31/2002 C1NDIS PET & AQUARIUM CENTER
101109 10/31/2002 FLORIDA VETERINARY LEAGUE
101110 10/31/2002 ELPEX INC
101111 10/31/2002 FLORIDA PAIN MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES
101112 10/31/2002 ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE CO
101113 10/31/2002 SOLINET INC
101114 10/31/2002 BARTH CONSTRUCTION INC
101115 10/312002 EDLUND DRITENBAS BINKLEY ARCHITECTS
101116 10/31/2002 AHEAD HEADGEAR INC
101117 10/31/2002 ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO
101118 10/31/2002 BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES INC
101119 10/31/2002 A A FIRE EQUIPMENT INC
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
#i;'
29
ANMOL'NT
714.43
890.55
180.00
60.54
68.79
588.02
69.20
274.42
166.42
8.94
225.37
508.35
83.60
2,210.65
142.31
132.60
168.30
140.00
383.73
172.64
39.58
283.12
747.44
635.00
61.40
913.34
12.25
301.50
1,104.04
3,408.03
21720
5.00
16.45
1,043.61
683.31
22,215.00
31,151.00
3,518.20
84.13
2,543.17
580.00
264.92
735.00
403.00
21,340.00
262.44
43.70
510.00
16.78
89.00
48.00
39.00
39.00
400.75
500.00
5,309.35
497.42
58.00
500.00
245.20
•
10312002
10312002
"'312002
J12002
W312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
'112002
12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
'12002
12002
10312002
10312002
VENDOR NBR
543
556
557
558
571
572
575
598
602
603
616
616
632
636
643
653
657
667
669
683
687
706
708
742
744
774
792
796
804
806
820
820
833
839
845
846
848
855
909
913
916
974
978
992
1011
1015
1016
1016
1020
1022
1022
1023
1023
1023
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
CHECK NBR
101120
101121
101122
101123
101124
101125
101126
101127
101128
101.129
101130
101131
101132
101133
101134
101135
101136
-101137
101138
101139
101140
101141
101142
101143
101144
101145
101146
101147
101148
101149
101150
101151
101152
101153
101154
101155
101156
101157
101158
101159
101160
101161
101162
101163
101164
101165
101166
101167
101168
101169
101170
101171
101172
101173
101174
101175
101176
101177
101178
101179
CK DATE
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/312002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
{
VENDOR
ATLANTIC COASTAL 111 -LE CORP
KINSHIP
HOMELAND IRRIGATION
DELL COMPUTER CORP
HILL MANUFACTURING CO INC
PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC
R & G SOD FARMS
LAPSCO INC
CARQUEST AUTO PARTS
GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
GEIGER SOUTH FLORIDA
MIDWEST TAPE
NORTHERN SAFETY CO
RECORDED BOOKS
VERO RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES INC
BASS CARLTON SOD INC
VERO ORTHOPAEDICS
OFFICE DEPOT INC
LOWES CO INC
DOWNTOWN DISCOUNT PRODUCE INC
ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO
SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE
HILDY SEXTON
WHEELED COACH
PBS&J ANALYTICAL SERVICES
SUN BELT MEDICAL
ERIC C KURTZ MD PA
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENG
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICES INC
NORTRAX EQUIPMENT CO
SOUTHERN EMBROIDERY WORKS
FLORIDA BOLT
RELIABLE POLY JOHN
VISUALEDGE TECHNOLOGY
FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES INC
SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY CO
SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY CLINIC
FACTICON INC
GREENE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP LTD
PRESS JOURNAL
PERSONNEL PLUS INC
PING INC
REBECCA PICKERING LMT
PREFERRED GOVERNMENTAL CLAIMS
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
JEFFRY K BARTON CLERK
JEFFRY K BARTON CLERK
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT
DAVID C NOLTE
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ROGER J NICOSIA DO
CITY OF VERO BEACH
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 30
tf
AMOUNT
131.00
2,749.94
201.52
270.00
229.02
236.81
165 00
376.15
107.01
733.75
661.17
399.51
1,367.73
197.90
182.74
235.95
30.00
305.00
741.60
2,771.74
1,031.19
161.85
4,545.00
54.44
80.00
393.82
13,912.10
112.60
159.00
254.00
573.55
76.65
191.40
16.93
112.68
1,502.00
600.00
312.49
3,807.00
1,675.00
2,036.46
133.35
1,140.00
145.04
296.00
5,360.00
61.09
25.09
4,642.88
3,780.50
225,526.83
62.00
50.00
185.00
63,944.58
216,304.44
23,483.25
5,253.91
1,500.00
1,683.74
tiY
•
10312002
10312002
'112002
,12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
' '12002
12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
' 12002
2002
10312002
10312002
VENDOR NBR CHECK NB
1023 1011
1028 1011
1028 1011
1037 1011
1043 10118
1073 10118
1097 10118
1099 10118
1102 10118
1105 10113
1108 10119
1103 10119
1112 10119
1119 10119
1121 10119
1130 • 10119
1131 101196
1134 101197
1139 101198
1140 101199
1145 101200
1148 101201
1154 101202
1157 101203
1162 101204
1165 101205
1165 101206
1175 101207
1179 101208
1202 101209
1208 101210
1218 101211
1238 101212
1246 101213
1247 101214
1250 101215
1254 101216
1264 101217
1270 101213
1279 101219
1292 101220
1292 101221
1292 101222 1
1359 I01223 1
1397 101224 1
1415 101225 1
1451 101226 1
1543 I01227 1
1574 101228 1
1576 101229 1
1531 101230 1
1583 101231 1
1583 101232 1
1583 101233 1
1627 101234 10
1644 101235 10
1649 101236 10
1655 101237 10
1658 101238 10
1660 101239 10
R CK DAT
80 10/31/20
81 10/31/20
82 10/31/20
83 10/31/20
4 10/31/20
5 10/31/200
6 10/31/200
7 10/31/200
3 10/31/200
9 10/31/200
0 10/31/200
1 10/31/200
2 10/31/200
3 10/31/200
4 10/31/20
5 10/31/200
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
0/31/2002
0/31/2002 C
0/31/2002 P
0/31/2002 L
0/31/2002 C
0/31/2002
0/31/2002 S
0/31/2002
0/31/2002 0
0/31/2002
0/31/2002
0/31/2002
/31/2002 G
/31/2002 B
/31/2002 JO
/31/2002 R
/31/2002 W
/31/2002 PR
E VENDOR
02 CITY CF VERO BEACH
02 CITY OF VERO BEACH
02 CITY OF VERO BEACH
02 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE INC
02 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC
2 THE GUARDIAN
2 APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO
2 DIGITAL TECIINOGRAPHICS INC
2 HOME DEPOT
2 J A SEXAUER
2 AT&T
2 AT&T
2 ARMY NAVY OUTDOORS
2 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
02 COMARK
2 WILLIE CLYDE PONDERS
EBSCO INFORMATION SERVICES
JANNETTE J RICHARDS -
ALLIED TRAILER SALES & RENTALS
VERNITA BAILEY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF
KELLY-CRESWELL COMPANY INC
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL & BEHAVIORAL
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
GALE GROUP, THE
GALE GROUP, THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE
TRACKUM SOFTWARE INC
FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD CO LLC
LIVINGSTON PAGE
PROQUEST INFORMATION AND LEARNING
BLAST OFF PRESSURE CLEANING INC
RONALD L TESNOW
JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TRAFFICWARE CORPORATION
SPEED PRESS
NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL
AMERITREND HOMES
BELLSOUTH
BELLSOUTH
BELLSOUTH
LIFFORD AND KATHLEEN HEARL
UBLIX PHARMACY
AWRENCE B MILLS
HARLES OR LAURA PARKEL
WAL MART
HERATON ORLANDO NORTH HOTEL
KEITH MCCULLY
N ITS WAY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY SERVICE
EOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS INC
URGOON BERGER CONSTRUCTION
HN W TIPPIN
ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC
INDSOR PROPERTIES, INC
OCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO INC
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
31
uti
a'4
•
AMOUNT
9,625.00
283.00
50.00
153.33
5,552.92
11,011.22
40.50
304.89
276.33
79.83
70.75
76.75
65.00
72.84
100.58
300.00
180.25
300.00
150.00
300.00
275.00
2,010.00
680.00
285.00
115.33
531.21
44.92
664.63
369.00
12,666.46
98.00
433.97
725.00
79.95
1,853.97
5,527.12
810.00
577.60
362.02
500.00
128.85
496.37
607.50
500.00
130.00
500.00
500.00
287.38
79.00
106.25
491.10
100.45
16.76
1,300.00
46,454.92
500.00
72.50
1,000.00
142,351.43
4,830.03
4.44
1
;hi
Vk"
m4"
^312002
12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
I0312002.
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
'^112002
12002
tu312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
I "12002
2002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
VENDOR R
1662
1691
1758
1760
1760
1791
1809
1811
1814
1842
1845
1859
1873
1889
1899
1909.
1947
2000
20I2
2045
2043
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2056
2057
2058
2058
2059
2060
2060
2061
2062
2066
2067
2069
2070
2071
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2084
2087
2090
2091
2100
2103
2104
2108
2109
2110
2112
2118
CHEF R C1( DATE VENDOR
101240 10/312002 HOLIDAY BUILDERS
101241 10/31/2002 PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES
101242 1.0/31/2002 RONALD BRISKIE
101243 10/31/2002 ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DISTRICT
101244 10/31/2002 ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MGMT DISTRICT
101245 10/31/2002 FLORIDA GAME & FISH COMMISSION
101246 10/31/2002 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CENTER
101247 10/31/2002 FEDERAL EXPRESS
101248 10/31/2002 BUSINESS REFEREBCE SERVICES
101249 10/31/2002 CENTRAL A/C & REFRIGERATION SUPPLY
101250 10/31/2002 DUNKELBERGER ENGINEERING & TESTING
101251 10/31/2002 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
101252 10/31/2002 MADGE A BRADFORD
101253 10/31/2002 RANDY HINES
101254 10/31/2002 G H 0 VERO BEACH INC
101255 10/31/2002 CAREN MILLS .
101256 10/31/2002 SUSAN KLUNTZ
101257 10/31/2002 DEREK NANCE
101258 10/31/2002 COMO OIL COMPANY OF FLORIDA
101259 10/31/2002 MULLER MINTZ PA
101260 10/31/2002 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING SERVICE INC
101261 10/31/2002 APOLLO ENTERPRISES
101262 10/31/2002 ATLANTIC PSYCHIATRIC CENTER
101263 10/31/2002 PRO SELECT SPORTS - USA
101264 .10/31/2002 WABASSO GOLF
101265 10/31/2002 TIM DUNKLEE
101266 10/31/2002 CARL FARR
101267 10/31/2002 CITY OF SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPT
101268 10/31/2002 SUNNYCOAST DERMATOLOGY
101269 10/31/2002 PAIN & ANESTHESIA PA
101270 10/31/2002 PAIN & ANESTHESIA PA
101271 10/31/2002 URGENT CARE WEST
101272 10/31/2002 PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
101273 10/31/2002 PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY
101274 10/31/2002 NEXTEL COMMUNICATION
101275 10/31/2002 ALMA ROSA BARAJAS
101276 10/31/2002 BARNES BAIL BONDING AGENCY
101277 10/31/2002 WALGREEN CO
101278 10/31/2002 I G I 0 INTERNATIONAL INC
101279 10/31/2002 TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL
101280 10/31/2002 PER -SE' TECHNOLOGIES INC
101281 10/31/2002 GOLF DESIGN INC
101282 10/31/2002 JOX SOX
101283 10/31/2002 HEALTHSOUTH HOLDINGS INC
101284 10/31/2002 OMAR HUSSAMY MD
101285 10/31/2002 STEVEN LEWIS MD
101286 10/31/2002 MANAGED CARE OPTIONS
101287 10/31/2002 MEDICAL RECORDS SERVICES
101288 10/31/2002 OSCEOLA PHARMACY
101289 10/312002 SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST PUBLISHING
101290 10/312002 HEALTHSOUTH TREASURE COAST REHAB
101291 10/312002 LANGSTON HESS BOLTON ZNOSKO HELM
101292 10/312002 NATHAN MCCOLLUM
101293 10/31/2002 JOHN KING
101294 10/312002 CONSTRUCTION LICENSING OFFICIALS
101295 10/31/2002 SUNCOAST COUNSELING & ASSESSMNT INC
101296 10/31/2002 PINELLAS COUNTY CLERIC OF CIRCUIT CT
101297 10/31/2002 PRESTIGE REPORTING SERVICE INC
101298 10/31/2002 USFILTER RECOVERY SERVICES INC
101299 10/31/2002 SECURITY FLRST TITLE
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
32
i
AMOUNT
2,000 00
500.00
491.22
1,000 00
1,000.00
25.00
46225
43.71
409.50
535.00
14,017.50
1,510.00
136.50
500.00
500.00
500.00
24.96
61.80
299.83
1,121.50
543.22
721.50
49.00
197.67
480.00
500.00
123.00
75.00
81.00
275.79
220 63
4,671.00
725.36
57.08
514.86
80.00
1,322.44
4,803.44
194.40
13,787.80
11,185.26
311.85
107.65
827.00
484.00
107.00
231.56
92.15
252.40
599.92
352.08
4,867.74
51.00
257.40
75.00
550.00
2.20
99.00
25.00
9,800.QQ
•
•
10312002
10312002
'^312002
,12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
'^112002
12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
"'12002
12002
1u312002
10312002
VENDOR NBR CHECK NBR
2120 101300
2121 101301
2123 101302
2125 101303
2126 101304
2127 101305
2123 101306
2129 101307
2130 101308
2131 101309
2132 101310
2133 101311
2134 101312
2135 101313
2136 101314
2137 101315
2139 101316
2141 101317
2142 101313
2143 101319
2144 101320
2145 101321
2146 101322
2147 101323
2143 101324
2149 101325
2150 101326
2151 101327
2152 101323
2155 101329
2156 101330
2157 101331
2153 101332
2159 101333
2160 101334
2161 101335
2162 101336
2163 101337
2163 101333
2164 101339
2165 101340
2166 101341
2167 101342
2163 101343
2169 101344
2170 101345
2171 101346
2172 101347
2173 101343
2174 101349
2175 101350
2177 101351
2178 101352
2179 101353
2180 101354
2182 101355
2183 101356
2184 101357
2185 101358
2185 101359
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
CIS DATE
1Ci31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
VENDOR
AMERJPATH FLORIDA INC
ANCICARE PPO INC
STEPHANIE ANDERSON LMT
BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
KENNETH L DIRECTOR MD
ATLANTIC REPORTING
ROBERT TINSLEY MD
COAST -WIDE REPORTERS
ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES
E COLA
GEORGE E FRENCH
FLORIDA ORTHOPAEDIS INSTITUTE
CENTRAL LOCATING SERVICES LTD
CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT
FLORIDA TODAY PAYMENT CENTER
ATLANTIC TESTING LABORATORIES INC
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
DAVID A CAIRNS ESQ
SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL OF iac
GARRY L EDWARDS PHD
ITS FLORIDA TRANSPO 2002
BEAT RHCMES CCR?
LAURIE BESANCON
CYNTHIA DEAN
ROSEN CENTRE HOTEL
PONCE DELECN RESORT
FLORIDA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC INC
M 7 HODGSON
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
RS MEDICAL
TREASURE COAST ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOC PA
LYNNE GILLIS
HOK DESIGN + BUILD INC
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORP
TODD HALLIDAY
INDIAN RIVER WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
GOLF MAGAZINE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLEET MAINT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLEET MAINT
PATRICIA HELD
JACKSONVILLE GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY
MIDDLE AMERICAN NEWS
MOBILE RESONANCE IMAGING
HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
SCOTT KATZMAN MD
INDIAN RIVER HAND REHAB
NEW LIFE REHAB INC
SUNICA INVESTMENTS LLC
SALOI D GAGEL
A J GLASER III LPN
ANDREW J WINKLER
SCHLITT BUILDERS INC
RIVERSIDE THEATRE INC
THOMPSON PUBLISHING FROUP INC
SHELL CREDIT CARD CENTER
RICHARD K DAVIS CONSTRUCTION CORP
TITLEIST
ROLAND DEBLOIS
AMERICAN JUDGES FOUNDATION
AMERICAN JUDGES FOUNDATION
33
AMOUNT
I9.55
364.00
380.00
302.00
275.00
52.60
30.00
108.50
89.50
23 53
4,870.30
915.40
531.90
32.50
83.46
350.00
50.00
612.50
432.18
275.00
150.00
500.00
6.00
35.58
179.73
153.00
25.00
6.00
2,107.43
64.00
89.00
179.13
377,804.33
10,000.00
13,366.00
237.50
35.95
100.00
4,096.00
140.00
39.99
17.00
170.00
53,079.30
39.00
218.70
476.00
569.39
50.00
80.00
500.00
500.00
3,533.50
283.00
75.57
3,972.00
7,047.73
43.50
25.00
100.00
1
10312002
^312002
12002
iv3 12002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002
10312002.
10312002
10312002
Grand Total:
VENDOR NBR
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2210
2213
2214
2215
2217
2218
1
CHECK NBR
101360
101361
101362
101363
101364
101365
101366
101367
101368
101369
101370
101371
101372
101373
101374
101375
101376
101377
101378
101379
101380
101381
101382
101383
101384 1
101385 1
101386 1
101387 1
CX DATE
10/31/200
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
10/31/2002
0/31/2002
0/31/2002
0/31/2002
0/31/2002
VENDOR
2 DANIEL HOUSER R
ROBERT GASKILL
M -R HOMES LTD
CARL LACHNITT
LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION
LARRY GERNOA HODGES
MARY HOLMES
AMERICAN PROBATION & PAROLE ASSOC
BOTTOM LINE
KIM BOYKIN
MIKE CLIFFORD
MARY LEE FOSTER
WENDY BOBANGO
VERONICA OGILVIE
TONYA HARPER
DEBORA A PERIES
PAUL M DESCHRYVER
GAIL LYNN WITHNER
SMITH & COMPANY INC
ST LUCIE COUNTY
RUTH SNOBERGER
LEIGH PETERSON
CHARLES SEMBLER TAX COLLECTOR
THOMPSON PDR/RED BOOK
ROBERT M KEATING
ROBERT VONBUELOW
HOUSING AUTHORITY RISK RET GROUP
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
I_ L
F
AND CHECK #7350 IN AMOUNT OF S3, 735.03
Deleted. (Item is the same as Item 7.C. Above.)
NN A
7.F. PAYMENTS TO VENDORS OF COURT -RELATED COSTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 2002:
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney*
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
Marian E. Fell, Assistant County Attorney
TO:
FROM:
DATE
SUBJECT:
4
EP
RT
AMOUNT
2,000.00
500.00
500.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
300.00
50.00
35.00
39.00
50.00
375.00
300.00
7.25
8.70
8.70
9324
55830
300.00
360,082.81
41,243.80
50.00
50.00
101.70
49.95
66.50
89.00
700.00
564.53
2,113,640.40
2,211,599.53
*Board Certified, City, County and Local Government Law
MEMORANDUM
�oard of County Commissioners
rias E Fell, Assistant County Attorney
>N'ovember 6, 2002
Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs
The Office of the County Attorney has processed and approved payment to the following vendors for the weeks
October 14; 2002 through November 4, 2002. Listed below are the vendors and the amount of each court -related
cost.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
0c\
k
VENDOR:
J.W Jack Murray, Jr., CFE, CLI
ABC Printing
Marsha Ewing, Clerk
Saloi D. Gagel
Salol D. Gagel
Marsha Ewing, Clerk
Donna Speirs
Cristi Martin
Madge A. Bradford
Salio Gagel
Saloi Gagel
Salol Gagel
Saloi Gagel
Pamela G. Phelps
Linda Seymour
Marcia Geisler-Steiner
Linda Seymour
Neurologic Consultants, P.A.
Unishippers
Brevard Co. Clerk
Patricia B. Held
Sharon Robertson, Clerk
London Graphics
London Graphics
Patricia B. Held
Patricia B. Held
Brevard Co. Clerk of Court
Barbara Schopp
Marcia Geisler-Steiner
Pamela G. Phelps
Pamela G. Phelps
Gregory C. Landrum, Psy. D.
Suncoast Counseling
ChartONE
Salol D. Gagel
Diversified Medical Records
Madge A: Bradford
Victor Perez
Salol D. Gagel
Pamela G. Phelps
Patricia B. Held
Saloi D. Gagel
Marsha Ewing Martin Co: Clerk
Alma Rosa Barajas
Alma Rosa Barajas
Alma Rosa Barajas
Alma Rosa Barajas
Alma Rosa Barajas
Patricia B. Held
Atlantic Reporting
Suncoast Counseling
Madge A. Bradford
Pinellas Co. Clerk Court
Esquire Deposition Services
Coast Wide Reporters
Prestige Reporting Services
Kenneth L. Director, M.D.
David A. Cairns, Esq.
Garry L. Edwards, Ph.D.
A. J. Glaser, III, LPN
Salol D. Gagel
Saloi D. Gagel
Truck Rx
ABC Printing
Gregory C. Landrum, Psy. D.
Saloi D. Gagel
Saloi D. Gagel
Michael Riordan, Psy.D.
Atlantic Reporting
Patricia B. Held
Saloi D. Gagel
Donna Speirs
Linda Seymour
Marcia Geisler-Steiner
AT&T
Total
PAYMENT TYPE:
Expert Witness (PDO)
State Attorney Costs
State ,attorney Costs
Court Interpreter
Court Interpreter
State Attorney Costs
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Court Interpreter (P00)
Court Interpreter (PDO)
Court Interpreter (PDO)
Court Interpreter (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Public Defender Costs
State Attorney Costs
State Attorney Costs
Transcription (SAO)
State Attorney Costs
State Attorney Costs
State Attorney Costs
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
State Attorney Costs
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Clinical Evaluation (SAO)
Clinical Evaluation (PDO)
Public Defender Costs
Court Interpreter
Public Defender Costs
Transcription (SAO)
Court Interpreter (PDO)
Court Interpreter (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Court Interpreter (PDO)
State Attorney Costs
Court Interpreter (Order)
Court Interpreter (Order)
Court Interpreter (Order)
Court Interpreter (Order)
Court Interpreter (Order)
Transcription (SAO)
Transcription (SAO)
Clinical Evaluation (PDO)
Transcription (SAO)
State Attomey Costs
Transcription (SAO)
Transcription (SAO)
Transcription (SAO)
Clinical Evaluation (Order)
Guardianship Legal Services
Clinical Evaluation (Order)
Clinical Evaluation (Order)
Court Interpreter (Order)
Court Interpreter (Order)
State Attorney Costs
State Attomey Costs
Clinical Evaluation (SAO)
Court Interpreter (Order)
Court Interpreter (Order)
Clinical Evaluation (PDO)
State Attomey Costs
Transcription (SAO)
Court Interpreter
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
Transcription (PDO)
State Attorney Costs
AMOUNT:
3,855.36
23.14
7.0C
10.00
500.00
6.00
35.00
168.00
199.50
30.00
20.00
10.00
30.00
105.00
22.50
17.50
266.00
8.00
28.43
25.00
22.50
7.00
377.45
253.40
94.50
101.50
4.00
115.50
31.50
115.50
143.50
600.00
500.00
10.83
10.00
26.62
325.50
25.00
10.00
91.00
269.50
20.00
2.00
10.00
40.00
10.00
10.00
10.00
140.00
52.60
550.00
136.50
2.20
89.50
108.50
99.00
225.00
612.00
275.00
80.00
20.00
30.00
2,538.00
24.13
150.00
10.00
20.00
700.00
30.00
136.50
20.00
28.00
82.50
66.50
106.88
$14,936.04
cc: Honorable Paul B. Kanarek, Circuit Judge
NO ACTION TAKEN, OR REQUIRED
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
7.G. PINNACLE GROVE. LTD. C/O PINNACLE HOUSING GROUP - DEVELOPER'S
AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OFF-SITE SANITARY SEWER FORCE.
MAIN UTILITIES AND R EIMBURSEMENT TO DEVELOPER
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 30, 2002:
DATE:
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 30, 2002
JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
W. ERIK OLSON, P.E. ,: `‘
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY''SERVICES
MIKE HOTCHKISS, P.E., CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGERsilz- _ ,, ,
GORDON E. SPARKS P.E., ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER Lora"—' `"
PINNACLE GROVE, Ltd. c/o PINNACLE HOUSING GROUP
DEVELOPER S AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OFF-
SITE SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN UTILITIES AND
REIMBURSEMENT BY COUNTY TO DEVELOPER
BACKGROUND
The proposed Pinnacle Grove Apartments will consist of 234 multi -family residential units
with a clubhouse on 29.27 acres to be located on the south side of 45"' Street and about
2200 feet east of US Hwy #1. The developer of the Pinnacle Grove Apartments
(Pinnacle Grove, Ltd c/o Pinnacle Housing Group) was desirous of connecting to the
County sewer system located along Old Dixie Highway about 700 feet south of 45th
Street. The County was desirous of constructing an 8" sewer force main along 45th
Street to serve Pinnacle Grove Apartments and other commercial developments
planned along 45th Street. The Department of Utilities Services decided that a
Developer's Agreement between the County and Pinnacle Housing Group would satisfy
both parties' needs.
Attached is a proposed Developer's Agreement with Pinnacle Housing Group for
reimbursement of a portion of the subject sewer force main. The Developer's Agreement
is stipulated to reimburse the Developer for the County's share of the cost of the sewer
force main upon its completion, acceptance by the County, dedication to the County and
payment of Capacity Charges to the County (See Section 1.A. of the attached
agreement).
ANALYSIS
The sewer force main installation will comprise construction of approximately 2,940 linear
feet of 8 -inch diameter pipe along the south side of 45th Street from the northwest corner
of the proposed Pinnacle Grove Apartments to Old Dixie Highway, thence about 700 feet
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
36
nu
DR
•
51.
r
south to an existing 12 -inch diameter sewer force main on the east side of Old Dixie
Highway (See Exhibit D of the attached agreement). The force main will be constructed
across the entire north frontage of the apartment site (730 feet) at the developer's cost.
As shown on Exhibit B of the attached agreement, the estimated cost sharing between the
developer and the County is as follows:
Developer's Share
County's Share
Total Project Cost
$30,333.75
$123,287 50
$153,621.25
Construction of the sewer force main will allow the County to coordinate expansion of the
sanitary sewer collection system with development of the site, as well as provide sewer
service to future projects along 451' Street. As future projects connect to the sewer force
main, line extension fees will be collected, along with capacity fees. Pinnacle Housing
Group will pay a total of $958,464.00 in water and sewer capacity charges. The County's
total share of $123,287 50 will be funded from the capacity charge fund, Account No. 472.
RFCflMMFNDATIf)Il
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the Board of County
Commissioners approve the attached Develccer's Agreement as presented, and authorize
the Utilities Department to recover $123,287.50 in line extension fees from future
development.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
Developer's Agreement and authorized staff to recover
$123,287.50 in line extension fees from future development, as
recommended by staff.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
37
OK
r
t
LJ
7. H. BID #5019 - ANNUAL BID FOR CONCRETE SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS AND
CURBING - aA Y'S ASPHALT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 4, 2002:
DATE:
TO:
THROUGH:
November 4, 2002
Board of County Commissioners
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Thomas Frame, General Services Director c4
Fran Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Indian River County Bid # 5019 Annual Bid for Concrete Sidewalks,
Dnveways, and Curbing
Public Works Department / Road and Bridge Division
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
BID TABULATION
September 11, 2002 at 2:00 P.M.
August 28 and September 4, 2002
Thirteen (13) Vendors
One (1) Vendor
Bidder
Items
Projected
Annual
Quantity
Unit
Cost
Projected
Annual Cost
Clay's
Asphalt
Ft Pierce, FL
1.
Construct 6"
thick wire mesh
concrete
1,000 sq ft
$7.50
$7,500.00
2
Construct 6"
thick concrete
1,000 sq ft
$7.50
$7,500.00
3
Construct 4"
thick concrete
1,000 sq ft
$6.50
$6,500.00
4a.
Standard
and
shape)
6" curb
gutter (any
5001f
$12.00
$6,000.00
4b.
6" nominal
(standard
curb
or drop)
5001f
$12.00
$6,000.00
4c.
Construct Miami
curb
5001f
$12.00
$6,000.00
4d.
8" nominal curb
(standard or drop)
500 if
$14.00
$7,000.00
Annual Estimated Cost
$46,500.00
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
RECONEN E11DATION
Staff recommends that the sole bid submitted by Clay's Asphalt of Fort Pierce, Florida be
rejected; the specifications be revised and this service be re -bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously rejected the bid of
Clay's Asphalt and directed staff to revise the specifications and
re -bid the service, as recommended by staff
•
7.1. RESOLUTION 2002-095 SUPPORTING PROMOTION OF THE INDIAN RIVER
P4I
FLORIDA FOREVER PROGRAM
1
a et4.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 2002:
1
DATE: November 6, 2002
TO: Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Ruth Stanbridge
Chairman
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE INDIAN
RIVER LAGOON BLUEWAY ACQUISITION PROJECT
Mr. Troy Rice, Director of the Indian River Lagoon Program, has requested a resolution from
Indian River County in support of the promotion of the Indian River Lagoon Blueway project to
the "A' acquisition list under the Florida Forever Program Resolutions will be presented to the
Acquisition Restoration Council (ARC) at their meeting on December 4, 2002 in Tallahassee.
The Indian River Blueway missed making the "A" list by only one vote in May. A unified show
of support from Volusia, Brevard, St. Lucie, Martin and Indian River counties may make a
difference.
I recommend the Board adopt the attached resolution supporting the promotion of the Indian
River Blueway project to the "A" acquisition list under the Florida Forever program.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
39
•
I!
Lit i ._
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
2002-095 supporting promotion of the Indian River Lagoon
Blueway Project to the "A" Acquisition List under the Florida
Forever Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 095
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, SUPPORTING PROMOTION OF IIHE INDIAN
RIVER LAGOON BLUEWAY PROJECT TO THE `A'
ACQUISITION LIST UNDER IDE FLORIDA FOREVER
PROGRAM.
WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon, a 156 -mile long estuary on Florida's east coast,
has been designated by the United States Government as an Estuary of National Significance;
and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon system contains more species of plants and
animals than any other estuary in North America, 36 of which are rare, endangered, or
threatened; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon has been documented to be worth more than $730
million annually including fishery revenues and more than $300 million annually in boat and
marine sales; and
WHEREAS, restoration and protection of the Indian River Lagoon system, including
associated estuarine wetlands and undeveloped riverfront upland buffers, are critical to sustain
the viability of the Lagoon as a natural and economic resource; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, in cooperation the St.
Johns River Water Management District, the South Florida Water Management District, and the
Florida Counties of Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie and Martin, sponsored the Lagoon -
wide Indian River Lagoon Blueway CARL application in 1996 for State acquisition of estuarine
wetlands and undeveloped upland buffers associated with the Indian River Lagoon; and
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
40
1
s+E
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 095
WHEREAS, the Acquisition Restoration Council is considering the re -prioritization of
projects on the Florida Forever list, and
WHEREAS, State purchase of Indian River Lagoon wetlands and buffers for restoration
and protection purposes is in the public interest of the citizens of Indian River County and
complements County efforts and objectives to preserve the environmental and economic values
of the Indian River Lagoon contained within the Comprehensive Management Plans of Indian
River County the National Estuary Program, and the Surface Water Improvement and
Management Program.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Section 1. That the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners supports the
promotion of the Indian River Lagoon Blueway Project to the 'A' Acquisition List by the
Acquisition Restoration Council for the State Florida Forever purchase of estuarine wetlands and
undeveloped upland buffers associated with the Indian River Lagoon for resource protection and
restoration purposes.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 12th day of
November, 2002.
ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
7.J. 4TH STREET WIDENING AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS - KEITH &
SCHNARS - AMENDMENT #4 TO CONTRACT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 5, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
Terry B. Thompson
P.E., Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: 4th Street Widening and Intersection Improvements
Amendment NO. 4
DATE: November 5, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Keith & Schnars, Inc. is under contract with Indian River County to provide
professional civil engineering services for widening 4th Street from US 1 to 600 feet
west of Old Dixie Highway.
The attached Amendment No. 4 provides for altering the storm water collection
system to reduce construction costs by approximately $30,000.00. Subsequent to
Keith & Schnars receiving the project environmental resource permit from the St.
John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD), County Staff suggested
eliminating and reconfiguring portions of the drainage piping system as a cost
savings measure. County Staff discussed the proposed changes with SJWRMD
and received confirmation that the changes would not require a permit
modification. The cost of revising the plan/profile sheets, retention area detail
sheet and summary of quantities sheet in accordance with County Staff marked -up
red -lined plans is $2,540.00
Amendment No. 4 also provides for revising horizontal and vertical alignment at
the intersection of US 1 and 4th Street to accommodate a future Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) project. This revised alignment also
requires revisions to the proposed improvements at the FEC grade crossing.
County Staff is negotiating a Joint Project Agreement with the FDOT to share in
the cost of the grade crossing improvements since the County will be
accommodating FDOT s future project The cost of design services for revising
the alignment is $2,130.00. The cost of engineering services for coordinating and
permitting the FEC grade crossing is $1,090.00.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
42
Services for Amendment No. 4 will be performed at a lump sum fee of $5,760.00.
This added to the current contract amount of $83,007.00 will result in a new
contract amount of $88,767.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached
Amendment No. 4.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
Amendment #4 and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as
recommended by staff.
AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.K. WOODS HOLE GROUP, INC.BEA CH FRESER VA TION- RELEASE OF
RETAINAGE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 4. 2002:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director Consent Agenda
FROM: Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D.
Coastal Resources Manager
SUBJECT: Release of Retainage
Woods Hole Group, Inc.
DATE: November 4, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Woods Hole Group, Inc. has a Professional Services Agreement with
the County to provide miscellaneous coastalengineering services on
an as -needed basis. All phases of the project as specified in the
Agreement and subsequent Work Orders have been satisfactorily
completed. The attached invoice requests payment of retainage in
the amount of $3,292.46 to close out the Agreement.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the approval of the attached payment request
from Woods Hole Group, Inc. Funding to be from Account # 128-144-
572-033-19.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
payment request in the amount of $3,292.46, as recommended by
staff.
7i. RESOLUTION 2002-096 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 20112 2003 BUDGET
BUDGET AMENDMENT #001
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 5, 2002:
To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners
Through: Joseph A. Baird
Assistant County Administrator
From. Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
Date: November 5, 2002
Subject: Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 001
Description and Conditions
The attached budget amendment appropriates funding necessary for the following:
1. The Indian River County library system has received a Born to Read Grant from the State of.
Florida Division of Library and Information Services. The attached entry appropriates these
grant funds in the amount cf $53,500.
During fiscal year 2001/02, funding was approved for startup costs at the North County
Aquatic Center. Due to constructions delays, this startup capital was not purchased until the
current year. The attached entry transfers funds to the Municipal Services Taxing Unit
(M.S.T.U.) in fiscal year 2002/03.
The Florida Association of Counties dues increased this year for a special assessment
relating to Articie V funding issues. The attached entry appropriates funding from General
Fund contingencies in the amount of 53.471.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
4. Cn October 1, 2002, the Board of Commissioners approved the use of Law Enforcement
Trust Fund revenues in the amount cf 57,572.25 to support the Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (D.A.R.E.) program. The attached entry appropriates these funds.
5. Indian River County has received various grants for the Vero Lake Estates Stormwater
project. The funding sources for this project inc'ude a Section 319(h) grant St. John's River
Water Management District (SJRWMC) cost -share grant, Florida Yards & Neighborhoods
funds, Vero Lake Estates M.S.B.0 and Optional Sales Tax. As part of this project, a
temporary position was approved last fiscal year. Funding for this position is provided by the
Section 319(h) grant ($15,000) and SJRWMD funds ($10,000). The attached entry rolls the
remaining funds to the current fiscal year.
6. In fiscal year 2001/02, Indian River County received a grant from SJRWMD for $50,000. This
funding provides for water quality Best Management Practices for Indian River citrus groves.
The attached budget amendment rolls the remaining grant funds to the 2002/03 fiscal year.
7. Indian River County received a grant from the Florida Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services (FDACS) for Citrus Best Management Practices in the amount of
$250,000 per year starting in fiscal year 2001/02. The grant funds for fiscal years 2001/02
and 2002/03 are appropriated by the attached budget amendment.
8. Youth Guidance has received donations totaling $8,808.21 from the community to fund a part
time temporary clerk position. The attached entry appropriates these funds.
9. Human Resources requested a replacement copier during the 2002/03 budget process. This
expenditure was not approved in the final budget. The machine has recently broken, and is
not repairable. The attached entry appropriates funding in the amount of $3,150 from
General Fund contingencies.
10. On June 18, 2002, the Board of Commissioners approved a grant agreement with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (H.U.D.) for a Shelter Plus Care grant in the
amount of $453 900 This grant provides $90,780 per year for a term of five (5) years. The
attached entry appropriates funding.
11. Emergency Management has remaining funds available from the 2001/02 Radiological
Emergency Preparedness Grant and the Hazmat Grant in the amounts of $35 449.17 and
$1,524, respectively. The attached entry rolls these remaining funds into the current year.
12. On September 3, 2002, the Board of Commissioners approved two (2) grant agreements with
HUD totaling $318,721. Tne Continuum Wide Homeless Management Information System
(HMIS) grant provides funding in the amount cf $108,530. The Supportive Housing Program
grant provides funding of $210,191. Each of these grants requires a cash match of 25%. The
Homeless Assistance Center has entered into an agreement with the County to provide this
match over a three-year period.
13. On June 19, 2001, the Board of Commissioners approved a contract with Cityscape Citing
and Management, Inc. for the development of a wireless master plan and a
telecommunication facilities regulation ordinance. At the end of fiscal year 2001/02, this
contract had $22,795 remaining The attached entry rolls these funds to the current year.
14. Several departments ordered vehicles during the last fiscal year that were not delivered until
the current year. The attached entry appropriates funding for these vehic'es in the current
budget.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the attached budget resolution
amending the fiscal year 2002/03 budget.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
45
i
r„
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
2002-096 amending the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 096
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 BUDGET
WHEREAS, certain appropriation and expenditure amendments to the
adopted Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget are to be made by resolution pursuant to
section 129.06(2)(a) -(d), Florida Statutes (2002); and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
desires to amend the fiscal year 2002-2003 budget, as more specifically set forth
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA, that the Fiscal Year
2002-2003 Budget be and hereby is amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" upon
adoption of this Resolution
This Resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Macht
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Ruth Stanbridge Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
The Chairman thereupon declared this Resolution duly passed and adopted
this 12th day of November , 2002.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest: J. K. Barton, Clerk Board of County Commissioners
E hibit "A"
Resolution No. 2002 -
Budget Office Approval:
Jason Bro n, Budget Manager
Budget Amendment: 001
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Entry
Number
Fund/ Deptme
Account Na
e
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
Revenues
General Fund/ Born to Read Grant
001-000-033-331.717
$53,500
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ Main Library/ Born
to Read Grant Expenditures
001-109-571-038.610
$53,500
$0
2.
Revenues
General Fund/ Cash Forward
001-000-039-389.040
$78,396
$0
Municipal Services Taxing Unit/
Fund Transfers In
004-000-039-381.020
$78,396
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ Fund Transfers Out
001-199-581-099 210
$78,396
$0
Municipal Services Taxing Unit/
Recreation/ Operating Supplies
004-108-572-035.290
$64,782
$0
Municipal Services Taxing
Recreation/ Office Equipment
Unit/
004-108-572-066.410
$10,614
$0
Municipal Services Taxing
Recreation/ Other Equipment
Unit/
004-108-572-066.490
$3,000
$0
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 2002 -
Budget Office Approval:
Jason E Bro n, Budget Manager
Budget Amendment 001
5.
Revenues
Entry
Number
Fund/ Depart
Account Name
epil'
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
3.
Expenses
Expenses
General Fund/ Board of
Commissioners/ Memberships
General Fund/ Watershed
VLE/ Budgeted Temp.
001-101-511-035.420
$3,471
$0
$0
General
Contingencies
Fund/ Reserve for
001-199-581-099.910
$0
$3,471
$0
General Fund/ Watershed Action
VLE/ Retirement
001-258 537-012.120
4.
Revenues
General Fund/ Watershed
VLE/ Worker's Compensation
Action
Law
Confiscatrcement
$50
Trust Fund/
ed Property
P rtY
112-000-035-351.020
$7,573
$0
001-258-537-012.170
Expenses
Law Enforcement Trust Fund/
Sheriff/ Law Enforcement
112-600-586-099.040
$7,573
$0
Revenues
5.
Revenues
General Fund/ EPA Section 319H
Grant - Vero Lake Estates
001-000-033-331.311
$12,058
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ Watershed
VLE/ Budgeted Temp.
Action
001-258-537-011.190
$10,370
$0
General Fund/ Watershed Action
VLE/ Social Security
001-258-537-012.110
$643
$0
General Fund/ Watershed Action
VLE/ Retirement
001-258 537-012.120
$845
$0
General Fund/ Watershed
VLE/ Worker's Compensation
Action
001-258 537-012.140
$50
$0
General Fund/ Watershed Action
VLE/ Medicare$0
001-258-537-012.170
$150
6.
Revenues
General Fund/ SJRWMD Citrus
Best Management Practices Grant
001-000-033-337.362
$48,384
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ Sod & Water/
Citrus Best Mgt. Practices
001-118-537-088.680
$48,384
$0
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Exhibit "A"
Resolution No. 2002 -
Budget Office Approval
Jason . B .wn, Budget Manager
Budget Amendment: 001
8.
Revenues
Entry
Number
Fund/ Dep
Account
tnt/
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
Name
7.
Revenues
Expenses
General
Management
Fund/ FDACS Citrus Best
Practices Grant
001-000-033-334.361
$485,122
$0
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ Youth Guidance/
Social Security
001-213-523-012
110
$474
General Fund/ Citrus BMP's/
Office Supplies
001-259-537-035.110
$133
$0
001-213-523-012
General Fund/
Other Operating
Citrus BMP's/
001-259-537-035.290
$17,257
$0
General Fund/
Worker's Compensation
General
Equipment
001-213-523-012.140
Fund/ Citrus BMP's/ EDP
001-259-537-066.470
$4,837
$0
001-213-523-012
General Fund/ Citrus BIvtP's/
BMP's
001-259-537-088.680
$462,895
$0
8.
Revenues
General Fund/ Other Contributions
001-000-038-366.090
$8,808
$0
Expenses
General
Temporary
Fund/ Youth Guidance/
Employees
001-213-523-011.170
$7,650
$0
General Fund/ Youth Guidance/
Social Security
001-213-523-012
110
$474
$0
General Fund/ Youth Guidance/
Retirement
001-213-523-012
120
$543
$0
General Fund/
Worker's Compensation
Youth Guidance/
001-213-523-012.140
$30
$0
General Fund/ Youth Guidance/
Medicare
001-213-523-012
170
$111
$0
9.
Expenses
General
Office Equipment
Fund/
Human Resources/
001-203-513-066.410
$3,150
$0
General Fund/ Contingencies
001-199-581-099.910
$0
$3,150
10.
Revenues
Federal Grants/ HUD Shelter Plus
Care Grant
136-000-033-331.621
$90,780
$0
Expenses
Federal Grants/ HUD Shelter Plus/
Rental Assistance Payments
136-165-564-036.730
$90,780
$0
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Resolution No. 2002 -
Budget Office Approval
Exhibit "A"
Ina., • Ir—
Jason Br.wn, Budget Manager
Budget Amendment: 001
Entry
Number
Fund/ Depaktmeint/ Account Number
Account Name
Increase
Decrease
11.
Revenues
General Fund/ REP Grant
001-000-038-366.041
$35,450
$0
General Fund/ Hazmat Grant
001-000-033-334.290
$1,525
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ REP/ Contractual
001-237-525-033.490
$16,450
$0
General Fund/ REP/ Equipment
001-237-525-066.490
$19,000
$0
General
Management/
Fund/ Emergency
Operating
Supplies
001-208-525-035 290
$1,525
$0
12.
Revenues
Federal
Mgt.
Grants/ HUD Homeless
Information System Grant
136-000-033-331.622
$108,530
$0
Federal
Housing
Grants/
Program
HUD Supportive
Grant
136-000-033-331.623
$210,191
$0
Federal
Homeless
Grants/
Assistance
Contributions —
Center
136-000-038-366.042
$79,681
$0
Expenses
Federal
Management
Grants/ Homeless
Information Systems
136-166-564-088.870
$135,664
$0
Federal
Center
Grants/ Youth Crisis
136-167-564-088.880
$262,738
$0
13.
Revenues
Municipal Service Taxing Unit/
Cash Forward — October 1
004-000-039-389.040
$22,795
$0
Expenses
Municipal
Planning/
Service Taxing Unit/
Contractual Services
004-205-515-033.190
$22,795
$0
14.
Revenues
General Fund/ Cash Forward —
October 1
001-000-039-389.040
$27,000
$0
Transportation Fund/ Cash
Forward - October 1
111-000 039-389.040
$191,151
$0
Emergency Services District/
Cash Forward — October 1
114-000-039-389.040
$51,165
$0
Expenses
General Fund/ Animal Control/
Automotive
001-250-562-066.420
$27,000
$0
Transportation Fund/ Road &
Bridge/ Automotive
111-214-541-066.420
$160,000
$0
Transportation Fund/ Traffic
Engineering/ Automotive
111-245-541-066.420
$31,151
$0
Emergency Services District/ Fire
Services/ Automotive
114-120-522-066.420
$51,165
$0
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
7.M. GEN DEVELOPMENT, INC. - FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE PRESERVE AT
VERO BEACH PHASE II
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
PAENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
/ /
te7 ;
r.
r' r. •i, ,•
Robert M. Keating, AICP I
Community Development Director .2
THROUGH: Stan Boling, CP
Planning Director
FROM: Mark Zans MZ'
Senior Planner. Current Development
DATE: November 1, 2002
SUBJECT: GEN Development Inc. Request for Final Plat Approval for The Preserve at
Vero Beach Phase II
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 12, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Preserve at Vero Beach Phase II is an 82 lot, 34.92 acre second phase of the overall The
Preserve of Vero Beach Subdivision. Located on the north side of 5th Street S.W. and east of 27th
Avenue, the property is zoned RS -6 (residential single-family, up to 6 unit/acre) and has an L-2
(Low Density 2 up to 6 units/ acre) land use designation. The density of The Preserve at Vero
Beach Phase II subdivision is 2.59 units per acre. Phase 1 of the subdivision has been final
platted. Phase II is the final phase of the overall project.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
At its regular meeting of April 27, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary plat approval for the overall subdivision (Phase 1 and Phase 2). The applicant is
requesting final plat approval for Phase II and is bonding out some required improvements as
part of the final plat approval process. The owner, GEN Development Inc., through its agent
Masteller, Moler, & Reed, Inc is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted the
following:
1. A final plat in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
2. A Certified Engineer's Cost estimate for remaining required Phase II improvements
3. A Contract for Construction of the remaining required Phase II improvements.
4. A Security arrangement guaranteeing the contract for construction.
ANALYSIS:
Some of the required subdivision improvements for Phase II have been constructed, and the
developer proposes to "bond -out" for construction of the remaining improvements (landscaping,
utility services, road paving, drainage) to obtain final plat approval. The format of the financial
security has been approved by the County Attorney' s Office, and unit cost estimates for
construction items have been approved by Public Works, Utility Services, and Planning. The
developer also has submitted a copy of the Contract for Construction of Required Improvements.
The contract, which is on a standard form approved by the County Attorney's Office, will be
executed by the developer. All subdivision improvements are privately dedicated with the
exception of the utility system, which is separately warranted through the Department of Utility
Services. Therefore, no subdivision warranty and maintenance agreement is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for The Preserve at Vero Beach Phase II, authorize the Chairman to execute
the Contract for Construction and any security documents, and accept the security.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plat Graphic
4. Contract for Construction (Draft)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for The Preserve at Vero Beach Phase II, authorized the
Chairman to execute the Contract for Construction and any security
documents, and accepted the security, as recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTATION IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
52
nit 1�J 6
b 11
mama
6
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Df PARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
4.17.0 Robert M. Keating, AICP �1 }/
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling IkICP
Planning Director
FROM: Mark Zans
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Pointe West of Vero Beach LTD's Request for Final Plat Approval for Pointe
West Central Village Phase III P.D., First Sub -Phase
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 12, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Pointe West Central Village Phase III P.D.is a part of the Central Village Area of the overall
Pointe West development. The conceptual planned development (PD) plan for the overall Pointe
West project was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on March 9, 1999.
On April 11 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the overall preliminary PD
plan/plat for the West Central Village Phase III P D The overall preliminary PD/ plat allows for
40 single-family lots and 66 attached units on 25 66 acres in two sub -phases. This proposed West
Central Village Phase III P.D. final plat is the first of two sub -phases, and will establish 31
single-family lots on 7.99 acres. This proposed final plat for the first sub phase covers a portion
of the Pointe West development located on 14th Lane. and is consistent with the approved overall
conceptual PD plan for Pointe West and the approved preliminary PD plan/plat.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
ANALYSIS•
The owner's agent, On Site Management Inc., is requesting final plat approval and has submitted
the following:
1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary PD plan/plat; and
2. An engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for the remaining required improvements; and
3. A completed Contract for Construction of Remaining Required Improvements; and
Most of the required subdivision improvements have been completed. As provided for in the
county's land development regulations, the applicant is proposing to "bond -out' for the
remaining work necessary to complete the required subdivision improvements. (road paving,
utility services). The Public Works and Utility Services Departments have reviewed and
approved the submitted Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate. The County Attorney's Office has
reviewed and approved the submitted Contract for Construction. Prior to recording the plat, the
developer will submit the letter of credit, which represents 115% of the estimated cost to
complete the required improvements. It should be noted that all improvements within the Pointe
West development will be private, with the exception of certain utilities facilities that will be
dedicated and guaranteed to Indian River County as required by the Utility Services Department.
All final plat requirements have been satisfied.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Grant final plat approval for Pointe West Central Village Phase III P D , and
Authorize the Chairman to execute the submitted Contract for Construction of Remaining
Required Improvements and accept the security that secures the contract.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plat Layout
4. Contract for Construction
Community Development Director Bob Keating noted the applicant will provide a east'
escrow rather than a letter of credit for this project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously granted final plat
approval for Pointe West Central Village Phase III P.D., authorized
the Chairman to execute the submitted Contract for Construction
of Remaining Required Improvements and accepted the security
that secures the contract, as recommended by staff.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
DOCUMENTATION IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
54
9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2002-029 AMENDING
ORDINANCE 2001-036 BY DELETING THE ZONING REVERTER
CLAUSE FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS "THF, COLONY, P.D."
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 297 ACRES OF LAND
GENERALLY I,OCATED BETWEEN 13TH STREET SW ON THF,
NORTH, 17TH STREET SW ON THE SOUTH, 27TH AVENUE ON
THE EAST, AND 43RD AVENUE ON THE WEST (COLONY
DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES LLC - THE GRAI,IA GROUP )
(14EGISI,ATIVE)
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 November 1, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TME\T HEAD CONCURRENCE:
.77
Robert M. Keating, AICP /
Community Development Director
THRU• Stan Boling AJ P
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICPI+
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: November 1, 2002
SUBJECT: Colony Development Associates L L C 's Request to Delete the Zoning Reverter
Provision in the Planned Development Zoning Ordinance for The Colony
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 12, 2002.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Bruce Barkett, Agent, has submitted a request on behalf of Colony Development Associates
L.L.C. to delete the zoning reverter provision contained in the Colony PD zoning ordinance.
The existing ordinance has a reverter clause, the effect of which is to revert the project site's
zoning from P D (planned development, residential up to 1.85 units per acre) to RS -3
(Residential single-family up to 3 units per acre) if the developer does not obtain a project
construction permit (land development permit) by December 31, 2002. The applicant's request is
to delete the reverter, since the developer has now purchased the property from the three separate
owners. No increase in units or decrease in lot sizes is proposed, and no design modifications
are proposed.
The Colony is a 279 acre golf course residential project consisting of 550 units on 279 acres.
The project site is located between 27th Avenue S W. and 43`d Avenue S.W. on the east and west,
and 13th Street S.W. and 17th Street S.W. on the north and south. P ID rezoning and conceptual
P ID plan approval was granted for the project by the Board of County Commissioners on
October 24, 2000.
The reverter provision was placed in the project's P.D. zoning ordinance at the applicant's
request, so that the three property owners selling their separate properties to the developer would
not be bound by the PD zoning ordinance and PD plan, and would have their old RS -3 zoning
back, if the development did not proceed. The Board had no objections to the reverter, since
either the PD rezoning/plan or RS -3 district is appropriate for the site. Now, the overall site is
under single ownership and the current owner/developer is requesting deletion of the reverter.
Deleting the reverter takes Board action at a public hearing, since the deletion will require a
change to text in the ordinance. The change will not affect the existing zoning or the approved
conceptual PD plan.
ANALYSIS:
Because no design or project parameter changes are involved in the request, no project plan
revisions are needed. Consequently, the approved conceptual and preliminary PD (phase I) plan
will be unaffected by the requested zoning reverter modification. Please find attached previous
staff reports to the Board regarding The Colony. Since the P ID will remain as is, these reports
stili accurately reflect the P.D. development plan proposal.
The existing zoning reverter clause reads as follows:
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that the Zoning of the property
situated in Indian River County, and legally described in EXHIBIT A (attached)
be changed from RS -3 to PD, residential and that the PD conceptual plan (see
EXHIBIT B, attached) will control and regulate development on the subject land.
Said zoning shall revert to RS -3 on December 31, 2002, unless a land
development permit for all or any portion of the project has been issued prior to
that date."
The proposed reverter ordinance reads as follows with the deleted language in strike -through:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
56
•
"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the property
situated in Indian River County, and legally described in EXHIBIT A (attached)
be changed from RS -3 to PD, residential and that the PD conceptual plan (see
EXHIBIT B, attached) will control and regulate development of the subject land.
•- - ' , 2002, unless a land
•
that date.
•
The applicant is in the process of obtaining a land deve.opment permit, so construction can move
forward on the site. However if a land development permit is not obtained by December 31,
2002 and the reverter is not deleted, then the PD project apprcv al would be voided. Therefore,
the applicant is requesting that the reverter be removed to guarantee that the PD project approval
will remain in effect beyond December 31, 2002. Because the property has been acquired by the
developer, the reverter is no longer necessary. Staff supports the request
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant approval
to delete the zoning reverter date from the Colony PD zoning ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Request Letter
2. Location Map
3. BCC Staff Report
4. Zoning Ordinance
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance
2002-029 amending Ordinance 2001-036 by deleting the zoning
reverter clause for property known as "The Colony P.D."
consisting of approximately 297 acres of land generally located
between 13th Street SW on the north, 17th Street SW on the south,
27th Avenue on the east, and 43rd Avenue on the west.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
57
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 029
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
ORDINANCE 2001-036 BY DELETING THE ZONING REVERTER
CLAUSE FOR PROPERTY KNOWN AS "THE COLONY, P D "
CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 297 ACRES OF LAND
GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN 13TH STREET SW ON THE
NORTH, 17TH STREET SW ON THE SOUTH, 27TH AVENUE ON THE
EAST, AND 43RD AVENUE ON THE WEST; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did adopt
Ordinance 2001-036 on December 11, 2001, which ordinance amended the zoning ordinance
extending the zoning reverter from December 31, 2001 to December 31, 2002 for approximately 297
acres of land generally located between 13th Street SW on the North, 17th Street SW on the South,
27th Avenue on the East, and 43rd Avenue on the West; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance 2001-036 provided that the said zoning would revert to RS -3 on
December 31, 2002, unless a land development permit for all or any portion of the project has been
issued prior to that date; and
WHEREAS, the said reverter provision was adopted at the request of the developer, and not
as a requirement of the land development code; and
WHEREAS, the developer has requested the reverter date be deleted; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that it would not be adverse to the public interest to grant the
extension requested by the developer;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that:
The Zoning of the property situated in Indian River County, and
legally described in EXHIBIT A (attached) be changed from RS -3 to
PD, residential and that the PD conceptual plan (see EXHIBIT B,
attached) will control and regulate development of the subject land.
Said rezoning shall revert to RS 3 on December 31, 2002, unless a
•
•
If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the
validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
58
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 029
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on the 16th day of
Oct oma, 2002, for a public hearing to be held on the 1 �tl$ay of November
time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Gi nn —' 2002, at which
Commissioner Ti ooi n , and adopted by the following vote; seconded by
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Vice Chairman John W Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 12th day of
November , 2002.
Deputy Clerk
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 029
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
i
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 11 12 02 by Ruth M
Stanbridge as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County Florida,
and by P J Jones , as Deputy Clerk, of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County Florida, who are personally known to me
Kimberly E. Massung
MY COMMISSION, CCE55/36 EXPIRES
July 15, 2003
BONDED THRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE INC
Notary Public
Printed N e K„ b:eg Jyy L , /11 gss4„i
Commission No.: CC 8S5'13 t.p
Commission Expiration: 9" � s I ano •2.
Effective upon filing with the Department of State.
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:
CODING: Words "- ck- thio gh are deletions; words underlined are additions
F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCEIordinance-irc-colony 2002.doc
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
9.A.2. PTJRI,IC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2002-030 REGARDING TREF,
PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING REQUIREMENTS;
AMENDING I,AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (I,DRS)
CHAPTER 901, DEFINITIONS; AND CHAPTER 927, TREF,
PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING (COUNTY -INITIATED
REQUEST TO ADOPT REVISIONS TO THE COUNTY I,AND
CLEARING AND TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE)
(I,EGISI,ATIVE)
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 November 6, 2002:
James E Chandler
County Administrator
,»PAR
r
Robert M. $eating, AICP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcement
FROM:
Brian Poole, FREP
Senior Environmental Planner
November 6, 2002
County Initiated Request to Adopt Revisions to the County Land Clearing
and Tree Protection Ordinance
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners formally consider the following
information at the Board's regular meeting of November 12, 2002.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
BACKGROUND
Since May 2000, staff has held and participated in numerous public meetings concerning
revisions to the County Tree Protection and Land Clearing Ordinance. The Board of County
Commissioners last considered revisions to the ordinance on July 9, 2002, (see Minutes,
Attachment 1). At that meeting, the Board voted to:
"deny this ordinance and direct staff to work on an amendment to the old ordinance to
include stiffer penalties for tree removal and aggressive enforcement, enhance the
definition of specimen trees, add a "critical root zone" (a 5 -foot area of restricted
development around a tree), and eliminate the tree wells."
Following is a chronology of tree protection ordinance review activities that have occurred since
July 9, 2002.
July 11, 2002: Under Planning Matters during the PZC meeting, Chairman Winne
requested, and the PZC members concurred, that the proposed ordinance, drafted to
comply with the Board's July 9th motion, be brought back before the PZC for review
before being presented to the Board.
September 10, 2002: Planning and Zoning Commissioner George W. Gross met with
Planning staff to discuss the proposed revisions prior to the September 12th PZC meeting.
He had concerns with Section 927.17(6) which details the penalties and restoration
actions related to illegal vegetation removal (not illegal tree removal). As written, the
violator has the option to either pay a penalty, revegetate the area, or combination of the
two. If the violator were to only pay the penalty, then the illegally cleared area would
remain unvegetated. To address this potential scenario, staff revised Section 927.17(6) so
that, in the event illegal clearing takes place in a conservation easement (or other similar
area) or m an area where upland set aside issues would be involved, the violator will be
required to pay a penalty and revegetate.
September 12, 2002: The proposed revised ordinance was presented to the PZC. At the
meeting, the above noted revisions to Section 927.17(6) were presented. On a unanimous
vote, the PZC recommended that the BCC adopt the proposed ordinance, including the
revisions to Section 927.17(6) discussed at the meeting.
September 19, 2002: The proposed revised ordinance, with the addition noted above,
was presented to the PSAC. Two motions were made. One died for lack of a second,
while the other did not pass on a vote; therefore, no official recommendation was made.
The minutes of that meeting are included with this staff report as Attachment 2.
Staff has drafted an ordinance to implement the Board's July 9th motion The Board is now to
hold a public hearing and approve, approve with conditions, or deny the ordinance.
ANALYSIS
The Board s motion of July 9, 2002, directed staff to:
1. use the existing ordinance as a base document;
2. include stiffer penalties for tree removal and aggressive enforcement,
3. enhance the definition of specimen trees;
4. add a critical root zone (with a 5 -foot restricted development area); and
5. eliminate the proposed tree well provisions that were included in the July 9th draft.
Based on this direction, the following changes to the existing ordinance have been incorporated
into the proposed ordinance (Attachment 3).
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
62
K i 1' U
•
1. Use the existing ordinance as a base document.
The old ordinance has been kept relatively intact. As indicated in Attachment 3, only
those areas where the Board directed staff to make changes have been modified
2. Stiffer penalties for tree removal and aggressive enforcement.
To address the issue of stiffer penalties, staff has:
• retained the previously proposed section that assesses a flat penalty of 31,000 per tree
for illegal protected tree removal (trees with a dbh of 4 inches up to 24 inches); such
a penalty is 0tiffer than the existing ordinance penalty of up to S500 per protected
tree: and
• retained the previously proposed section that allows the Code Enforcement Board to
assess a penalty of up to $15,000 per tee for illegal specimen tree removi i (trees
with a dbh of 24 inches or larger)• the existing ordinance does not have a different
monetary penalty for the illegal removal of larger 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 S15,000 per event.
To address the issue of aggressive enforcement, staff has:
• reviewed the existing ordinance language and determined that the county has the
option of referring potential criminal activity to the Sheriff's Office and/or the State
Attorneys Office; and
• reviewed other County ordinances and determined that the County has the ability to
suspend or revoke a contractor's license if issued by the County, for violation of
County ordinances.
Based on these two enforcement tools, staff concluded there was no need to revise the
ordinance regarding aggressive enforcement.
3. Enhance the definition of specimen trees.
To address this issue, staff has retained the previously proposed definition of "specimen
tree". It is staff's understanding that the Board's directive was meant to clarify to staff
that there should be a separate classification that would represent larger trees. The
current proposed draft ordinance does not retain any of the special protection for
specimen trees as previously proposed; however, it does retain the previously proposed
increased penalties for illegal specimen tree (trees with a dbh of 24 inches or greater)
removal (see #2 above).
4. Add a "critical root zone" ( a 5 -foot area of restricted development around a tree).
The Critical Root Zone (CRZ), as defined in the July 9th draft, has been retained. The
existing ordinance language provides for a minimum five-foot radius around the tree
within which no impacts can occur, unless approved by the Environmental Planner. This
language will be retained. The result will be that, even though the CRZ of a four -inch
dbh tree will be four feet there will in reality be a CRZ of five -feet around the tree:
Under the proposed revised ordinance, impacts within the CRZ of a proposed project can
be approved by the Environmental Planner if the impacts will not result in death or
damage to the subject tree. The applicant will be required to supply information to staff
on the type of proposed impact, area of the CRZ to be impacted, and efforts made to
reduce or eliminate the impacts to the tree. Alternatively, the applicant can supply a
written statement from a Certified Arborist stating that, to the best of his or her
laiowiedge and abilities, the impacts will not result .n death or damage to the tree.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
63
•
Eliminate the newly proposed tree well provision.
The language of the existing ordinance requires tree wells when fill threatens the viability
of a tree to be saved. This language has been retained; however, no specific tree well
design requirements are proposed. The previously proposed tree well specifications have
been deleted.
IMPACT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISIONS ON T COST OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
County Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.7 of the Housing Element requires that the Board of County
Commissioners consider the effect of proposed LDR changes on housing costs. Such an analysis
is provided below.
There is only one provision in the proposed LDR changes that will likely increase costs for
projects, including residential projects. That provision relates to:
Placement of any structure or site improvement within a Critical Root Zone [Section
927.05(4)(e)J.
In some cases, there may be extra costs incurred in meeting this ordinance provision that are not
incurred under the existing ordinance. These increased costs are associated with the design,
engineering, or construction of the project or the services of a Certified Arborist.
While the proposed revisions to the Ordinance will likely result in some increases in the cost of
residential projects it is staffs opinion that these costs will not result in projects not being
proposed, approved, or completed.
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.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1, July 9, 2002, BCC minutes
Attachment 2, September 19 2002, PSAC minutes
Attachment 3, Current proposed draft ordinance
Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois gave a brief history of the project and
reviewed the main points in the new ordinance and noted that in some cases vegetation is also
protected. The ordinance also allows for penalties and enforcement for removal and maintenance
of vegetation.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard with
regard to this matter.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
64
0
•
Kevin Doty, 411 Holly Road, President of the Pelican Island Audubon Society,
commended staff and the Board for their work in this area The peninsula of Florida and Indian
River County are very unique environments in terms of vegetation compared to dust about every
other environment at the same latitude. Most other environments at this latitude are deserts.
People do not realize that Florida is being deforested at the same or a larger rate than the
Brazilian rain forest. We are stewards of this land and have a duty to protect it as much as we
can for future generations. He urged approval of the ordinance.
Richard Baker of the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory thought the fines were
still not high enough and stated that the ordinance does not protect `champion' trees. Indian
River County has 2 "champion ' trees which are both under the 24 inch diameter criteria He also
felt the 1 acre criteria should be lowered to 1/2 acre and objected to the fact that the State would be
responsible for mangrove management. The State does not have enough personnel to closely
monitor mangroves. He asked the Board to reject this proposal and make the regulations
stronger.
Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, felt there should be better solutions to the problems
and noted especially the problems builders have with pine trees. He believed that, rather than
trying to preserve pine trees, they should be removed and oak trees should be planted. The way
this ordinance is written, the developer will not be able to clear properties but will have to wait
for the builder to clear land for each house being built. He especially noted that there will be a
great effect on affordable housing because of the extra monies being required to clear the land.
He believed that all this is taking place because of a large, national developer who came in and
cleared some property on Jungle Trail which he did not believe would happen with local
developers who care about this county. The approval process for developing land is becoming
more and more expensive and when you add the cost of a tree survey, you are pricing housing out
of the low-cost market. It is especially difficult to develop property which needs to be filled as
this puts an extra burden on the existing trees which usually cannot survive having 3 feet of dirt
piled around them.
Debb Robinson of Laurel Homes then brought up the subject of raising the road
elevation and noted that houses must then be 18 inches above the crown of the road. You cannot
fill land to that extent and save the existing trees. She believed that logic would indicate that
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 65
Lit
•
6'
these regulations cannot be followed. The actual cost per acre to clear land is $500 per acre, but
when it is done lot -by -lot the cost goes up to approximately $2500 per lot. Consumers cannot
afford the prices that must be charged to cover these costs. She felt the Board will be imposing
huge costs on the taxpayers to save a tree. She has been developing property for 30 years and it
has not been her experience that these costs can easily be passed on to the consumer.
Mr DeBlois stated that the County is not forbidding the pre -clearance of lots, just
requiring that a permit be applied for with sufficient justification for clearing in that manner.
Debb Robinson felt the County should be looking at single-family developments with
appropriate landscaping in the common areas. She protested requiring a tree survey with every
development and believed the County would be imposing an extra $100,000 at the beginning of
the development process.
Mr. DeBlois responded that nothing is being changed regarding the survey requirements,
criteria is just being added to require information on what trees are proposed to be removed and
the justification for that removal.
Chip Landers, 1295 45th Court SW, felt this is an emotional reaction to what happened
on Jungle Trail. He believed that local developers save as many trees as possible already and
stated that the costs are being shifted to the private homeowner. He expressed his concerns about
private property rights and felt that these regulations will not apply equally to everyone. He felt
this action goes too far and is "swatting a fly with a shotgun".
Rick Hope, 195 20th Avenue, representing the Treasure Coast Builders Association,
agreed with Mr and Mrs Robinson and also felt that this is an emotional reaction to the situation
with Beazer Homes on Jungle Trail. He felt people should be trusted with their own properties
instead of adding unnecessary legislation. He felt the penalties should be retained and the other
requirements discarded.
Mr. DeBlois stated that these changes essentially increase the penalties for illegal tree
removal and simply clarify other conditions which are already on the books. This ordinance is
not stricter than the current ordinance except as to the penalties involved.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 66
J 7, .i
•
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being
none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Community Development Director Bob Keating emphasized that the tree survey
requirements are not required of every individual and the applicant can certainly talk to staff and
staff can outline the extent of the survey needed. When a lot of fill is required, staff will
certainly take that into consideration.
Chairman Stanbridge expressed her appreciation to staff for working so hard with
developers and land clearing people to make certain the requirements would not be onerous.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner
Tippin opposed) adopted Ordinance 2002-030 regarding Tree
Protection and Land Clearing Requirements; amending Land
Development 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.
ORDINANCE NO. 2002- 030
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING TREE
PROTECTION AND LAND CLEARING REQUIREMENTS; AMENDING LAND
DEVELOPMENT 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.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
1. Chapter 901 Definitions
Portions of Zoning Chapter 901 subsection 901.03 are hereby amended as follows:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
67
•
7i
•
Critical Root Zone (CRZ) an area around a tree that is regulated by the Indian River County Land
Development Regulations for the purpose of protecting the roots and trunk of a protected tree or a
specimen tree, both during and after construction. It is a circular area using a radius measured from the
center of the tree. The radius is calculated as one (1) foot of radius for each one (1) inch of diameter at
breast height (4.5 feet above grade). For any fraction of a foot over a whole foot the diameter at breast
height will be rounded up to the next whole number. Example: a tree has a diameter at breast height of
211/4 inches; the CRZ is a circle, centered on the center of the tree, with a radius of 22 feet.
Diameter at breast height (dbh) the standard measure of a single -stemmed tree at four and one-
half (4.5) feet above grade. When a tree has grown with cluster stems at breast height, dbh shall be equal
to the sum et -aggregate of the diameters individual stems measured at four and one-half (4 1/2) feet
above grade. The dbh shall be measured b takin! the circumference of the stem s /trunk s and a..1 'n
the formula d = c/n where d is the diameter (in inches), c is the circumference (in inches), and n = 3.14.
As an example: a single trunk tree has a circumference of 4 feet 5 inches (53 inches) measured 4.5 feet
above the • ound. The dbh of the tree is then calculated as d = 53/3.14 = 16.9 inches. The dbh value shall
be ex.ressed in inches and shall be scientificall rounded to one decimal .lace.
Tree, protected any tree having a dbh of four (4) inches or more, but less than 24 inches, all
• • = - ,. This shall also include and all each tree, regardless of the dbh of the
individual tree within a significant groupings of trees of West Indian or tropical origin_ of it and -all
• - - , The following trees, regardless of size or location shall
not be considered to be protected trees:
Casuarina cunninghamiana - Australian pine
Casuarina lepidophlia - Australian pine
Enterolobium cyclocarpum — a unt• lj , _nom Earpod
Melia azedarch - Chinaberry
Schinus terebinthifolius - Brazilian pepper tree
Melaleuca quinquenervia - Melaleuca, punk or paper tree
Cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto) and citrus trees of all varieties shall not be considered to be
protected trees, but such trees shall be included in a tree survey in the event the applicant chooses to make
use of said trees as a credit against the trees otherwise required under an applicable landscaping regulation
or requirement.
Tree, Specimen a tree which has a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 24 inches or greater
excluding, however, the following trees, r gardless of size or location:
Casuarina cunninghamiana - Australian pine
Casuarina lepidophlia - Australian pine
Enterolobium cyclocarpum — Austr l'p„_P-ine Earpod
Melia azedarch - Chinaberry
Schinus terebinthifolius - Brazilian pepper tree
Melaleuca quinquenervia - Melaleuca, punk or paper tree
•
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
68
•
•
•
Tree Protection and Land Clearing Regulations
Portions of Zoning Chapter 927 are hereby established and a
Sec. 927.01.
Sec. 927.02.
Sec. 927.03.
Sec. 927.04.
Sec. 927.05.
Sec. 927.06.
Sec. 927.07.
Sec. 927.08.
Sec. 927.09.
Sec. 927.10.
Sec. 927.11.
Sec. 927.12.
Sec. 927.13.
Sec. 927.14.
Sec. 927.15.
Sec. 927.16.
Sec. 927.17.
Short title
Applicability
Purpose and intent.
Definitions referenced.
General prohibitions
Exemptions
Permits available; criteria governing issuance.
Reserved
nded as follows:
Additional dune and shoreline vegetation protection.
Additional upland native vegetation protection
Application procedure and fees.
Determination of Critical Root Zone
Local permit not exclusive
Open burning/air curtain incinerator regulations referenced
Variances and administrative appeals
Tree protection as justification for variance relief from other land development regulations
Penalties and enforcement
Section 927.01. Short title.
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Indian River County Tree Protection and
Land Clearing Ordinance."
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.02. Applicability.
This chapter shall be applicable to all land lying in the unincorporated area of Indian River
County, Florida.
This Chapter shall not apply to the following species of mangroves; however, the trimming,
cutting, removal, or other similar actions are regulated by the Florida Depart cent of Environmental
Protection and/or the St. Johns River Water Management District and these actions may require permits
from one of these agencies.
Avicennia germinans -
Rhizophora mangle -
Laguncularia racemosa -
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
black mangrove
red mangrove
white mangrove
Section 927.03. Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide for the protection and preservation of trees and vegetation
within Indian River County in order to minimize environmental degradation caused by unnecessary or
excessive destruction of trees and other valuable vegetation.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.04. Definitions referenced.
The definitions of certain terms used in this chapter are set forth in Chapter 901, Definitions, of
the Indian River Land Development Code.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Section 927.05. General prohibitions.
Unless expressly exempted herein, it shall be unlawful and subject to the penalties provided herein
for any person directly or indirectly by another on his behalf to:
(1) Remove, relocate, destroy or damage any protected tree or specimen tree (as defined in Chapter
901) on any site or tract without first obtaining a tree removal permit or mangrove alteration permit
pursuant to this chapter;
(2) Perform any land clearing or grubbing unless a land clearing permit, if required, has been issued
and is posted on-site pursuant to this chapter;
(3) Perform tree removal, land -clearing, grubbing, grading, excavation, construction, or make or
install any improvement upon any site or tract, regardless of the existence of valid permits or
approvals for the given activity, unless each protected tree and each specimen tree to be preserved
pursuant to this chapter has been marked by a highly visible band and unless all protected area
Critical Root Zones established pursuant to this chapter have been surrounded by a protective
bamer prior to the beginning of development activities;
(4) Encroach onto pretested-a*ea Critical Root Zones established pursuant to this chapter by any of the
following acts or omissions:
(5)
(a) Movement or storage of any vehicle within or across a protec�sa Critical Root Zone;
(b) The storage of building materials, debris, fill, soil or any other matter within a protected
area Critical Root Zone;
(c)
The cleaning of material or equipment within a protectedea Critical Root Zone;
(d) The disposal of any liquid or solid waste material such as paints, oils, solvents, asphalt,
concrete, mortar, or other materials similarly harmful within a protected area Critical Root
Zone; and
(e) The placement of any structure or site improvement within a protected ar a Critical Root
Zone with the exception of landscaping or related irrigation improvements unless
expressly determined by Environmental Planning staff that such structure or site
improvement will not result in the death or damage to the subject tree. In making this
determination, Environmental Planning staff shall consider, but is not limited to, the
following information which shall be provided by the landowner or applicant:
1. The type of proposed impact;
2. The amount area of the CRZ to be affected;
3. The location of the impact area within the CRZ; and
4. Efforts or actions taken to reduce or eliminate impacts to the tree.
As an alternative to a determination by Environmental Planning staff, the landowner or
applicant may supply to Environmental Planning staff a written and signed statement from
a Certified Arborist that states to the best of his/her knowledge and abilities that the
proposed structure or site improvement will not result in the death or damage to the
subject tree.
Violate or fail to observe any of the requirements or provisions set forth in section 932.05 of
Chapter 932, Coastal Management, pertaining to the protection of dune and shoreline vegetation;
or
(6) Violate or fail to observe any of the requirements or provisions set forth in Chapter 929, Upland
Habitat Protection pertaining to the protection of native plant communities.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 70
1t
•
Section 927.06. Exemptions.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter, the following activities shall be lawful
without application for or issuance of a tree removal or land -clearing permit None of these exemptions
shall apply to any mangrove, dune vegetation, specimen or historic tree, or upland native plant community
conservation area, unless otherwise stated below. The burden of proving entitlement to any particular
exemption shall lie with the person claiming use of the exemption, in the event the exempted activity ever
becomes subject to an enforcement proceeding.
(1) The removal, trimming, pruning, or alteration of any non -unprotected tree, non -specimen tree, or
other vegetation as necessary for:
(a) The clearing of a path not to exceed four (4) feet in width to provide physical access or
view necessary to conduct a survey or site examination for the preparation of subdivision
plats, site plans, or tree surveys; or
The clearing of a path not to exceed ten (10) feet in width to provide vehicular access
necessary to conduct soil percolation and/or soil bore tests on a property, provided such
clearing or removal is conducted under the direction of a Florida registered surveyor or
engineer.
(2) Routine landscape maintenance such as trimming or pruning of vegetation which does not result in
the eventual death of the plants, mowing of yards or lawns, or any other landscaping or gardening
activity which is commonly recognized as routine maintenance or replacement.
The removal, trimming, pruning or alteration of any tree or vegetation in an existing utility
easement or right-of-way provided such work is done by or under the control of the operating
utility company and said company has received all necessary licenses or permits to provide utility
service within the easement.
(b)
(3)
(4) The removal, pruning, trimming, or alteration of any tree or vegetation for the purpose of
maintaining existing access to a property.
(5) Any activity conducted by a lawfully operating and bona fide commercial nursery, tree farm,
agricultural operation, silvicultural operation, ranch, or similar operation, when the activity occurs
on the property owned or lawfully occupied by the person conducting said activity and is done in
pursuit of said activity. This exemption shall include the purposeful removal of a tree or trees for
their permanent relocation at another site undergoing development. When land -clearing or tree
removal has been performed under this exemption based upon the use of the property for an
agricultural or silvicultural operation, the following shall apply:
(a) No land development order shall be approved for any non-agricultural or non-silvicultural
use or improvement on the same site within two (2) years of the completion of such land
clearing or tree removal.
(b) P.,rtaining to silviculture, operations are encouraged to implement a State Division of
Forestry approved management plan, including a reforestation plan for harvested lands.
(c)
Pertaining to agriculture, operations are encouraged to implement a Soil and Water
Conservation District approved conservation plan, including the use of Best Management
Practices, as applicable to the specific area being cleared.
(6) Any tree which has been destroyed or damaged beyond saving, or which constitutes an immediate
peril to life, property, or other trees, may be removed without a permit.
Tree removal, land -clearing, or grubbing of any vegetation, except mangrove or dune vegetation,
upon any detached single-family residential lot or parcel of land having an area of one (1.0) acre or
less; provided, this exemption shall not be construed to allow land -clearing, grubbing, or tree
(7)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
71
•
7! '7
:sly
e}t1 s L. I 1
removal without permit of any such lot or parcel by its subdivider unless the subdivider intends in
good faith to forthwith begin construction 6f a dwelling unit or units upon said lot. Advertisement
or listing for sale of the particular lot or parcel without the dwelling unit shall create a presumption
that the subdivider does not intend to forthwith begin such construction and that the intent is for
the lot or parcel to be developed by a subsequent purchaser.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 92-39, § 23, 9-29-92)
Section 927.07. Permits available; criteria governing issuance.
(1)
[Generally.] The following permits shall be available upon proper application to the community
development department and compliance with this chapter: tree removal permit; land -clearing
permit; - . _ : - . . ---: ; and dune vegetation maintenance permit.
(2) Criteria governing issuance:
(b)
(a) Tree removal permit. No tree removal permit shall be issued unless the reviewing
environmental planner fords that a least one of the following criteria has been satisfied
with respect to each protected tree and each specimen tree designated for removal under
the permit Notwithstanding, no specimen-tree-er historic tree (as defined in Chapter 901)
shall be removed except as expressly approved by the board of county commissioners.
1. That the tree is located within an existing or proposed right-of-way;
2 That the tree is located within an existing or proposed easement, or stormwater
management tract, provided that only the minimum area necessary for the
contemplated service or use shall be considered under this criterion,
3. That the tree is located where its continued existence would unreasonably
interfere with the physical construction of the improvements on a particular site as
may result from interference with the access to the site by construction equipment,
or with the operation of the equipment on the site in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed structure or improvements;
4. That the tree is located where it creates or will create a safety or health hazard, or
a nuisance with respect to existing or proposed structures or vehicle or pedestrian
routes, and relocation of the tree on the site is not a feasible alternative;
5. That the tree is located where it interferes with the installation, delivery, or
maintenance of proposed or existing utility services to the site;
6. That the tree is diseased, injured, or in danger of falling;
7. That the tree is located on a portion of the site to be used for construction of
required parking areas or vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress areas;
provided that, when this criterion is used to justify removal of a tree or trees
located within required yard setback areas, the applicant shall replace any such
tree or trees with an equal number of trees of similar ecological or aesthetic value,
as determined by the environmental planner, unless it can be demonstrated by the
applicant that the remaining site cannot be designed to accommodate and sustain
the substituted tree or trees. All replacement trees shall be of a minimum four (4)
inches diameter -at -breast -height (dbh);
8. That the tree is located on a portion of the site where structural development is
proposed, provided reasonable effort has been made to preserve protected trees
and specimen trees to the extent feasible under this criterion.
Land -clearing permit. No land -clearing permit shall be issued unless the environmental
planner finds that each of the following criteria has been satisfied:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
72
•
•
•
1. That the land clearing or grubbing is necessary in order to make site
improvements, authorized by an approved site plan, subdivision approval,
building permit, or land development permit, and that the area to be cleared is the
minimum necessary for such work or, in the event the aforementioned approvals
are not required by law for the intended use of the property, that the proposed
clearing is the minimum necessary for the proposed use or improvement. Land
clearing or grubbing of a site associated with a proposed development plan (e.g.,
site plan or subdivision preliminary plat) shall not be allowed to occur prior to
county approval of the applicable development plan, except as specifically exempt
in section 927.06.
2. That the applicant has provided a reasonable, written plan to control erosion
which may be expected to occur as a result of the proposed clearing or grubbing.
The plan shall incorporate some or all of the following means as determined by
the applicant temporary seeding and mulching, sodding, diversion berms,
interceptor ditches, sediment barriers, sediment basins, and related appurtenances
or devices. All provisions of an erosion control plan shall be incorporated as
express conditions of the land -clearing permit issued and a violation of the
conditions or provisions of the plan shall be considered a violation of this chapter
and subject to all enforcement provisions. Environmental planning staff may
request written elaboration of a proposed plan prior to issuance of a permit in
order to clarify the nature and design of measures intended by the applicant.
3. That the applicant has provided verification of St. John River Water Management
District (SJRWMD) approval or exemption regarding the proposed land clearing
or grubbing activity.
4. That the applicant has or is complying with all tree protection provisions
contained elsewhere in this chapter.
A land -clearing perrnit does not authorize the removal or destruction of protected
trees, specimen trees, or historic trees. Notwithstanding anything in section
927.07 to the contrary, no tree removal or land clearing permit shall be construed
to authorize any act with respect to a mangrove.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
-
•
•
(c) Dune vegetation maintenance permit. Permits to trim dune vegetation shall be available
upon proper application in accordance with section 932 06(11) of Chapter 932, Coastal
Management, which conditions shall govem use of the permit. No permit shall be issued
for the removal of any native vegetation oceanward of the county Dune Stabilization
Setback Line (DSSL), with the exception of projects approved by the Flerida-Departnient
• • - - • - - ` '• Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
and when associated with a plan for dune revegetation and maintenance, as approved by
county environmental planning staff and FDNR FDEP, as applicable.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
73
deemed incorp rated as special permit. The removal of mangrove dead wood
shall be subject to the provisions of seetion 927.88(4). A violation of any these provisions shall be
(a) At least seventy five (75) percent of -the eanepy of any mangrove trees shall be retained.
(c) On a black mangrove, there shall he ne-eaging-er trimming below the lowest two (2)
(d) No mangrove cuttings shall be discarded zme-any estuary, marsh, river, or adjacent
Esc
ated to shaping-er hedging of the tree.
(f) All cuts shall be made -cleanly -and -at the base of the branch or limb cut, except when done
(1) A county mangrove alteration permit shall be required for the removal of mangrove dead wood.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 74
•
•
A minimum of Hefoet-ef dead -w ed shall be retained between each cut and remaining
as-ap1heahle7
•
•
•
(Ord. No. 90 16, § 1, 9 11 90; Ord. No. 91 18, § 14, 12 1 91)
Section 927.09. Additional dune and shoreline vegetation protection.
In addition to the provisions of this chapter, dune and shoreline vegetation shall be protected from
disturbance in accordance with the provisions of Section 932 06, Chapter 932, Coastal Management of the
County Land Development Code
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.10. Additional upland native vegetation protection.
Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection, of the County Land Development Code provides
standards and criteria relating to the protection of native plant communities, in addition to the provisions of
this chapter. No land clearing or tree removal activity shall be allowed to conflict with the provisions of
Chapter 929, including:
(1) Provisions pertaining to upland native plant community conservation areas, applicable to property
five (5) acres or larger in size;
(2) Provisions establishing a shoreline vegetation protection buffer zone along the St. Sebastian River
and Indian River Lagoon Aquatic Preserve;
(3) Provisions requiring the removal of nuisance exotic vegetation from development sites; and
(4) Provisions restricting the removal of upland native vegetation contributing to the stabilization of
the banks of canals, ditches, or natural water course, provided such restricts do not impede
maintenance of such water courses or drainage courses.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.11. Application procedure and fees.
(1) Application for issuance of any permit required by this chapter shall be made in writing to the
community development department on a form provided by environmental planning staff. The
form shall request all information necessary to evaluate a particular application including but not
limited to:
(a) A statement as to the applicant's interest in the property, proof of ownership, and agent
authorization from the property owner, as applicable.
(b)
(c)
A legal description of the property and a boundary survey or accurate scaled drawing
thereof.
A tree survey indicating which protected trees and specimen trees are intended for
removal, relocation or alteration in any way and those which will be left undisturbed. On
sites which are larger than two (2.0) acres, protected trees and specimen trees may be
depicted as a group or cluster rather than as individual trees, provided the group or cluster
is one which is to be either entirely removed or left entirely undisturbed. A written
explanation shall be included with the tree survey which identifies those criteria in section
927 07 of this chapter which justify issuance of the requested permit.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
75
9
In addition to the standard tree survey described above, a survey of species of spc Hal
concem, threatened, or endangered species shall be required on sites with character.: Hs
conducive to support such species, as identified by county environmental planning staff, in
accordance with Section 929.09 of Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection
(d) An erosion control plan as described in section 927.07 (2)(b)2, together with reasons for
clearing or grubbing of the site, if land clearing is intended.
(e) The application shall be submitted and processed concurrently with site plan review or
subdivision review, as the case may be, when such approvals are otherwise required to
make use of the property. The site plan or subdivision preliminary plat shall be prepared
in a manner to allow ready comparison with the tree survey, to assess whether the cited
criteria have been met. All items shown shall be properly dimensioned, scaled and
referenced to the property lines, and setback or yard requirements. If known, existing and
proposed site elevations and major contours shall be included.
(0 An administrative fee to offset the cost of evaluating the application shall be collected in
an amount determined by resolution of the board of county commissioners.
(2) The filing of an application shall be deemed to extend permission to the environmental planner to
inspect the subject property if necessary for purposes of evaluating the application.
(3) For those applications which are not being processed concurrently with site plan or subdivision
approval, the community development department shall have ten (10) working days following
receipt of a completed application within which to make a determination of whether a permit shall
be issued as requested. If the permit is not issued, the environmental planner shall state in writing
the reasons of denial and advise the applicant of any appeal remedies available If no action has
been taken on the application within stated time, the application shall be deemed to have been
approved, and the applicant shall be entitled to issuance of the permit in accordance with the
application. For good cause, the environmental planner may request an extension of an additional
ten (10) working days in which to make a determination, provided the extension is requested prior
to expiration of the initial ten-day period.
(4) Any permit issued hereunder shall remain valid for a term of one year and may be renewable for a
second one year period upon request to the environmental planner, provided said request occurs
prior to the expiration date of the initial permit. The environmental planner may require
reapplication and full review in those renewal cases where site conditions have changed
substantially from the date of issuance of the initial permit as a result of natural growth of trees and
vegetation, or high winds, hurricane, tornado, flooding, fire, or other act of God. If a permit
required by this chapter has been issued concurrently with site plan or subdivision approval, then
such permit shall run concurrently with the site plan or subdivision approval and shall be renewed
together therewith.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.12. Determination of preteeted-hies Critical Root Zone
•
•
•
•
•
•
relevant criteria, and shall be established
The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) is an area around a tree that is regulated by the Indian River County
Land Development Regulations for the purpose of protecting the roots and trunk of a protected tree or a
specimen tree, both during and after construction. It is a circular area using a radius measured from the
center of the tree. The radius is calculated as one (1) foot of radius for each one (1) inch of diameter at
breast height (4.5 feet above grade). For any fraction of a foot over a whole foot, the diameter at breast
height will be rounded up to the next whole number. Example: a tree has a diameter at breast height of
211/4 inches; the CRZ is a circle, centered on the center of the tree with a radius of 22 feet.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
76
nu
tit,
A'
In no event shall the protected ar a CRZ be less than an area measured five (5) feet radially from
the center of the tree at its base unless expressly determined by the environmental planner that a smaller
specified pea CRZ may be established. A tree well design shall be required as appropriate in
cases when the placement of fill threatens the viability of a protected tree or specimen tree to be preserved.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.13. Local permit not exclusive.
It is the intent of this chapter that permits or approval required hereunder shall be in addition to
and not in lieu of any federal, state, regional, or other local approvals which may be required for the same
or similar activities. In the event this chapter conflicts with any other regulations on this subject matter, the
more restrictive shall apply, with the exception that in a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall
prevail. Compliance with provisions of this chapter does not excuse any person for noncompliance with
other applicable federal, state, regional or local laws.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.14. Open burning/air curtain incinerator regulations referenced.
The provisions of Chapter 925, Open Buming/Air Curtain Incinerator Regulations, shall apply
regarding the burning of debris associated with land clearing and tree removal activities, as applicable.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.15. Variances and administrative appeals.
A variance from any of the substantive requirements of this chapter or an appeal of any
administrative determination made by the environmental planner may be obtained in accordance with the
procedures set forth for such relief under the land development regulations of Indian River County;
however, the planning and zoning commission of Indian River County shall be the board to which all such
variance requests or appeals are made.
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.16. Tree protection as justification for variance relief from other land development
regulations.
Inasmuch as the requirements of this chapter have been determined to be of vital importance to the
health, safety and well-being of the community, the desire to preserve a protected tree, whether mandated
by this chapter or not shall be considered prima facie a unique or special condition or circumstance
peculiar to the land involved for the purpose of application for a variance from the literal requirements of
land development regulations pertaining to building setbacks, parking space requirements, or minor or
residential street right-of-way widths, provided adjustments are made elsewhere on the site to preserve the
maximum permitted lot coverage and the total minimum number of parking spaces, and provided safety
precautions are taken to offset any hazard resulting from decreased right-of-way widths
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90)
Section 927.17. Penalties and enforcement.
(1) It shall be a violation of this Chapter for any person:
(a) to fail to obtain any permit required by this Chapter, or to violate or fail to comply with the
provisions of any permit issued under this Chapter,
(b) to, without a required permit, remove, destroy, or kill a protected tree(s);
(c) to, without a required permit, remove, destroy, or kill a specimen tree(s);
• to, without a required permit, perform any land clearing or grubbing;
• to, with or without a permit, not properly dispose of tree removal or land clearing debris;
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 77
rit
bit
1
•
e-:
ID to not .ro.erl install and maintain tree srotection barriers around each tree to be saved, or
ou.s of trees as described in Section 927.05(3
(2) The violation described in Section 927.17 1 c above shall be deemed
irreversible see Chaster 162.09 Florida Statutes .S.
An
of u
be
•
.erson who commits a violation s
to two hundred and fi
and a Code
an other fine and/or
•
ecified in
•
a
a
a
.
h
dollars for each da
$250.00
nforcement Board established date of com
s ecified b
.
enal
•
L4) An erson who commits a violation s
of one thousand dollars $1 000.00
under this Cha ter shall be considered a
•
•
o be irre
arable and
1 a above shall be sub ect to a fine
the violation continues to exist
liance. This fine can be in addition to
the Code of Indian River Coun
ecified in ara a 1
The removal destruction or lallin
se arate offense.
•
•
h
•
above shall be sub ect to a fine
of each rotected tree
L5� An
of u
s
•
.
•
•
erson who commits a violation s
o fifteen thousand dollars
ecimen tree under this Cha
In deterrninin
consider:
the fines
•
•
•
•
ecified in a h 1 c above shall be sub ect to a fine
$15 000.00. The removal destruction or killin of each
ter shall be considered a s- •arate offense.
•
ara
.
rovided for in this subsection the Code Enforcement Board shall
(a) the avi of the violation
(b) any actions taken by the violator to correct the violation and
(c) an revious violations committed b the violator.
An •erson who commits a violation s
of not less than one hundred dollars $100.00 and not eater than fifteen thouabove shall sand dollare sub.ect s
$15 000.00 er se arate offense. The amount of the fine shall be calculated as follows Sections
•
ecified in
h
1
•
ara
1
d
.
a and c
.
(a) For low .uali ve
land shall be char
ed. Low
a e vine
(b)
(
fine
etation removal a base fee of $0.25 er s uare foot of area ille • all cleared
uali ve etation enerall consists of slants such as do fennel
oose-foot ass or non-native ve etation such as Brazilian •e. ser.
•
For hi h
•
•
•
•
uali
ve
cleared land shall be char
such as •almettos alibe
etation removal a base fee of $0.50
ed. Hi h .uali ve etation
or wax m le.
) In the event that the uali
er s uare foot of area ille
•
.
•
er s all
enerall consists of native ve etation
.
uare foot of area ille
of ve • etation removed cannot be determined a base fee of $0.375
all cleared land shall be char ed.
d In addition to the above noted •enalties the area that was ille all cleared or on which
rotected trees or s ecimen trees were ille all removed shall be reve etated under the
following circumstances:
1. The .rose on which the ille al land clearin and/or tree removal occurred is five 5
acres or lar er and the area of ille al land clearin. and/or tree removal was done within
native upllands as defined in Section 929 05; or
2. The area of the ille al land clearin and/or tree removal was within a conservation
easement a conservation tract the Jun le Trail Buffer or other similar .rotected area.
Under circumstance 6 d 1. above the area of reve • etation shall be that area that would have
been re.uired to have been set aside as detailed in Section 929.05. No fee -in -lieu of a ent
will be accented
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
{
78
t
ff
•
Under circumstance (6)(d)2. above, the area of revegetation shall be that area where the illegal
activity occurred within the conservation, easement, the conservation tract, the Jungle Trail
Buffer, or other similar protected area.
The area shall be revegetated with plant material that is native to Florida, consistent with
surrounding plant material, and suitable for the area of revegetation. A revegetation plan must
be submitted and approved by Environmental Planning staff. This plan shall include:
• a Ian view showin . the areas of reve etation to in
• the e size and s • acin • of the • lants to be used
in proportion to that illegally cleared
• a schedule for completion and
• a maintenance plan to include success criteria for a
after after ration.
•
The •u •ose of the Reve
elude location of different s
cano
•
•
subcano
eriod of u
etation Plan is to establish a native slant conununi
For the lost of mature native
ected to survive and can be
commune destro ed b the ille • al active
the lar est plants that can reasonabl be ex
authorized for reve etation.
An
•
erson who commits a violation s
of two hundred and fi
the tree removal or land clearin
determined the fine shall start ten 10
notified in writin that the debris must be removed. If an extension has been
shall commence on the da after the end of the extension.
dollars
•
•
ecified in
$250.00
•
er
da
•
ara
a
startin
If the date of the commencement of activities cannot be
•
h
1
e
•
•
•
•
•
ecies•
ound cover
to three 3 ears
to re lace the lant
lant communities onl
•
•
rocured will be
above shall be sub ect to a fine
n the 6151 da after commencement of
da
s after the landowner and/or
in An
•
erson who commits a violation s
of two hundred and fi
installed and maintained
develo
an
•
ment activi
barriers are either im
develo
Coun
•
ment active
s
either im
dollars
•
rotect
be
erl
•
ecified in
$250.00
•
er da
p
ara
a
•
h
1
a
ent for the landowner is
anted the fine
above shall be sub ect to a fine
for each saved tree that does not have r
ve barriers installed. The fine shall commence on the date that
ro associated with the
erl
ns on the
.roinstalled or not installed at all. In the event that the date the
cannot be established the fine shall commence on the date that Indian River
taff has verified that develo
un and that the
•
•
e
•
ro ect and the
•
•
0
rotective
ro
erl
•
ment activi
installed or not installed at all.
has be
•
rotective barriers are
(99) Permits required by this Chapter may be obtained after -the -fact for land clearing and pro�or
s ecimen tree removal an;
s en ton determination
ahthe
Environmental Planner that such activities were performed inaccordancewi permit issuance
criteria specified in Section 927.07. The issuance of an after -the -fact permit abates the penalties
described in this Section for those actions or activities authorized b the after -the -fact .ermit The
fee for an after -the -fact permit shall be three (3) times the amount of the normal administrative fee
as provided for in Section 927.11(1)(f).
10 With respect to any violation of this Chapter, the owner of the property on which the violation
occurred is presumed to have undertaken, caused to be taken, or authorized the illegal activity.
The owner may present evidence proving that the presumption is incorrect in their his -et -lief case.
i11) A violation of any provision of this chapter shall be punishable
exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the county jailion
up to sixty (60)t
days,
or both such fine and imprisonment. The destruction or alteration of each tree or plant under this
chapter shall be considered a separate offense. The destruction of an historic or a specimen tree;
provided by law.
mer or any dune vegetation, contrary to this chapter shall receive the maximum penalty
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
79
1.. t
U11 ► [� . 1 13
•e
LI CI
(12) The county or any aggrieved party having a substantial interest in the protection provided by this
Chapter may apply directly to a court of competent junsdiction for mandatory or prohibitive
injunctive relief. In any enforcement proceeding, the adjudicating body may consider mitigating
measures voluntarily undertaken by the alleged violator such as replacement or relocation of trees
or vegetation, or other landscaping improvements, in fashioning its remedy. Such body may also
require such restorative measures.
3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of
such conflict. All special Acts of the Legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of the Indian
River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such
conflict.
4. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word `Ordinance' may
be changed to `section', `article', or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be
renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions.
5. Severability
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be
unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it
shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Flonda Secretary of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 28th day of October 2002, for a
public hearing to be held on the 12th of November, 2002, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner Gi nn and
adopted by the following vote:
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Nay
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Ay
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 12th da o
November ,2002. y
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Filed with the Florida Department of State on the
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM
412/4(
day of , 2002.
API R6VED)AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
/ y /ir
William G. Collins Robert M. Keating, AICP
Deputy County Attorney Community Development Director
Coding: Words in stfiketpreugh are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
9.A.3.PITBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 2002-031 AMENDING
EXISTING INTERIM REGULATIONS WHICH ESTABLISHED
NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR WIREI,ESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, AUTHORIZING THE
PROCESSING OF APPI,ICATIONS FOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACH,ITIFS IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH THE COITNTY'S WIRELESS FACILITY
MASTER PLAN. AMENDING THE FOI,I,OWING CHAPTERS OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGITI,ATIONS (LDRS); CHAPTER
911, ZONING; CHAPTER 971, REGITL,ATIONS FOR SPECIFIC
LAND USES (WIRELESS FACILITIES FINAL ORDINANCE. -
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WIRFI,FSS FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
(LEGISLATIVE}
PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 5, 2002:
TO: Honorable Members of the E:;ard of County Commissioners
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
7 1
U—
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
Stan Boling,
Planning Director
November 5, 2002
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
•
SUBJECT: Consideration of Amending Certain Sections of LDR Chapters 911 and
971 (Wireless Facilities Final Ordinance), and Approving the Indian River
County Wireless Facilities Master Plan
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board
of County Commissioners at its meeting of November 12, 2002.
BACKGROUND
On March 19, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) held its initial hearing
on an "interim ordinance' containing new regulations for wireless telecommunications
facilities. Subsequently, the Board, at a second hearing on April 2, 2002, adopted the
interim ordinance (Ordinance 2002-016) and terminated a moratorium that had been
placed on applications for new towers on new sites. That ` interim" ordinance is currently
in effect.
Since the interim ordinance was adopted, the county's wireless facilities consultant
(CityScape) and county staff have worked on development of a wireless facilities
inventory and master plan. In so doing, staff and Cityscape involved interested parties,
including wireless services providers, throughout the process of developing both the
master plan and the ordinance.
On August 13, 2002, the Board held a public workshop and reviewed a draft wireless
master plan. At that workshop, the Board directed staff to make various revisions, and
those revisions have been made. At its October 8, 2002 meeting, the Board reviewed the
revised master plan and indicated that it would adopt the plan in its final form. That plan
is now in final form and is attached
CityScape and staff have also developed a wireless facilities "final ordinance". The
proposed final ordinance was reviewed by the Professional Services Advisory Committee
(PSAC). At its September 19, 2002 meeting, the PSAC voted 6-0 to recommend that the
Board adopt the final ordinance (see attachment #2). The final ordinance was also
reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission which, at its October 10, 2002
meeting, voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board adopt the ordinance with some minor
changes. Those changes have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance. The
ordinance, which includes adjustments and modifications to the regulations adopted in
April via the interim ordinance, is now ready for the Board's review and adoption. In
addition to and in conjunction with the ordinance, the wireless facilities master plan is
presented in final form for approval.
The Board is now to consider the proposed LDR amendment ordinance and is to approve,
approve with revisions, or deny the proposed ordinance, and is to act on the wireless
master plan.
AiNALYSIS
Proposed Ordinance
The "interim ordinance" adopted in April was comprehensive and detailed Those
regulations generally tightened requirements on wireless facilities (towers), and included
a prohibition on new non -stealth towers on new sites in residential and rural residential
areas. All of the provisions contained in that ordinance are proposed to remain
Additions are proposed to address a few "new" issues that arose during review of the
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
83
master plan, and to address the publicly owned potential stealth facility sites designated
in the plan. The proposed ordinance (see attachment 4) adds some new provisions
described as follows.
1. The format of the Chapter 911 use tables has been modified to more clearly refer
to the wireless facilities regulations of LDR Section 971.44 (refer to ordinance pp.
1 - 10).
2. The relationship between the wireless facilities regulations and the wireless
master plan is more thoroughly addressed. The proposed ordinance establishes
the master plan designated potential sites as priorities in the facility/tower type
siting hierarchy contained m the existing regulations (pp. 11-12). Also, the
ordinance provides for a streamlined process (staff -level site plan approval) for
Board -approved master plan designated sites (pg. 37). In addition, the ordinance
exempts Board -approved stealth facilities not exceeding a height of 90 feet from
expert review requirements.
3. Certain new terms are defined, including: "Least Visually Obtrusive", "State of
the Art", and "Wireless Facilities Master Plan" (pp. 15 - 16).
4. The existing 971.44 provision allowing public safety wireless facilities as special
exception uses in any zoning district has been expanded to include special
exception review and approval for the height of such facilities. For example, the
county's 800 MHz public safety system could, under the expanded provision,
include a wireless facility over 150' tall if special exception use approval is
granted (pg. 20).
5. Applicants of new facilities will be required to use "state of the art" and "least
obtrusive technology" to ensure that new facilities have the least visual impact
that up-to-date technology can accommodate (pp. 28, 31-34).
6. Existing guyed towers will be allowed to be replaced with new (re -built) guyed
towers (pg. 30). This proposed provision is consistent with the current Chapter
971 allowance for rebuilding existing non -conforming non -wireless towers. Such
a provision is an incentive to build upgraded towers that are structurally safe, that
accommodate more users (through collocation), and that are built to support state -
of -the art facilities.
7. Fake trees will continue to be an option for stealth facilities, but will be limited in
height to 110% of the surrounding tree line in the area of the site (pg. 34). This
provision will ensure that any fake tree used will have an appropriate height to
blend -in with trees in the surrounding area.
These provisions will appropriately link the wireless facilities regulations with the
wireless master plan. The result is a complete set of wireless facilities regulations that
cover issues raised during development and review of the wireless master plan.
Impact On Housing Affordability
The proposed ordinance willhave no effect on residential projects. Therefore, there will
be no impact on housing affordability.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Wireless Master Plan
As previously stated, the Board reviewed the master plan at various stages in its
development Structured as a ten year plan the master plan should be periodically
updated to reflect actual wireless demand and deployment, and technological changes.
After the Board's review of the draft wireless facilities master plan on October 8,
CityScape and staff corrected wording, formatting ana typographical errors within the
plan. Besides the plan document itself, there is a separate document that consists of a
comprehensive inventory of existing tower facilities and tall structures, and publicly
owned potential sites for new stealth facilities. The inventory also includes an analysis of
the capacity of existing tower facilities for collocation and rebuilding.
The wireless master plan provides the basis (data and analysis) for policies and
regulations that are designed to meet estimated wireless communications demands and
meet the county's aesthetic and land use compatibility standards.
The main finding inthe plan is that collocation, rebuilding of existing facilities (towers),
and use of stealth facilities on private and publicly owned properties should meet most of
the wireless needs over the ten year planning period
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
(1) Adopt the attached wireless facilities "final ordinance", and
(2) Approve the attached wireless facilities master plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. March and April 2002 BCC Minutes on the Interim Ordinance
2. October 8, 2002 BCC Minutes on the Wireless Master Plan
3. October 10, 2002 PZC Minutes on the Final Ordinance
4. Pioposed Final Ordinance
5. wireless Facilities Master Plan & Inventory (Full Color Versions to be
Distributed 11/12/02)
Planning Director Stan Boling noted that staff is recommending approval of the Plan and
adoption of the Ordinance. He also stated that Susan Rabold from CityScape is here to answer
any questions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard
regarding this matter. There being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn emphasized that this is a very complicated issue and commended
CityScape for an excellent job. She felt the work involved in putting together the inventory was
absolutely amazing and the Plan and the Ordinance compliment each other very well.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 85 _„
Susan Rabold of CityScape thanked the Board for the opportunity and stated that the
experience has been a real pleasure. She stressed her thanks to staff for their comments,
critiques, and candid remarks, as well as their cooperation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the
Wireless Facilities Master Plan and adopted Ordinance 2002-031
amending existing interim regulations which established new
requirements for Wireless Telecommunications Facilities,
authorizing the processing of applications for Wireless
Telecommunications Facilities in a manner consistent with the
County's Wireless Facility Master Plan, amending the following
chapters of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs); Chapter
911; Zoning, Chapter 971, Regulations for Specific land Uses; and
providing for repeal of conflicting provisions, codification,
severability and effective date.
MASTER PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO 7 HE BOARD
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-031
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING EXISTING INTERIM REGULATIONS WHICH
ESTABLISHED NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, AUTHORIZING THE
PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH THE COUNTY'S WIRELESS FACILITY
MASTER PLAN. AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER
911, ZONING CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND
USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE
AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
A portion of the Section 911.06(4) table for agricultural and rural districts is
hereby amended to read as follows:
P - Permitted use
A - Administrative permit use
S - Special exception use
* See 971.44(4) to determine whether the Administrative Permit or Special exception use
process applies.
'The requirements of section 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures Chapter,
shall apply to towers.
2For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4 use table.
B. A portion of the Section 911.07(4) table for single-family residential districts
is hereby amended to read as follows:
District
District
Uses
A-1
A-2
A-3
RFD
RS -1
Transportation and Utilities
Communications
Airports and airstrips
A
S
S
S
S
l
Communications
l
facilities)
towers
(wireless
A/S 2
A/S 2
A/S 2
A 2
A 2
facilities)
radio (accessory use)
Amateur
Amateur
Less than 80 feet
Communications towers (Non -wireless
facilities) -2
p
p
p
Amateur radio (accessory use)
Less than 80 feet
P
P
P
P
P
80 feet or taller (see 971.44(4) for
special critena)
S
S
S
S
S
Commercial
Up
to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
P
P
P
P
P
Non -camouflaged
P
P
P
-
-
70 feet to 150 feet:
Camouflaged
A
A
A
A
A
Monopole (minimum of 2 users)
A
A
A
-
-
Not camouflaged and not monopole
A/S*
A/S*
A/S*
-
-
Over 150 feet
All
Special
tower types (see 971.44(1) for
criteria)
-
S
S
-
-
P - Permitted use
A - Administrative permit use
S - Special exception use
* See 971.44(4) to determine whether the Administrative Permit or Special exception use
process applies.
'The requirements of section 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures Chapter,
shall apply to towers.
2For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4 use table.
B. A portion of the Section 911.07(4) table for single-family residential districts
is hereby amended to read as follows:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
District
Uses
RS -2
RS -3
RS -6
RT -6
Utility
Communications
towers (wireless
A
l
A
l
A
l
A
l
facilities)
Communications towers (Non -
wireless facilities) 4 -
radio (accessory use)
Amateur
Amateur
Less than 80 feet
p
p
p
p
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Commercial
Up to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
Non -camouflaged
70 feet to 150 feet.
Camouflaged
Monopole (minimum of 2
Users)
Not camouflaged and not
monopole
Over 150 feet:
P - Permitted use
A - Administrative permit use
S - Special Exception Use
'For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4 use table.
C. A portion of the Section 911.08(4) table for multiple -family residential
districts is hereby amended to read as follows:
District
Utility
Communications towers (wireless
facilities)
Communications towers (Non -
wireless facilities) 4 -
Amateur
Amateur radio (accessory use)
Less than 80 feet
80 feet or taller 971.44(4)
(see for special critena)
Commercial
Up to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
Non -camouflaged
70 feet to 150 feet:
Camouflaged
Monopole (minimum of 2
users)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Not camouflaged and not
monopole
Over 150 feet:
All tower types (see 971.44(1) for
Special criteria)
P - Permitted use
A - Administrative permit use
S - Special exception use
!For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5) Section 4 use table.
A portion of the section 911.09(4) table for mobile home districts is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Districts
Communications towers wireless facilities
Communications towers (Non -wireless facilities)
Amateur radio (accessory use)
Less than 80 feet
Up to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
Non -camouflaged
70 feet to 150 feet
Camouflaged
Monopole (minimum of 2 users)
Not camouflaged and not monopole
Over 150 feet:
All tower types (see 971.44(1) for special criteria)
P - Permitted use
A - Administrative permit use
S - Special exception use
1For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4 use table
A portion of the Section 911.10(4) table for commercial districts is hereby
amended to read as follows:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
80 feet or taller (see
971.44(4) for special
criteria)
Commercial
Up to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
Non -camouflaged
70 feet to 150 feet
Camouflaged
Monopole (minimum
of 2 users)
Not camouflaged and
not monopole
Over 150 feet:
All tower types (see
971.44(1) for special
criteria)
P = Permitted use
A = Administrative permit use
S = Special exception use
No industrial use shall be permitted in the CH district unless public sewer service
is provided to the subject property.
The requirements of section 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures
Chapter, shall apply to towers less than 70'.
Standards for unpaved vehicle storage lots are found in section 954.08(6).
For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4
use table
A portion of the Section 911.11(4) table for industrial districts is hereby
amended to read as follows:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
District
Uses
PRO
OCR
MED
CN
CL
CG
CH'
Communications
towers
A 4
A4
A 4
A 4
f14
A 4
A4
(wireless facilities)
Conununicat'ons towers
(Non -wireless facilities) 4
Amateur radio (accessory
use)
Less than 80
feet
80 feet or taller (see
971.44(4) for special
criteria)
Commercial
Up to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
Non -camouflaged
70 feet to 150 feet
Camouflaged
Monopole (minimum
of 2 users)
Not camouflaged and
not monopole
Over 150 feet:
All tower types (see
971.44(1) for special
criteria)
P = Permitted use
A = Administrative permit use
S = Special exception use
No industrial use shall be permitted in the CH district unless public sewer service
is provided to the subject property.
The requirements of section 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures
Chapter, shall apply to towers less than 70'.
Standards for unpaved vehicle storage lots are found in section 954.08(6).
For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4
use table
A portion of the Section 911.11(4) table for industrial districts is hereby
amended to read as follows:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
District
Communications towers (wireless facilities)
Communications towers (Non -wireless facilities)
Amateur radio (accessory use)
Less than 80 feet
80 feet or taller (see 971.44(4) for special criteria)
Commercial
Up to 70 feet
Camouflaged
Non -camouflaged
70 feet to 150 feet:
Camouflaged
Monopole (minimum of 2 users)
Not camouflaged and not monopole
Over 150 feet:
All tower types (see 971.44(1) for special criteria)
P= Permitted use
A= Administrative permit use
S= Special exception use
'The requirements of section 917.06(11) of the accessory uses and structures chapter,
shall apply to towers less than seventy (70) feet.
2For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4 use table.
* See 971.44(4) to determine whether the Administrative Permit or Special exception use
process applies.
A portion of the Section 911.12(4) table for conservation districts is hereby
amended to read as follows:
District
Communications towers (wireless facilities)
Communications towers (Non -wireless facilities)
Amateur radio (accessory use)
Less than 80 feet
80 feet or taller (see 971.44(4) for special criteria)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Commercial
Up to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
Non -camouflaged
70 feet to 150 feet:
Camouflaged
Monopole (minimum of 2 users)
Not camouflaged and not monopole
Over 150 feet:
All tower types (see 971.44(1) for special criteria)
P= Permitted
A= Administrative permit use
S= Special exception
'All planned developments shall be reviewed and approved pursuant to the requirements
of Chapter 915, Planned Development.
2For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4 use table.
* See 971.44(4) to determine whether the Administrative Permit or Special exception use
process applies.
A portion of the Section 911.13(2) table for special districts is hereby
amended to read as follows:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
District
Uses
R-BCID
Communications
towers
(wireless
facilities)
A 2
Communications towers (Non -wireless
facilities)
Amateur radio (accessory use)
Less than 80 feet
p
80 feet or taller (see 971.44(4) for special
criteria)
S
Commercial
Up to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
P
Non -camouflaged
_
70 feet to 150 feet:
Camouflaged
A
Monopole (minimum of 2 users)
-
Not camouflaged and not monopole
-
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Over 150 feet:
All tower types (see 971.44(1)
special criteria)
P= Permitted
A= Administrative permit
S= Special exception
shall apply to towers
'The requirements of section 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures Cha
pter,
2For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4use table.
r
A portion of the Section 911.1;.?; <i v ;•, ,. _
amended to read as follows: zai districts is hereby
District
Public and private utilities (limited)
Communications towers (wireless facilities
Communications towers (Non -wireless
facilities "-
Amateur
Amateur radio (accessory use)
Less than 80 feet
80 feet or taller (see 971.44(4) for special
criteria)
Commercial
Up to 70 feet:
Camoufla • ed
Non -camouflaged
70 feet to 150 feet:
Camoufla. ed
P= Permitted
A= Administrative permit
S= Special exception
1For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4�table
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
A portion of the Section 911.13
amended to read as follows:
c ecial districts is hereby
P= Permitted
A= Administrative permit
S= Special exception
'The requirements of section 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures Chapter,
shall apply to towers.
2For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4 use table.
The introduction portion of Section 971.44(1) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(1) Non -wireless commercial communications towers seventy(70) feet or more in
height (administrative permit and special exception). NOTE: Wireless facilities
are regulated under section 971.44(5)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 94
District
Uses
AIR -1
Transportation and Utility Uses
Airstrips
P
Public and private utilities, limited
S
Communications
towers
(wireless facilities)
A 2
Communications towers (Non -wireless
facilities)
Amateur radio (accessory use)
Less than 80 feet
P
80 feet or taller (see 971.44(4) for
special criteria)
S
Commercial
Up to 70 feet:
Camouflaged
-
Non -camouflaged
-
70 feet to 150 feet:
Camouflaged
-
Monopole (minimum of 2 users)
-
Not camouflaged and not monopole
-
Over 150 feet:
All
special
tower types (see 971.44(1) for
criteria)
-
P= Permitted
A= Administrative permit
S= Special exception
'The requirements of section 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures Chapter,
shall apply to towers.
2For wireless commercial facilities regulations, see section 971.44(5), Section 4 use table.
The introduction portion of Section 971.44(1) is hereby amended to read as
follows:
(1) Non -wireless commercial communications towers seventy(70) feet or more in
height (administrative permit and special exception). NOTE: Wireless facilities
are regulated under section 971.44(5)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 94
•
L. LDR subsection 971.44(5) is hereby created, to read as follows:
"(5) Wireless commercial communications facilities (staff -level approval, administrative
permit, and special exception)
Sec. 1 Purpose and Intent and Siting Alternatives Hierarchy.
The purpose and intent of these regulations are to:
(a) Promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public by regulating the
siting of wireless communication facilities, including satellite earth stations;
and
(b) Minimize the impacts of wireless communication facilities on surrounding
areas by establishing standards for location, structural integrity and
compatibility; and
(c) Encourage the location and collocation of wireless communication equipment
on existing structures thereby minimizing new visual, aesthetic and public
safety impacts, effects upon the natural environment and wildlife, and to
reduce the need for additional antenna -supporting structures; and
(d) Accommodate the growing need and demand for wireless communication
services; and
(e) Encourage coordination between suppliers of wireless communication services
in Indian River County; and
(f) Respond to the policies embodied in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 in
such a manner as not to unreasonably discriminate between providers of
functionally equivalent personal wireless service or to prohibit or have the
effect of prohibiting personal wireless service in the County, and
(g) Establish predictable and balanced regulations governing the construction and
location of wireless communications facilities, within the confines of
permissible local regulation, and
(h) (h) Establish review procedures to ensure that applications for wireless
communications facilities are reviewed and acted upon within a reasonable
period of time.
(i) Encourage the construction of new wireless communications facilities in
accordance with the Indian River County Wireless Facilities Master Plan.
Siting of a Wireless Communications Facility shall be in accordance with the following
siting alternatives hierarchy:
1. Facilities to be Located in areas identified in the Wireless Facility Master Plan
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
95
FF
a.
�Y4
a. Collocation on Existing Antenna Supporting Structure;
b. Attached Wireless Communications Facility;
c. Replacement of Existing Antenna Support Structure;
d• Stealth Wireless Communications Facility
e• New Antenna Support Structure,
f. The order of ranking, from highest to lowest, shall be a, b, c, d and e.
Where a lower ranked alternative is proposed, the applicant must file an
affidavit demonstrating that despite diligent efforts to adhere to the
established hierarchy w ithin the Geographic Search Area, as determined
by a qualified radio frequency engineer, higher ranked options are not
feasible." Notwithstanding the foregoing, any Facility to be located on
County owned property identified in the Wireless Facility Master Plan
shall be a Stealth Wireless Communications Facility.
2. Facilities not located in areas not identified in the Wireless Facility Master Plan
a. Collocation on Existing Antenna Supporting Structure;
b. Attached Wireless Communications Facility;
c• Replacement of Existing Antenna Support Structure;
d. Stealth Wireless Communications Facility
e. New Antenna Support Structure;
f. The order of ranking, from highest to lowest, shall be a, b, c, d and e.
Where a lower ranked alternative is proposed, the applicant must file an
affidavit demonstrating that despite diligent efforts to adhere to the
established hierarchy w ithin the Geggraphic Search Area, as determined
by a qualified radio frequency engineer, higher ranked options are not
feasible.
Sec. 2 Definitions.
For the purposes of this division, the terms and phrases listed below shall have the
following meanings:
(A -I) Ancillary Structures means forms of development associated with a wireless
communications facility, including but not limited to: foundations, concrete
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
3,4
r,.
Ms
N:F
e
•
slabs on grade, guy wire anchors, generators, and transmission cable
supports; however, specifically excluding equipment enclosures.
(A-2) Anti -Climbing Device means a piece or pieces of equipment which are
either attached to antenna -supporting structure, or which are free-standing
and are designed to prevent people from climbing the structure. These
devices may include but are not limited to fine mesh wrap around structure
legs, "squirrel -cones", the removal of climbing pegs on monopole
structures, or other approved devices, but excluding the use of barbed wire.
(A-3) Antenna means any apparatus designed for the transmitting and/or
receiving of electromagnetic waves that includes but is not limited to
telephonic, radio or television communications Types of antennas include,
but are not limited to: omni -directional (whip) antennas, sectorized (panel)
antennas, multi or single bay (FM & TV), yagi, or parabolic (dish)
antennas.
(A-4) Antenna Array means a single or group of antennas and their associated
mounting hardware, transmission lines, or other appurtenances which share
a common attachment device such as a mounting frame or mounting
support.
(A
(A-
(B-
-5) Antenna -Supporting Structure means a vertical projection composed of
metal, wood, or other substance with or without a foundation that is for the
express purpose of accommodating antennas at a desired height above
grade. Antenna -supporting structures do not include any device used to
attach antennas to an existing building, unless the device extends above the
highest point of the building by more than twenty (20) feet.
6) Attached Wireless Communication Facility means an antenna or antenna
array that is attached to an existing building with any accompanying pole
or device which attaches it to the building, transmission cables, and an
equipment enclosure, which may be located either inside or outside of the
existing building. An attached wireless communications facility is
considered to be an accessory use to the existing principal use on a site.
1) Breakpoint Technology means the engineering design of a monopole
wherein a specified point on the monopole is designed to have stresses at
least 5% greater than any other point along the monopole, including the
anchor bolts and baseplate, so that in the event of a weather induced failure
of the monopole, the failure will occur at the breakpoint rather than at the
baseplate or any other point on the monopole.
(C-1) Colocation means a situation in which two or more different wireless
communication service providers place wireless communication antenna or
antennas on a common antenna -supporting structure. The term colocation
shall not be applied to a situation where two or more wireless
communications service providers independently place equipment on an
existing building.
(C-2) Conical Zone means an area that
Horizontal Zone with a radius
hundred eighty (5,280) feet.
(D-1) Development Area means the
facility including areas
supporting structure's E
structures, and access ways.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
extends outward from the outer edge of the
distance equivalent to five thousand two
area occupied by a wireless communications
:Ander the following: an ant :t na-.
ent enclosures, anc:i=rr;
97
1
Cu
1
(E-1) Equipment Enclosure means any structure above the base flood elevation
including: cabinets, shelters (pre -fabricated or otherwise), pedestals, and
other similar structures. Equipment enclosures are used exclusively to
contain radio or other equipment necessary for the transmission or
reception of wireless conununication signals and not for the storage of
equipment nor as habitable space.
(F-1) FAA means the Federal Aviation Administration
(F-2) FCC means the Federal Communications Commission.
(G-1) Guyed means a style of antenna -supporting structure consisting of a single
truss assembly composed of sections with bracing incorporated. The
sections are attached to each other, and the assembly is attached to a
foundation and supported by a series of guy wires that are connected to
anchors placed in the ground or on a building.
(G-2) Glide Path means a ratio equation used for the purposes of limiting the
overall height of vertical projections in the vicinity of private airports. The
ratio limits each foot of height for a vertical projection based upon a
horizontal distance measurement.
(G-3) Geographic Search Area means an area designated by a wireless provider
or operator for a new base station facility, produced in accordance with
generally accepted principles of wireless engineering.
(H-1) Horizontal Zone means an area longitudinally centered on the perimeter of
a private airport's runway that extends outward from the edge of the
primary surface a distance equivalent to five thousand two hundred and
eighty (5,280) feet.
(L-1) Lattice means a style of antenna -supporting structure that consists of
vertical and horizontal supports with multiple legs and cross -bracing, and
metal crossed strips or bars to support antennas.
(L-2) Least Visually Obtrusive means a proposed facility that is designed to
present a visual profile that is the minimum profile necessary for the
facility to properly function.
(M-1) Monopole means a style of free-standing antenna -supporting structure that
is composed of a single shaft usually composed of two or more hollow
sections that are in turn attached to a foundation. This type of antenna -
supporting structure is designed to support itself without the use of guy
wires or other stabilization devices. These structures are mounted to a
foundation that rests on or in the ground or on a building's roof.
(P-1) Personal Wireless Service means commercial mobile services, unlicensed
wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services
as defined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
(P-2) Primary Surface means the area extending a distance of fifty (50) feet to
both sides of the centerline of a private airport's runway, and running the
distance of the runway.
(P-3) Public Antenna -Supporting Structure means an antenna -supporting
structure, appurtenances, equipment enclosures, and all associated ancillary
structures used by a public body or public utility for the purno,es of
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
98
t� n
02
transmission and/or reception of wireless communication signals associated
with but not limited to: public education, parks and recreation, fire and
police protection, public works, and general government.
(R-1) Radio Frequency Emissions means any electromagnetic radiation or other
communications signal emitted from an antenna or antenna -related
equipment on the ground, antenna -supporting structure, building, or other
vertical projection.
(R-2) Replacement means the construction of a new antenna -supporting structure
built to replace an existing antenna -supporting structure.
(S-1) Satellite Earth Station means a single or group of satellite parabolic (or
dish) antennas. These dishes are mounted to a supporting device that may
be a pole or truss assembly attached to a foundation in the ground, or in
some other configuration. A satellite earth station may include the
associated separate equipment enclosures necessary for the transmission or
reception of wireless communications signals with satellites.
(S-2)
)
State
level
of the Art as used
of facilities,
technical
herein
shall
performance,
mean
existing technology where
capacity, equipment,
the
components
and
service are equal
to
that
developed
and
demonstrated
to
be
more technologically advanced
than
generally available
for comparable
service
in
the
State
of
Flonda.
(and type
accepted
by
the
FCC) (for
example a combining system
of antennas
wherein
different
utilize
the
same set of
antenna elements to
transmit
separate
signals)—
providers
It
shall also mean a facility which presents the least visually obtrusive profile
g'ven the proposed location topography, adjacent structures and size of the
proposed facility.
{S 2S-3) Stealth Wireless Communications Facility means a wireless
communications facility, ancillary structure, or equipment enclosure that is
not readily identifiable as such, and is designed to blend into its
surroundings and be aesthetically compatible with existing and proposed
uses on a site and the surrounding area. A stealth facility may have a
secondary function. Examples of stealth facilities include, but are not
limited to the following: church steeple, bell tower, spire, clock tower,
cupola light standard, flagpole with a flag, or tree.
[W-1) Wireless Communications means any personal wireless service, which
includes but is not limited to, cellular, personal communication services
(PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio
(ESMR), and paging.
(W-2) Wireless C ommunication Facility (WCF) means a ny s taffed o r u nstaffed
commercial facility for the transmission and/or reception of radio
frequency signals, or other wireless communications, and usually
consisting of an antenna or group of antennas, transmission cables, and
equipment e nclosures, a nd in ay i nclude an antenna -supporting s tructure
The following developments shall be considered as a Wireless
Communication Facility: developments containing new or existing
antenna -supporting structures, public antenna -supporting structures,
replacement antenna -supporting structures, collocations on existing
antenna -supporting structures, attached wireless communications
facilities, stealth wireless communication facilities, and satellite earth
stations.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
99
•
nit f j
DO, 1 L. ;
,n
(CI
Irl
Wireless Facilities Master Plan means the Master Plan referred to in
Section 8 herein
below which has been ado
and which serves as a tool for anal ',
Communications Facilities in Indian River Conn
Sec. 3 Applicability.
(a) Except as provided for in subsection (b) below, this section shall apply to
development activities including installation, construction, or modification to
the following wireless communications facilities:
(1) Existing antenna -supporting structures; and
(2) Proposed antenna -supporting structures; and
(3) Public antenna -supporting structures; and
(4) Replacement of existing antenna -supporting structures; and
(5) Colocation on existing antenna -supporting structures; and
(6) Attached wireless communications facilities; and
(7) Stealth wireless communications facilities; and
of new Wireless
(b) The following items are exempt from the provisions of this section
[971.44(5)), notwithstanding any other provisions contained in land use
regulations of Indian River County:
(1) Amateur radio antenna supporting structures and antennas as provided
in Florida Statutes 125.561
(2) Satellite earth stations that are two (2) meters or less in diameter and
which are not greater than thirty-five (35) feet above grade; and
(3) Regular maintenance of any existing wireless communications facility
that does not include the placement of a new wireless communications
facility; and
(4) The substitution or change of existing antennas or antenna panels or
other equipment on an existing antenna -supporting structure provided
the substituted antennas or equipment meet building code requirements
(including windloading) and provided such change does not increase
the overall height of the structure; and
(5) Any existing or proposed antenna -supporting structure, antenna or
antenna arrays with an overall height of thirty-five (35) feet or less
above ground level in non-commercial or non -industrial zoning
districts or seventy (70) feet or less above ground level in commercial
or industrial zoning districts; and
(6) A government-owned wireless communications facility, upon the
declaration of a state of emergency by federal, state, or local
government, and a written determination of public necessity by the
Director of Public Safety; except that such facility must comply with
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
all federal and state requirements. No wireless communications
facility shall be exempt from the provisions of this division beyond the
duration of the state of emergency.
(7) Antenna supporting structures, antennas and/or antenna arrays for non -wireless
communications facilities such as AM/FM/TV/DTV Broadcasting transmission facilities
which are licensed by the Federal Communications Commissions and regulated in
accordance with LDR Section 971.44(1) and Section 917.06 of the Land Development
_vitiations.
Words in st hp through
are deletions �� .,::. c;..=;;:.:� , . �� • �• � underlined are additions.
ORDINANCE 2002-031 11-15-02.doc
.nunity Development\Users\CurDev\ORi�;t,,:
Sec. 4 Uses by Land Use District.
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) below, no wireless communications
facility shall be allowed in a particular zoning district except in accordance
with the table below.
Rose -4
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
pprova
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff' Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
an Approva
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Special Exception
Special Exception
Special Exception
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
"Note: A -i zoned property within the Urban Service Area, A-1 zoned property lying South of S.R. 60 and East of 66th Avenue, and A -I
zoned property lying between S.R. 60 and C.R. 510 and East of 74'" Avenue. shall be treated the same as RFD zoned property for the purposes
of this Section.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
and Use
istrict
Colocation
Attached Facility
Replacement
Existing
Support
of
Antenna
Structure
Stealth Facility
New Non -stealth
Facility
-1 *
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Adm. Permit
Special Exception
-2
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Adm. Permit
Special Exception
-3
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Adm. Permit
Special Exception
D
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
S-1
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
S-2
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
DC 2
c._cc e______1
n. „
Rose -4
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
pprova
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff' Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
an Approva
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Staff Approval
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Adm. Permit
Special Exception
Special Exception
Special Exception
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Prohibited
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
Adm. Permit
Prohibited
"Note: A -i zoned property within the Urban Service Area, A-1 zoned property lying South of S.R. 60 and East of 66th Avenue, and A -I
zoned property lying between S.R. 60 and C.R. 510 and East of 74'" Avenue. shall be treated the same as RFD zoned property for the purposes
of this Section.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
149.
r_{
(b) (b) Within all districts that the above table shows as "Prohibited" , new
antenna -supporting structures not limited in height as otherwise provided
herein may be permitted as a special exception use, provided that the antenna -
supporting structure is owned by Indian River County and is used primarily
for county public safety communications, in accordance with the adopted
wWireless Faciity Mriaster pPlan (see section 8, below). Such public safety
communications facilities are not subject to the 150 foot height limitation as
set forth m these regulations.
Sec. 5. Development Standards.
These standards shall apply to the following types of Wireless Communications
Facilities:
(a) New Non -stealth Antenna Supporting Structures.
(1) Approval criteria for new antenna -supporting structures:
a. Setbacks
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
1. Any new antenna -supporting structures, equipment
enclosures and ancillary structures shall meet the
minimum setback requirements for the land use district
where they are located, except that where the minimum
setback distance for an antenna supporting structure
from any property line is less than the height of the
proposed antenna -supporting structure, the minimum
setback distance shall be increased to equal the height
of the proposed antenna supporting structure., unless
the antenna -supporting structure has been constructed
using "breakpoint" design technology, in which case
the minimum setback distance shall be equal to 110%
of the distance from the top of the structure to the
"breakpoint" level of the structure. For example, on a
150 foot tall monopole with a "breakpoint" at 100 feet,
the minimum setback distance would be 55 feet (110%
of 50 feet, the distance from the top of the monopole to
the "breakpoint". However, in all instances, the
minimum setback distance from any occupied residence
shall be at least 300% of the height of the entire
proposed structure. Certification by a Florida
professional engineer of the "breakpoint design and
the design's fall radius must be provided together with
the other information required herein from an applicant.
b. Height.
The overall height of any antenna -supporting structure,
antenna and/or antenna array, excluding those related to
amateur radio, shall not be greater than one -hundred and
fifty (150) feet. Height for all purposes in this Section shall
mean the linear distance from the ground to the highest
physical point on the Wireless Communications Facility,
except for one vertical structure less than 4 inches in
diameter which extend no more than ten (10) feet above the
antenna support structure, antenna, and antenna array and
matches the color of the antenna and support structure.
102
1.15
AR
•
nfr
c. Construction.
New antenna -supporting structures shall have a monopole
type construction only, and shall not be guyed or have a
lattice type construction (except as provided in Section
5(b)(1) d.
d. Structural Integrity.
1. The entire antenna -supporting structure and all
appurtenances shall be designed pursuant to the wind
speed design requirements of ASCE 7-95, including
any subsequent modification to those specifications;
and applicable building code requirements; and
2. The new antenna -supporting structure shall be designed
to accommodate the maximum amount of wireless
communications equipment, including that of other
wireless communication service providers. The exact
amount of potential additional equipment to be
accommodated shall be agreed upon during a pre -
application conference and recorded in the Letter of
Understanding resulting from the conference. In all
cases, the minimum number of collocated facilities on a
new antenna -supporting s tructure between 80 and 119
feet tall shall be two (2), and for a structure between
120 and 150 feet tall shall be three (3).
Lighting.
New antenna -supporting structures shall be illuminated in
accordance with FAA requirements to provide aircraft
obstruction lighting, where required. Any such illumination
shall be by red lighting unless otherwise directed by the
FAA. Louvers or shields may be required by the county to
keep lighting from shining down on surrounding properties.
f. Colocation Feasibility.
1. No antenna -supporting structure shall be permitted
unless the applicant demonstrates that no existing
wireless communications facility can accommodate the
applicant's proposed facility; or that use of such
existing facilities would prohibit personal wireless
services in the area of the County to be served by the
proposed antenna -supporting structure.
2. Evidence submitted to demonstrate that no existing
wireless communications facility could accommodate
the applicant's proposed facility may consist of any of
the following:
(i) No existing wireless communications facilities
are located within the search radius used by the
a licant in accordance with • enerall
en neenn rinci les for either ca acit or
coverage objectives that meet the applicant's
engineering requirements.
1
acce
ted
•
1
Fi
NOVEMBER 1 2002
103
17,
g. Color.
y
(ii) Existing wireless communications facilities are
not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's
engineering requirements.
(iii)Existing wireless communications facilities do
not have sufficient structural strength to support
the applicant's proposed wireless
communications facilities and related
equipment.
(iv)The applicant demonstrates that there are other
limiting factors that render existing wireless
communications facilities unsuitable.
New antenna -supporting structures shall maintain a
galvanized gray finish or other accepted contextual or
compatible color, except as required by federal rules or
regulations.
h. Radio Frequency Emissions.
The radio frequency emissions shall comply with FCC
standards for such emissions
Intensity Requirements.
1. The following shall be considered as development area
and shall be required to meet the setbacks and open
space ratio requirements for the land use district and/or
habitat where they are located
(i) The area beneath all equipment enclosures; plus
(ii) The area of the antenna -supporting structure
foundation at or above grade; plus
(iii) The area beneath ancillary structures; plus
(iv) The area inside the antenna -supporting structure
framework
j. Security.
Suitable protective anti -climb fencing with a minimum
height of eight (8) feet, and/or anti -climbing devices shall
be required to preserve security on wireless communication
facilities and structures.
k. Landscaping.
An average of one canopy tree (minimum height of twelve
(12) feet with six-foot spread at time of planting) and two (2)
understory trees (minimum height of eight (8) feet at time of
planting) s hall b e provided for e very thirty (30) feet o f t he
tower base/accessory structures' opaque fenced perimeter.
Credit shall be g iven for existing trees located b etween the
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
104
•
v
tower base perimeter and adjacent areas that are being
buffered. The required trees shall be planted in a pattern to
maximize s creeping o f t he b ase area o f t he t ower from t he
view of adjacent road rights-of-way and adjacent
residentially designated or residentially used properties
Trees credited or planted to meet this screening requirement
shall be located on property under the control of the applicant
to ensure that the screening trees are preserved and
maintained. Shrubs and understory trees used to make the
fencing opaque shall be planted on the outside fence
perimeter. Alternative landscaping plans which provide for
the same average canopy and understory trees but propose
alternative siting on the parent tract of the proposed facility
may be considered a nd approved b y the P brining Director,
provided the proposed alternative maximizes screening as
provided above.
1. Signage.
The only signage that is permitted upon an antenna -
supporting structure, equipment enclosures, or fence (if
applicable) s hall b e i nformational, and for the p urpose o f
identifying the antenna -supporting structure, (such as ASR
registration number) as well as the party responsible for the
operation and maintenance of the facility, its current
address and telephone number, security or safety signs, and
property manager signs (if applicable). If more than two
hundred twenty (220) voltage is necessary for the operation
of the facility and is present in a ground gnd or in the
tower, signs located every twenty (20) feet and attached to
the fence or wall shall display in large, bold, high contrast
letters (minimum height of each letter: four (4) inches)
the following: "HIGH VOLTAGE - DANGER."
m. Aircraft Obstruction.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
In addition to the provisions of Section 5(a)(1)(�b above,
the overall height of a new antenna -supporting structure
located in the vicinity of a private airport shall be limited
by the following:
(i) A 35:1 glide path ratio in the Horizontal Zone
limiting the heights of new antenna -supporting
structures, antennas and/or antenna arrays to one
hundred fifty (150) feet within one (1) statutory
mile (5 280 feet) from the edge of the private
airport primary surface; and
(ii) A 12:1 glide path ratio in the Conical Zone
limiting the heights of new antenna -supporting
structures to six hundred (600) feet within one
(1) statutory mile (5,280 feet) from the e dge of
the Horizontal Zone.
105
n1(
tit
•
•
�r�
(iii) This subsection shall NOT apply to any structure
proposed to be located within the Airport
Overlay Zone as set forth in Section 911.17 of
this Code, which provisions shall supercede
those of this subsection (m)
n. Adverse Effects on Adjacent Properties
1. New antenna -supporting structures shall be configured
and located in a manner that shall minimize adverse
effects including visual impacts on adjacent properties.
The applicant shall demonstrate that alternative
Locations, configurations, and facility types have been
examined and shall address in narrative form the
feasibility of any alternatives that may have fewer
adverse effects on adjacent properties than the facility,
configuration, and location proposed.
2. The following attributes shall be considered from
vantage points at adjacent properties, roadways and
occupied structures:
(i) Height and location; and
(ii) Mass and scale; and
(iii) Materials and color; and
(iv) Illumination; and
(v) Existing and proposed vegetation and
intervening structures.
An applicant shall demonstrate through the photo -
simulation requirements under Subsection (2)(j) h ereinbelow that
the project design employs each of these attributes in a manner that
minimizes adverse effects to the greatest extent feasible to achieve
the wireless service capabilities demonstrated to be necessary
under subsection 5(a)(1)n.
(2) Submittal requirements for new non -stealth antenna supporting
structure applications.
a. A completed application form and any appropriate fees; and
b. Three (3) sets of signed and sealed site plans; and
c. A property card for the subject property from the Indian River
County Property Appraiser's Office or a tax bill showing the
ownership of the subject parcel; and
d. A form indicating that a property and/or antenna -supporting
structure's owner's agent has authorization to act upon their
behalf (if applicable); and
e. A signed statement from the antenna -supporting structure's
owner or owner's agent stating that the radio frequency
emissions comply with FCC standards for such emissions; and
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
106
Li%
LAG
oes
5
1
f Proof of an FCC license to transmit and/or receive radio signals
in Indian River County; and
g.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, a stamped or sealed
structural analysis of the proposed antenna -supporting structure
prepared by a licensed Florida engineer indicating the proposed
and future loading capacity of the antenna -supporting structure -
and
h. One original and two (2) copies of a survey of the property
completed by a licensed Florida engineer which shows all
existing uses, structures, and improvements; and
i. Three (3) copies of a vegetation survey or Habitat Evaluation
Index (HEI); and
j•
Photo -simulated p ost c onstruction r enderings o f t he p roposed
antenna -supporting structure, equipment enclosures, and
ancillary structures as they would look after construction from
locations to be determined during the pre -application
conference ( but s hall, at a m inimum i nclude r enderings from
the vantage point of any adjacent roadways and occupied
commercial or residential structures), as well as photo -
simulations of the antenna supporting structure after it has been
fully developed with antenna structures (applicant may assume
for the purpose of the simulation that other antenna structures
on the facility will resemble their proposed structure in size and
design), and
k. Prior to issuance of a building permit, proof of FAA
compliance with Subpart C of the Federal Aviation Regulations
Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace; and
I. A signed statement from the antenna -supporting structure
owner agreeing to allow the colocation of other wireless
equipment on the proposed antenna -supporting structure; and
m If required b y t he United S tates F ish a nd W ildlife S ervice, a
letter indicating that the proposed antenna -supporting structure
and appurtenances are in compliance with all applicable federal
rules and regulations; and
n. All other documentation, evidence, or materials necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable approval criteria
set forth in this chapter and, including for non -stealth facilities
over 70 feet in height, where applicable:
1. existing wireless communications facilities to which the
proposed facility will be a handoff candidate, including
latitude, longitude, and power levels of each;
2. a radio frequency plot indicating the coverage of
existing wireless communications sites, and that of the
proposed site sufficient to demonstrate radio frequency
search area, coverage prediction, and design radius,
together with a certification from the applicant's
radiofrequency engineer that the proposed facility's
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
107
•
coverage or capacity potential cannot be achieved by
any higher ranked alternatee such as collocation,
attached facility, replacement facility or stealth facility,
and that the proposed facility's height is the minimum
necessary to reasonably meet coverage and/or capacity
needs; and
3. prior to issuance of a building permit, a statement ky a
qualified professional engineer specifying the design
structural failure modes of the proposed facility; and
4. antenna heights and power levels of the proposed
facility and all other facilities on the subject property.
5. a statement from the applicant that demonstrates that
alternative locations, configurations, and facility t ypes
have been examined; and addresses in narrative form
the feasibility of any alternatives that may have fewer
adverse effects on adjacent properties than the facility,
configuration, and location proposed including but not
limited to:
(i) Height; and
(ii) Mass and scale; and
(iii) Materials and color; and
(iv) Illumination; and
(v) Information addressing the following items
(a) the extent of any commercial
development within the
Geographic Search Area of the
proposed facility;
(b) the proximity of the structure to
any residential dwellings;
(c) the proximity of the structure to
any public buildings or
facilities;
(d) the existence of tall and like
structures within the Geographic
Search Area of the proposed
structure;
o. a statement that the .ro.osed facilit is the Least
Visually Obtrusive as defined here'n and that the
.ro.osed facilit conforms with State of the Art as
defined herein or alternative] that State of the Art
technolo_ is unsuitable for the .ro.osed facilit
Costs of State of the Art teclmolo_ that exceed
custom: facilit develo.ment costs shall not be
.resumed to render the technolo t unsuitable
(3) A pre -application conference is required for any new antenna -
supporting structure.
At the time a pre -application conference is held, the applicant shall
demonstrate that the following notice was mailed (via certified mail) to
all interested parties, including other wireless service providers
licensed to provide service within Indian River County as indicated on
the List of wireless service providers and interested parties provided by
the Indian River County Planning Department:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
4
ui
"Pursuant to the requirements of the Indian River County Land
Development Regulations, (name of provider) is hereby providing you
with notice of our intent to meet with the Indian River County
Planning Department in a pre -application conference to discuss the
location of a free-standing wireless communications facility that would
be located at ____(location)_. In general, we plan to construct
a support structure of feet in height for the purpose of providing
(type of wireless service)_______. Please inform us and the
Planning Department if you have any desire for placing additional
wireless facilities or equipment within two (2) miles of our proposed
facility. Please provide us with this information within twenty (20)
business days after the date of this letter. Your cooperation is sincerely
appreciated.
Sincerely, (pre -application applicant, wireless provider) "
Included with the notice shall be the latitude and longitude (NAD
83) of the proposed structure. Within twenty (20) days of receiving a timely
response from an interested potential co -applicant, the applicant shall inform the
respondent and the planning division in writing as to whether or not the potential
co -location is acceptable and under what conditions If the co -location is not
acceptable, then the applicant must provide the respondent and the planning
division written justification as to why the co -location is not feasible.
(4) For all structures requiring a special exception use, all property owners
within six hundred (600) feet of the property boundary where the proposed structure will
be constructed shall receive from county staff written notice of the application via
certified mail, and all property owners between 600 and 1200 feet shall be notified by
staff via regular U S. Mail.
(b) Replacement of an Existing Antenna -Supporting Structure.
(1) Approval criteria for replacement antenna -supporting structures
a. For a proposed replacement antenna -supporting structure to be
approved, it shall meet the approval criteria d., e., g. through j
and 1. as indicated in Section 5(a) (1), as well as the following:
b. Setbacks.
1. Any new equipment enclosures shall meet the
minimum setback requirements for the land use district
where they are located; and
2. Replacement antenna -supporting structure foundations
constructed on a property or properties which is/are
contiguous to the RS, RM, RT or RMH zones shall not
be any closer to these zones than the foundation of the
original antenna -supporting structure being replaced.
c. Height.
1.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Replacement antenna -supporting structures, antennas
and/or antenna arrays shall not exceed the height
requirements set forth in §5(a)(1)b. or 110% of the
height of the antenna -supporting structure it is
replacing, whichever is greater:
109
d. Construction.
Subject to the height provisions above:
1. Replacement antenna -supporting structures, antennas
and/or antenna arrays with an overall height of one -
hundred and seventy five (175) feet or less shall have a
monopole type construction, except that g uyed towers
less than 175 feet in height may be replaced with new
guyed towers.
2. Replacement antenna -supporting structures with an
overall height of greater than one -hundred and seventy
five (175) feet, may be of the same construction type as
the structure being replaced.
e. Landscaping.
An average of one canopy tree (minimum height of twelve
(12) feet with six-foot spread at time of planting) and two (2)
understory trees (minimum height of eight (8) feet at time of
planting) s hall b e p rovided for e very thirty (30) feet o f t he
tower base/accessory structures' opaque fenced perimeter.
Credit shall be given for existing tree located between the
tower base perimeter and adjacent areas that are being
buffered. The required trees shall be planted in a pattern to
maximize s creening o f t he b ase area o f t he t ower from t he
view of adjacent road rights-of-way and adjacent
residentially designated or residentially used properties,
without conflicting with any guy wires. Trees credited or
planted to meet this screening requirement shall be located on
property under the control of the applicant to ensure that the
screening trees are preserved and maintained. Shrubs and
understory trees used to make the fencing opaque shall be
planted on the outside fence perimeter. Alternative
landscaping plans which provide for the same average
canopy and understory trees but propose alternative siting on
the parent tract of the proposed facility may be considered
and approved by the Planning Director, provided the
proposed alternative maximizes screening as provided above.
(2) Submittal requirements for replacement antenna -supporting structure
applications:
a. For a proposed replacement antenna -supporting structure
application to be considered complete, it shall contain the same
submittal materials required as indicated in Section 5 a 2 a.
through i., k., 1., and n (1) through (4), and o. O( )
(c) Colocations on an Existing Antenna -Supporting Structure.
(1) Approval criteria for colocations on existing antenna -supporting
structures:
a. For a colocation on an existing antenna -supporting structure to
be approved, it shall meet with approval criteria h. through j.,
and I. as indicated in Section 5 (a) (1), as well as the following:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
110
DR
1
G
•
b. Height.
A colocation on an existing antenna -supporting structure
shall not increase the overall height of the antenna -
supporting structure, antenna and/or antenna array beyond
that allowed under Section 5(a)(1)b.
c. Structural Integrity
Any colocation on an existing antenna -supporting structure
shall meet building code requirements (including
windloading).
(2) Submittal requirements for colocation on an existing antenna -
supporting structure applications:
a. For a colocation on an existing antenna -supporting structure
application to be considered complete, it shall contain submittal
materials a. through f., and n.(1) through (4), and o., as
indicated in Section 5 (a) (2), as well as the following:
1. A stamped or sealed structural analysis of the existing
antenna -supporting structure prepared by a licensed
Florida engineer indicating that the existing antenna -
supporting structure as well as all existing and proposed
appurtenances meets building code requirements
(including windloading) for the antenna -supporting
structure.
2. A copy of the lease or sublease between the owner of
the antenna -supporting structure and the applicant
seeking to place additional wireless equipment on the
structure. Clauses related to lease term or rent may be
deleted or censored.
(d) Attached Wireless Communications Facilities.
(1) Approval criteria for attached wireless communications facilities:
a. For a proposed attached wireless communications facility to
approved, it shall meet with the approval criteria h., i., and 1., as
indicated in Section 5 (a) (1), as well as the following:
b. Accessory Use.
An attached wireless communications facility shall be an
accessory use as defined by Section 901.03 in the Land
Development Regulations; and
c. Height.
1. The antenna, antenna array, attachment device,
equipment enclosure and/or any ancillary equipment
shall not extend above the highest point of the building
by more than seventy (70) feet and
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
111
*211
L%
2. Existing or proposed attached wireless communications
facilities which project more than seventy (70) feet
above the highest point of the building upon which it is
mounted shall be considered as an antenna -supporting
structure and subject to the provisions for these types of
uses pursuant to Section 5 (a); and
d. Construction.
Attached facilities may have a guyed, lattice, or monopole
type construction, but in no case shall a lattice type
construction exceed a height of ten (10) feet from the base
of the attached facility; and
e. Color.
All attached antenna or antenna arrays, equipment
enclosures and ancillary equipment visible from outside the
building where they are located shall be painted so as to
blend in with the building where they are placed; and
f. Screening and Placement.
1 Attached wireless communications facilities shall be
screened by a parapet or other device so as to minimize
its visual impact as measured from the boundary line of
the subject property. Attached facilities shall be placed
in the center of the building where reasonably possible
so as to further minimize visual impact; and
2. An a ttached w ireless c ommunications facility s hall b e
attached only to a conunerciayindustrial industrial,
hotel multifamily, institutional, or public building or
facility.
(2) Submittal requirements for attached wireless communications facility
applications:
a. For a proposed attached wireless communication facility
application to be considered complete, it shall contain
submittal materials a. through f, h., and -n. (1) through (4 and
o., as indicated in Section 5(a)(2).
)—
(e) Stealth Wireless Communications Facilities.
(1) Approval criteria for stealth wireless communications facilities:
a. Setbacks.
1. Stealth facilities shall meet the minimum setback
requirements for the zoning district where they are
located for the type of structure used or simulated.
b. Height.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Stealth wireless communications facilities shall not exceed
one hundred fifty (150) feet in overall height. The county
112
Bi(
1
0
may limit the height of a proposed stealth facility to ensure
that the facility is not readily identifiable as a wireless
facility, blends into its surroundings, and has the
appearance of an allowable and customary structure on site
(e.g. church steeple, flagpole with flag, light standard, tree)
In .articular a stealth facilit .ro.osed to be dis_ .sed as a
tree shall not exceed 110% of the hei_ht of the tree line of
the subject parcel or surroundin area
Construction.
No stealth wireless communications facility shall be guyed
or have lattice type construction.
d. Accessory Use.
A stealth facility s hall be an accessory use as defined b y
section 901.03 in the Land Development Regulations
e. Structural Integrity.
The stealth facility shall be designed pursuant to the wind
seed desi_ re.uirements of ASCE 7-95 includm_ an.
subseauent modification to those s.ecifications and to
meet all applicable building code requirements (including
windloading).
f. Aesthetics.
No stealth facility, whether fully enclosed within a building
or otherwise, shall have antennas, antenna arrays,
transmission lines equipment enclosures or other ancillary
equipment that is readily identifiable from the public
domain as wireless communications equipment.
(2) Submittal requirements for stealth wireless communications facilities:
a. For a proposed stealth wireless communications facility
application to be considered complete, it shall contain
submittal materials a. through j.,and n. 1 through 4, and o.
contained in Section 5(a)(2) as well as a photo -simulated post
construction renderings of the proposed stealth facility,
equipment enclosures, and ancillary structures as they would
look after construction from the public domain. Said photo -
simulations must demonstrate that the placement, design and
height of the proposed facility satisfies the definition of
`Stealth Wireless Communications Facility".
b. For a proposed stealth wireless communications facility that is
not ground -mounted, the Planning Director may waive certain
submittal requirements to reflect the necessary documentation
required to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this
chapter.
c. For a stealth wireless communications facility proposed to
exceed a height of 70 feet, the applicant shall satisfy the
informational and technical analysis required under section
5(a)(2)n.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
113
-.Y
y4=
V:C
Sec. 6. Expert Review.
(a) Where due to the complexity of the methodology or analysis required to
review an application for a wireless communication facility requiring special
exception use approval or a radio frequency analysis, the Planning Director
may require a technical expert review by a third party expert, the costs of
which shall be borne by the applicant, which sum shall be in addition to site
plan and special exception use fees. Applicant shall submit a deposit of
$2,000.00 t owards t he c ost o f s uch t echnical r eview u pon n otification from
the Planning Director that a technical review is required, and shall remit any
outstanding balance to the County for such review (not to exceed a total cost
of $3,000.00) prior to issuance of a building permit. The technical expert
review shall be completed within 45 days of county staff receipt of a complete
application and technical analysis and justification from the applicant.
(b) The expert review may address any or all of the following:
(1) The accuracy and completeness of submissions;
(2) The applicability of analysis techniques and methodologies;
(3) The validity of conclusions reached;
(4) Whether the proposed wireless communications facility complies with
the applicable approval criteria set forth in these regulations; and
(5) Other matters deemed by the Planning Director to be relevant to
determining whether a proposed wireless communications facility
complies with the provisions of these regulations.
(c) Based on the results of the expert review, the Planning Director may require
changes to the applicant's application or submittals.
(d) The applicant shall reimburse the County within fifteen (15) working days of
the date of receipt of an invoice for expenses associated with the third party
expert's review of the application. Failure by the applicant to make
reimbursement pursuant to this section shall abate the pending application
until paid in full
Sec. 7. Abandonment.
(a) In the event all legally approved use of any wireless communications facility
has been discontinued for a period of six (6) months, the facility shall be
deemed to be abandoned. Determination of the date of abandonment shall be
made the Planning Director who shall have the right to request documentation
and/or affidavits from the facility owner regarding the issue of wireless
communications facility usage, mcluding evidence that use of the wireless
communications facility is imminent.
(b) At such time as the Planning Director reasonably determines that a wireless
communications facility is abandoned, the Planning Director shall provide the
facility owner with written notice of an abandonment determination by
certified mail. Failure or refusal by the owner to respond within sixty (60)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
114
P
X18
*t
Si
days of receipt of such notice, shall constitute prima facie evidence that the
wireless communications facility has been abandoned.
(c) If the owner of the wireless communications facility fails to respond or fails to
demonstrate that the wireless communications facility is not abandoned, the
facility shall be considered abandoned and the owner of the facility shall have
an additional one hundred twenty (120) days within which to (i) reactivate the
use of the wireless communications facility or transfer the wireless
conununications facility to another owner who makes actual use of the facility
within the one -hundred -twenty -day period, or (ii) dismantle and remove the
wireless communications facility.
(d) Prior to issuance of a building permit for a wireless communications facility,
the underlying property owner shall acknowledge in writing, in a manner
acceptable to the county attorney's office, his or her responsibilities as the
property owner to perform or contract to perform and pay all costs associated
with dismantling and properly removing and disposing of . an abandoned
wireless communications facility.
Sec. 8. Wireless Facility Master Plan
An applicant for a wireless communication facility may elect to construct a facility which
is included in partici- t _ —the County's Wireless Faces=Master Plan ("Plan")
An Wireless Communications Facilit located in an a roved area as set
forth in the Plan and desi
be required to have a ublic hearin
rand will not be assessed the expert review fee set forth in 971.44(5) Section 6
above unless the a licant has not elected to artici ate in the Ian and ro oses a
W OR
ed in accordanc
•
••
e with the Plan and these re
lations will not
i2...:..._.:. -
•
• •
wireless communications facrli
exceedin
a
•
hei
•
•
pay site plan approval application fees and buildint of 90 feet willg permit fees. butAnd the The wire less
master plan fee established below shall a..1 to •ro•osals for facilities on sites added to
the master plan after November 12, 2002 To develop and maintain the Plan, the
County's consultant shall use signal propagation methods and professional engineers
qualified in this discipline and assure compliance with all federal, state and local
regulations. _ ;: ;,,:
•
naval -wawa_
......... .
s�1,m�0 •oma •:.��.�.w�•.7 '
.�. . -
facilit located within areas desi
ated b
necessary staff -level site plan approvals and building permits.
. Should t he n eed o ccur for modifications
Plan, an applicant may petition the County for such modifications,
may be assessed
the Plan shall
■
•
(i)
•
•
a
• .
•
licant
ro
• .
•
•
osin
•
a
•
a
apply for
•
after approval o f t he
but an additional fee
Information to be provided. All applicants who elect to construct a wireless
communications facili in an area • rovided for
in the Plan shall
provide all necessary and requested information to the County's consultant, which
information shall include at a minimum that set forth in 971.44(5) Section
5(a)(2)(n) 1-4 above, for each wireless facilities site which it currently operates
within the County as well as each site area within which it reasonably believes it
will need a facility within the County for at least the next two (2) years.
(2) Plan Development and Use. Upon submittal of the foregoing information in
subsection (1) above, the County's consultant shall continue to —develop and
refine the Plan, which w ill specify areas w ithin the County w here an a pplicant
may construct a wireless communications facility by filing a site plan application
and obtaining staff approval, and obtaining issuance of a building permit, in
accordance with the specifications set forth in the Plan as approved for that
particular site area.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
115
•
•
19
(3) Application fee required. The fee for participation in the Plan shall be 56,000.00
per applicant, which shall be a one-time fee for review of the applicant's existing
and p roposed facilities i n the County. P ayment o f t he application fee sh all b e
made at the time the application is submitted with the information set forth in
subsection (1) above.
(4) Plan Supercedes Processes Established in 971.44(5). All approved site areas
specified in the Plan shall require staff approval only for the construction of
approved wireless facilities irrespective of the zoning district in which the site is
located, and without the necessity of further public hearing. For those areas
specified in the Plan which are on property owned or controlled by the County
(regardless of zoning classification), the applicant shall, prior to seeking a
building permit for such facility, negotiate and execute a lease agreement with the
County for such site upon terms and conditions approved by the County.
2. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special Acts of the legislature applying
only to the unincorporated portion of the Indian River County which conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word
' Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the
sections of this ordinance may :-:e renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such
intentions.
4. Severability
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the
remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to
pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
5. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
This o rdinance w as advertised in t he V ero Beach P ress-Journal o n t he .5 _ d ay o f
�, 2002, and on the ` day of :25-
/e</ , 2002, for public hearings to
by held
n the 4� Th day of dgz,/a,�./,v% ` , 2002, and on the /; fif day of
�,r ,,z., i.: , 2002, at which time at the" final hearing it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Gi nn , seconded by Commissioner
Ti pv i n , and adopted by the following vote:
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
116
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
Aye
`' G
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this
12t h day of November , 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Attest: J.K. Barton, Clerk
Ruth M. Stanbridge Chairman
Filed with the Florida Department of State on the
day of
APPROVED AS TO LEG • FORM
William G. Collins
Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS
Coding: Words in saakethrough are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
F:\Community Development \ Users \CurDev\ORDINANCE\WIRELESS ORDINANCE 2002-031 11-15-02.doc
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
9.R.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - FRANK COFFEY - DISCUSSION
REGARDING EXTENSION OF OPTIONAL SALES TAX
The Board reviewed a letter of November 6, 2002:
Francis M. Coffey
5015 Fairways Circle # 307
Vero Beach, FL 32967-7381
November 6, 2002
Mr. James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Dear Mr. Chandler,
This is a request that I be on the agenda of the County Commissioners for November
12, 2002 under 'Public Discussion Items regarding the extension of the optional one -
cent sales tax for the county.
Frank Coffey, 5015 Fairways Circle, read from a prepared statement (COPY IS ON
FILE WITH THE BACKUP FOR TODAY'S MEETING) recommending the formation of a
citizen panel of 11 citizens to review each proposed project and establish a priority list, with no
commissioners on the panel. He suggested that the panel have 1 workshop during the day and 1
workshop in the evening for the public and be prepared to make their recommendations to the
Board on or before June 3, 2003.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Mr Coffey then commended staff, especially Assistant Administrator Joe Baird, for their
many appearances at functions around the County to explain the program and to urge support.
Commissioner Ginn expressed her thanks also to Mr. Baird for his hard and tireless work
on this program. She felt the program will ensure the future of Indian River County's
infrastructure.
Mr Baird thanked Administrator Jim Chandler and staff, stating that he was just the
spokesperson while they did all the hard work. He also expressed his appreciation to all the
municipalities and civic organizations which have been so supportive.
NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
9.1.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - JERRY SUMMERS -
DISCUSSION REGARDING VERO BEACH RECREATION
DEPARTMENT CULTURAL AND PERFORMING ARTS
PROGRAM
Mr. Summers was not present when his name was called.
11.0.1. LEASE WITH THE GIFFORD YOUTH ACTIVITY CENTER,
INC. FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GIFFORD YOUTH
ACTIVITIES CENTER (FORMERLY LEASED TO THE
PROGRESSIVE CIVIC LEAGUE OF GIFFORD, FLORIDA, INC)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 2002:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
eck
Date: November 6, 2002
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
From Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director- (et'&d-'-
Subject: New Lease for the Gifford Youth Activities Center to be Leased to the
Gifford Youth Activity Center, Inc.
BACKGROUND:
On April 9, 2002, the Board entertained a request by the
be assigned the lease held by the Progressive Civic Leagu
the Gifford Activity Center, Inc., or to enter into a new
Activity Center, Inc , requested to have the length of the
that would be forty (40) to fifty (50) years.
In response to that request, the Board directed staff to prepare a new lease. Attached is a copy of
a proposed new lease The following is the substance of that lease:
• The lease provides to lease the facility to the Gifford Youth Activity Center, Inc.
• The lease leaves the length of the lease open, so that Board direction can be given to staff.
• The lease would propose to provide funding at the same rate as previously provided to the
Progressive Civic League of Gifford Florida, Inc., with two differences The first is the
clarification on the retention of 5 percent of payment made to the Gifford Youth Activity
Center, Inc., rather than the operating budget itself. The second difference is that this lease
identifies the CPI Index as being the Index for the South.
• The lease now includes sections that are typically viewed as generally common in lease
agreements with non-profit corporations
Gifford Youth Activity Center, Inc. to
e of Gifford, Florida, Inc., or to allow
lease. At that time the Gifford Youth
lease increase from 20 years to a term
Also attached is a proposed resolution acknowledging the approval of the Board and authorizing
the execution of the lease by the Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board determine the
modify the lease and the resolution accordingly:
modified.
length of the term of the lease; direct staff to
and approve the lease and the resolution as so
General Services Director Tom Frame asked for direction from the Board on the teini of
the proposed assignment of lease
Carter Hopkins, 1580 Gracewood Lane, stated that the Youth Activities Center is in a
campaign to raise $6,000,000 and this lease will be a vote of confidence from the County. Some
people have strong objections to giving large sums of money to short-term projects and they are
asking for a 40 or 50 -year lease.
Commissioner Adams emphasized that this project has been extremely good for the
County but expressed her concerns about the project not being entirely open to the public. The
membership aspect was her main concern and she asked for an opportunity to discuss the matter
further.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
120
fit
.41
z:,
•
Mr Hopkins stated that this project is the "crown jewel" in this Board's tenure and is a
wonderful example of the private and public sector working together. This is the prime
fundraising season and they have been pursuing this lease since last April.
Commissioner Macht and Chairman Stanbridge agreed that deferral for one week would
be adequate to finalize the Board's decision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously agreed to defer the
matter for one week for further study.
11.C.2. SOUTH COITNTY GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL, 13 -
AT&T CABT,EVISLON - CITY OF SEBASTIAN REQUEST FOR
BROADCAST OF PRE-RECORDED SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL,
MEETINGS - CITY OF VERO BEACH - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
,SCHOOI, BOARD
The Board reviewed letters of October 30 and November 5, 2002, together with a
Memorandum of November 6, 2002:
RECEIVEDcmoF
5JEASTIAJ
s -mss'"
N O V 0 4 2002
b'tiNtr.:r _ CL.i v IuFb
October 30, 2002
HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND
1225 MAIN STREET • SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE: (772) 589-5330 • FAX (772) 589-5570
Mr. Joe Baird, Assistant County Administrator
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 35th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
A
f
Re: Periodic Countywide Telecasts of Sebastian City Council Meetings
Dear Mr. Baird:
1
NOy 2CO2 dP
:i�IrYIJ,
(viral
int
Per a telephone conference with Indian River County General Services Administrator Thomas
Frame yesterday afternoon, the City of Sebastian wishes to formally request Indian River
County's assistance in securing permission and cooperation to facilitate countywide broadcasts of
Sebastian City Council meetings on a periodic basis. The idea of implementing such an
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
121
rt! ii^
I.i1� i % `.. I U
•
F=t
arrangement was recently discussed publicly during a regular City Council meeting. The benefit
of such a program is to afford residents of both central and southem Indian River County the
opportunity to learn about various policy, project and program initiatives being directed in the City
of Sebastian, as residents in our community have had a similar opportunity to leam and keep
abreast of respective matters of other local govemments for quite sometime now, notably via area
wide telecasts of Indian River County and the City of Vero Beach governing board sessions. In
addition, since the City of Sebastian began directly administering its Channel 25 govemment
station in March 2001, we have amicably allotted time to transmit information on behalf of the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. Most recent examples in this regard
include the Department of Utilities 2001 Annual Water Quality Report, as well as countywide
benefits associated with the Discretionary Sales Tax Program.
As you may recall, Sebastian Regular City Council meetings are held every second and forth
Wednesday each month, beginning at 7:00 p.m. Meetings typically last anywhere between 2 to 3
hours long. Since last year, we have been able to offer both live broadcasts while simultaneously
videotaping meetings for later repeat telecast. Our interest is to therefore transmit prerecorded
meetings countywide, twice monthly to accommodate both aforementioned second and forth
weekly sessions, absorbing not more than an average of sic hours of airtime per month.
The C ty _f Sebast:an looks forward in receiving full cooperation and assistance regarding this
matter. Should you have questions and/or require additional information, please feel free to
contact me by calling (772) 388-8203.
(Sincerely,
x`42
`-Terrence Moore
City Manager
TRM
Cc: Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council (Via 11/01/02 Information Letter)
Sally Maio, City Clerk
OFFICE OF THE
CITY MANAGER /
UTILITIES DIRECTOR
City of Vero Beach
1053 - 20th PLACE - P.O. BOX_ 1389
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961-1389
Telephone: (772) 978-4710 • Fax (772) 778-3856
e-mail: citymgr@covb.org
November 5, 2002
Mr. Joseph A. Baird, Assistant County Administrator
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RECEIVED
NOV 052002
GENERAL SERVICES
RE: TELECAST OF SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ON CABLE TELEVISION
CHANNEL 13
Dear Joe:
I have been provided with a
time on the cable television
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
copy of a request from the City of Sebastian seeking air
Channel 13 to rebroadcast the City of Sebastian's City
122
?I
i%f
Council meetings. First, I want to $o cn recort
taking few years ago, at the request of the Indian River County drool Bo r and Indian
request. A
Community College, we prevailed on AT&T Broadband to make an educational
available for these entities so they could broadcast d School Board and Indian River
asimplyadditional programming.channel
weren't enough time slots available on Channel 13. In addition, since thaThere
t time,
both the County and the City of Vero Beach have expanded programmingonC Channel
13, and I anticipate more in the future. The City of Vero Beach is not interested
allowing more time on its Channel 13 for other outside interests. cannel
in
I believe some history on our local government channel is important. The Cit of
Beach cable television franchise ordinance dates back to 1959
channel and an educational channel being established in 1988. Y v Vero
systems first started in cities because of their population densis with a government
CountyCable television
passed a franchise ordinance and also required a y LatercIndian River
It was unnecessary to have two channels devoted to government access in this
government access channel.
so we, the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County, share use of one channel. As
issues that have been pertinent to this area of the county and use of the channearea
come up, we have worked them out for everyone's advantage.
use of the channel to broadcast the School Board meetings,n !have
ver County
Hospital Board meetings and the State Le g A case in point is our
Legislature, when in session This fcooperative
arrangement should be continued in the future
amount of air time slots on Channel 13. � but as I said, there is only a limited
n the
CSanne! 13, I don't believe Indian R ver Ccurtyehas un lateoral ry aand use of air time on
the channel to other third -party interests, other.
tY to grant use on
I understand that the recent rebuild of the cable system in the S
for fourCity government access channels on that system. Channel 25
the of Sebastian, Channel 27 is for Indian River County, and twis o Sebastian area allows
other channels
exclusively for
used by Indian River County School Board and Indian River
• respectively. The City of Sebastian certainly has more broadcast capacity
system than we have on ours. Community College,
sessions are broadcast on their Channel 27,00re Ithus makinndicates g gsthethe Vero Beach Council
would like to air their Council meetings on our Channel 13. I was not aware that Vero
Beach City Council meetings were being broadcast in the inferences that they
flattered that the County would choose to broadcast our
Sebastian area. I am
however, I really see no need for that. It has not been the intent of the Cit
meetings in that area;
Beach to have our programming broadcast to an area outside the boundaries
by the Channel 13 viewing area. There should be away for the signal to bey of Vero
from Channel 27, and I would like the County covered
accomplished. ty to explore how removed
that option might be
The above outlines the reasons why additional time on Channel 13 should n
allocated to other third -party interests. Should you have additional questions, le
give me a call. of be
please
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Sincerely yours,
( A-61
Rex Taylor
City Manager/Utilities Director
123
•
Date: November 6, 2002
To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
From. Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director —�d.. cJ
Subject: Request by the City of Sebastian for the Broadcast of Prerecorded Sebastian
City Council Meetings on South County Government Access Channel 13
BACKGROUND:
Attached, please find a letter from Terrence Moore, City Manager for the City of Sebastian. Mr.
Moore is requesting the approval of the Board for the rebroadcast twice monthly of City of
Sebastian City Council meetings As stated by the City Manager, each meeting would last
approximately two to three hours in duration.
If the Board authorizes the request by Sebastian, the telecast would be placed for viewing on
Channel 13. The Sebastian City Council meetings then would be broadcast over Channel 13
(South CountyNero franchise), Channel 27 (a County Channel aired over Sebastian and North
County Franchise areas) and of course Sebastian would continue to broadcast their meetings over
Channel 25 (a Sebastian Channel viewed over Sebastian and North County Franchise area).
Currently, Vero Beach Council meetings are viewable in the north county franchise area over
Channel 27, an Indian River County government access channel. This means that citizens of
Sebastian or the unincorporated areas of that franchise may view the meeting. While Channel
27 is adedicated county channel, currently all programming occurring on Channel 13, a shared
channel between Vero Beach and the County, is rebroadcast in its entirety on Channel 27. This
is the reason the viewers i n the North County area are able t o view the Vero B each Council
meetings.
In reviewing this matter, it is our opinion that while there should be adequate time for this
rebroadcast of Sebastian's City Council meeting without affecting other scheduled programming
currently airing on Channel 13, the hours that it may be broadcast may be other than what would
be considered to be `prime time " This programming time would be on an as available time
scheme based on existing programming on Channel 13.
It should be noted that while Indian River County staff has no objections to the telecast as
requested, the City of Vero Beach has expressed its concerns and objections to the injection of
this additional programming onto the shared government access channel. The Board may want
to request the City of Vero Beach's approval since we both try to cooperate on joint use of the
channel and programming. Additionally the Board may want to consider the removal of City of
Vero Beach Broadcast matters on Channel 27 by splitting the broadcast from Channel 13.
Relative to programming, if the Board desires to split the broadcast from Channel 13 so that no
programming may be played on Channel 27 unless specifically desired, an up -grade to the
equipment t o accomplish t hat t ask would be required. T he estimated cost for that additional
equipment is estimated to be approximately $2,400.
Should the Board agree to allow the re -broadcast, all efforts in providing the video tapes for the
programming and delivery of such tapes should be made by the City of Sebastian.. In addition,
the City of Sebastian will need to acquire and provide to the School District a VCR to provide
for appropriate programming through an automated process currently being used by the School
District. The cost of that equipment is estimated at approximately $600.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
124
•
Or
•
4
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has no objection, but due to the sharing of facilities, the Board may wish to have the City of
Sebastian to also obtain the approval of the City cf Vero Beach
General Services Director Tom Frame stated that the City of Sebastian would need to
purchase a piece of equipment which would cost them about $600 to allow the auto -
programming and the equipment would be operated by the School Board. The City of Vero
Beach noted that the North County area already has Channel 27 which is a fully -dedicated
government channel. The use of Channel 13 in Vero Beach was negotiated at the time Falcon
built the original system. In order to split the programming to separate Indian River County from
the City of Vero Beach additional equipment would be required at a cost of approximately
$2400. County staff has no objection but would appreciate some direction from the Board.
Mayor Craig Fletcher of the City of Vero Beach questioned whether the Board is the
proper party to decide whether or not this should take place. He felt several meetings would be
in order prior to a decision being made. The City of Vero Beach has growth planned into
Channel 13 which could cause a problem if more time were allotted to another municipality.
Most of the time on Channel 13 is already taken. He did not believe the County has the authority
to grant additional time to a third party and asked that the Board not immediately act on this
request.
Chairman Stanbridge felt that the City of Sebastian should first obtain approval from the
City of Vero Beach.
Commissioner Ginn was not sure whether the County had the authority to delegate time
on that channel.
Director Frame stated that the County's franchise document opens use of that channel to
any governmental agency.
CONSENSUS was reached to defer the item pending further meetings with
representatives of the County, the City of Sebastian, the City of Vero Beach, Indian River
Community College and Indian River County School Board.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
125
•
4.-1 hone
iv
11.G.1. CAI,PINEBLITE HERON ENERGY (TENTER, LLC -
AGREEMENT CONCERNING DELIVERY AND IISE OF
,STORMWATER(INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL
DISTRICT) (1 ¢ LOCM, OPTLON SALES TAX)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 2002:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Calpine Agreement Concerning Delivery and Use of Stormwater
DATE: November 6, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
County staff has been working with Calpine Corp. and Indian River Farms
Water Control District to develop a Water use agreement for the Blue
Heron Energy Center. The attached agreement provides for the following
main responsibilities:
1. Calpine will, after receiving certification to construct the
proposed Blue Heron Energy Center (BHEC), contribute funds to
purchase, at appraised fair market value, up to 160 acres of land
for construction of a stormwater treatment park from which treated
storm water will be sent to the proposed Calpine Power Plant for
cooling/production water. The County, with cooperation from the
Indian River Farms Water Control District, will construct and
operate the Stormwater Park, ready for operation in Dec. 2004.
2. Calpine will fund design, permitting, and construction of piping
and pump facilities to transmit water from the Lateral "C" Canal
(along 74`h Avenue) to the Stormwater Park and from the Park to the
BHEC The County and Indian River Farms Water Control District.
shall review and must approve/modify the design prior to
construction. Upon completion of construction, ownership of the
piping and pump stations in District right-of-way will be
transferred to the Water Control District. Calpine will own all
other -pipes and pump stations. Under a lease agreement, the County
will maintain and operate the pump stations and piping from
Lateral "C" Canal to the Stormwater Park. Calpine shall maintain
and operate the pumps and piping from the Stormwater Park to the
BHEC.
3. The..•County and District will not allow non-agricultural withdrawals
from the park that would prevent delivery of water to the EHEC.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
126
nv
Obi
4
r)
3
so
4. If the water from the Stormwater Park is not acceptable quality,
Calpine can bypass the Park and the County is obligated to correct
the operation of the Stormwater Park as soon as possible. The
County can inject as much as 8% R.O. brine into the Calpine
pipeline. Calpine will pay to the County a fee for use of the
stormwater. Calpine shall pay 15% of the cost of the brine
pipelines from the South County R.O. plant to the Stormwater Park.
5. The County can charge a nominal stormwater use fee for offsetting
operation and maintenance costs.
Exnibits "A" and "C" have not yet been developed, but will be sent
to the Board at a future date, if the Board deems necessary.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1
Approve the attached agreement
Alternative No. 2
Deny the Agreement
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval of the attached agreement. Funding for
County responsibilities to be from stormwater grants to construct
the Stormwater Park and Local Option Sales Tax.
Public Works Director Jim Davis reviewed the project for the Board and emphasized that
Calpine/Blue Heron will contribute funds to purchase up to 160 acres for the stormwater park.
Water received from Indian River Farms Water Control District releases would then be treated
and sent to the Calpine plant which would use as much as 9,000,000 gallons per day, reducing
the freshwater discharge into the Lagoon. Calpine would buy the land, construct the piping and
pumps, and then transfer title to IRFWCD. The County would then lease and maintain the pipes
under funding for the stormwater park. The operation and control would be held by the County.
Calpine would also contribute up to 15% of the cost to construct a brine pipeline. If the
discharged water is not of an acceptable quality, there would be a bypass pipeline to bypass the
stormwater park and send the water directly to Calpine with no treatment. The County would be
able to charge a nominal fee for the stormwater, such as is being charged for reuse water, which
could offset some of the operation and maintenance costs. Deputy County Attorney Will Collins
has a few changes to the contract and, if the Board then approves the agreement, it will be sent to
IRFWCD for their approval.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
127
•
Li‘
-13
0)1
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins explained that he has been working on the terms
and conditions with Mr. Tim Eves of Calpine and Attorney Michael O'Haire representing
IRFWCD. The draft attached as backup just came out the end of last week and he wanted to get
these changes on record before any action is taken.
Mr. Collins continued that certain insurance indemnification language has been given to
Mr Eves to take to his Risk Manager and the contract is contingent upon those insurance
indemnifications. Also, on Page 223 of the backup, at the bottom of the page, the language
reads: ".... at no cost to Calpine, all rights-of-way ...' . Mr Collins expressed his concern that
there be no commitment by the County to condemn property on behalf of Calpine. It should be
expressly made a matter of record that this language in no way requires the County to condemn
any property.
Mr Collins continued that on Page 227 at the top of the page, termination of the
Agreement is discussed. However, Paragraph 7.b. referred to in that paragraph was missing. An
additional Page 16 of the Agreement has been passed out which discusses reimbursement for
disposal of solids by formula. Calpine is also taking brine and, because of that, they will have
some solids which will have to be disposed of at the Landfill. 40% of the cost of that disposal
would be paid by the County. Commissioner Adams questioned whether that would be
40% of the gross disposal, and Mr. Collins responded that it will be a cost per ton.
Mr Collins also noted that Page 10, Paragraph f. of the Agreement does not allow any
new non-agricultural withdrawals from the District's canal system that would prevent the
"County" from withdrawing water, etc. This language should be revised to read: "the District
shall not".
Mr Collins also stated that Page 234, Paragraph 6.d. talks about Calpine contributing up
to 15% of the cost of the brine pipeline, with a maximum of $200,000. Staff would like Calpine
to provide the County a $200,000 letter of credit to secure that amount. Mr Eves of Calpine has
expressed his agreement to that qualification. Of course, all obligations are contingent upon the
Calpine plant being certified by the State. However, it would be appreciated if these changes
could be incorporated in the Agreement.
Chairman Stanbridge asked if the language on Page 223 regarding the right-of-way issue
could be changed to substitute ` County and/or District shall provide ..." with language to ensure
that no condemnation action is required.
Mr. Collins changed the language to read: "the County and the District shall provide .....
but in no event shall exercise eminent domain ... ".
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 128
•
;
•
Chairman Stanbridge noted that the District is very nervous about this arrangement as the
gas pipeline has caused them a lot of grief. This is a very complicated issue.
Tim Eves of Calpine/Blue Heron Energy Center, LLC, stated that his company is
agreeable to all the changes noted by Deputy Attorney Collins.
Mr Collins then explained the language and meaning of the eminent domain clause.
County Attorney Paul Bangel also suggested that Paragraph 16 on Page 23 of the
Agreement include the Southern District of Florida, and Mr. Eves agreed that would be
acceptable.
Chairman Stanbridge noted that this Agreement will now go to the District for their
consideration. The revenue stream from the water supplied should also offset any maintenance
on the stormwater park. She felt this will assist the County with its brine problem and wished
Mr Eves good luck with the Public Service Energy Commission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the
Agreement with the changes noted by Deputy County Attorney
Will Collins [(1) provision of insurance indemnifications; (2) Page
223 of the backup, at the bottom of the page, change language to
read: "... at no cost to Calpine, all rights-of-way ...County and
District shall provide ... but in no event shall exercise eminent
domain.", (3) Page 227 of the backup, add Paragraph 7.b. on Page
16; (4) Page 10, Paragraph f. revise to read: "the District shall
not"; (5) Page 234, Paragraph 6.d., include language to require that
Calpine furnish a $200,000 letter of credit to secure the 15%
contribution to the cost of the brine pipeline; and (6) Paragraph 16,
Page 23 of the Agreement, include the Southern District of Florida
in the venue.]
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
AGREEMENT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
129
n!,
01i
J3
11.6.2. FAIRGROUNDS EXHIBIT PAVILION - FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTIJRE AND CONSIUMER SERVICES
GRANT PROGRAM - PCI, CONSTRIJCTION SERVICES --
SCOPE/COST
,SCOPE/COST ALTERNATIVES AND AMENDMENT NO.2 TO
DESIGN/BUILD PROFESSIONAI, SERVICES CONTRACT (1¢
LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 29, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directory
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.((((,,„
Capital Projects Manager
FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E.
Project Engineer
SUBJECT:
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Grant Program for
Construction of a Fairgrounds Exhibit Pavilion
Scope/Cost Alternatives and
Amendment No. 2 to
Design/Build Professional Services Contract
DATE: October 29, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On August 15, 2000, the County received a $391,000.00 grant from the State of Florida to repaint the Fairgrounds
Farm Bureau Livestock Pavilion and construct an open -sided 20,000 s.f. Exhibit building. The pavilion required
repairing as well as repainting, which the State authorized, and that work is complete. The total cost was
$154,000.00. On February 5, 2002 the Board of County Commissioners executed a contract with PCL Construction
Services to provide preliminary design services for the new Fairgrounds Exhibit Pavilion. PCL Construction
Services has completed those services and now presents a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal of $447,304.00 to
perform the final design and permitting and construction phase services. The County has expended $34 030.00 thus
far to develop the preliminary plans, and another $4,149.00 is pending payment. The remaining $198,821.00 in
grant funds plus 1-0 local option sales tax appropriation results in $448,041.00 available for the new pavilion.
Staff has requested, and has received from PCL Construction Services, several scope/pricing options to add value
components to the proposed project. All of these items would be less expensive to construct now, rather than later,
but will exceed the available project funds so an additional source of funds would be needed in order to select any
of them The 1-0 local option sales tax contingency fund could be an option for this source of funds.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
130
34
•
ALTERNATIVES AND A.LNALYSIS
Utemative 1: Approve this Amendment No. 2 and construct the pavilion as proposed.
alternative 2: Add a master stormwater pond and the associated site -work to direct all runoff from the Fairgrounds
to the master pond. This would eliminate the stormwater management tracts immediately East of the new pavilion,
and the existing Arena building, and would provide capacity for the future construction of several more buildings.
This alternative would add $97,024.00 to the cost of the project. This is a value-added element that would be Less
expensive to do now rather than constructing individual stormwater tracts with each new future building
Alternative 3: Add insulation to the roof and wall panels. This is a value-added item that will extend the life of the
panels. The insulation will reduce condensation on the inside of the building and therefore protect the metal from
getting wet and rusting. The insulation cannot be added in the future without disassembling the roof and wall
panels, which is expensive and is highly discouraged. This alternative will cost $17,426.00
Alternative 4: Staff intends to add electric services (lighting and power) to the project with a future Amendment.
The cost of the electric installation is $26,253.00. Providing lights and power will make the building more
marketable to event operators, and is therefore critically important to generating revenue with the new facility. The
added bookings and increased rental rates generated by having the electric services, compared to not having electric
services, will `pay -back' the cost of the installation of the electric services within a few years of use Staff intends to
fund this item with the Fair Improvement Fund We anticipate that with the addition of this year's contribution from
the Fair Association, there will be sufficient funds available to completely cover this expense.
RECOhMhMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board select Alternative No.1, to approve Amendment No. 2 for fmal design and
permitting and construction phase services for $447,304.00 and authorize the Chairman to execute the Amendment
Staff further recommends that the Board direct staff to bring
back a future No.3, and No.4 to the CONTRACT. Funds will be dedicated from the 1-0 localnt tax c onttinge cyfund to
pay for Alternatives Not. and No.3, and from the Fair Improvement Fund for Alternative No.4.
This project is partially funded by a grant from the r'crida Depa, u .;.it ofA,giculture and Consumer Services, and
partially from the 1-0 local option sales tax funu. The account number is 31521072-066510-02005.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved Alternate
#1 approving Amendment No. 2 for $447,304 and authorized the
Chairman to execute the Amendment. (The balance of staff's
recommendation was not approved at this time.)
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
AMENDMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
131
par/
•
I:km
11.6.3. FELLSMERE GRADE ROAD - OSCEOLA COITNTY
AGREEMENT (LOCAL, OPTION GAS TAX)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 28, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director e'
SUBJECT: Fellsmere Grade Road Agreement with Osceola County
REF. LETTER: Laura Blackmon, Acting County Manager, Osceola County,
to James Chandler dated Oct 17, 2002
DATE: October 28, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On June 18, 1980, Indian River county and Brevard County entered
into an agreement with Osceola County for grading and maintenance
o f the twelve miles of Fellsmere Grade Road east of Kenansville.
This road is only accessible from US Highway 441 in Osceola County
and serves those Indian River County property owners south of the
Indian River/Brevard County lines. The agreement stated that
Indian River County would pay one-half the maintenance cost of
Fellsmere Grade Road adjacent to Indian River County and one-third
the cost of the road from Six Mile Road to US 441. The agreement
✓ equired Osceola County to submit a yearly budget to Indian River
County.
From 1980-2002, Osceola County has not submitted the required
yearly budget nor billed the County for maintenance. Several
meetings have occurred between Indian River, Osceola, and Brevard
Counties to settle past costs and proposed a new agreement. Also,
St. Johns River Water Management District constructed a boat ramp
at the east end of the road and has assumed some maintenance
✓ esponsibility.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Osceola County has transmitted to Indian River County a new
maintenance agreement that provides the following:
1. Indian River County will pay one-fourth (;1) of the total
yearly cost ($31.000, or $7,750 for 2002/2003) to grade and
maintain Fellsmere Grade Road. The annual rate shall be
adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (South Urban Region)
yearly.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 132
OA
2. Indian River County will pay Osceola County $93,452.94 for
maintenance from 1981 to Sept. 30, 2002, and $20,666.66 for
the past two years (FY 2000/2001 and 2001/2002), which is one-
third the $31,000 annual rate in No. 1 above.
3. The agreement will be effective upon filing with the Clerk of
the Circuit Court of Osceola and Indian River County (Section
163.01(11). We will request Osceola County to make this change
to the Agreement.
Osceola has provided records to show that the past 20 year cost to
Indian River County for the above road maintenance should be
$249,513.33.
Staff recommends that the attached agreement with Osceola County be
approved. Funding in the amount of $114,119.60 to be from Local
Option Gas Tax.
ATTACHMENT
Referenced letter with agreement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the
Agreement with Osceola County with funding in the amount of
$114,119.60 to be from the Local Option Gas Tax, as
recommended by staff.
Cop y 0 AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
e3
11.6.4. CR -512 IMPROVEMENTS - PROJECT 9611 (DENTON
PROPERTY) CONSERVATION EASEMENT AGREEMENT - ST.
JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 1, 2002:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH• James W. Davis, P E , Public Works Director'
FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, Jr , P E , County Engine
SUBJECT: Conservation Easement Agreement between Stohn's River Water
Management District and Indian River County
REFERENCE: CR 512 Roadway Improvements, IRC Project No. 9611
DATE: November 1, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
As part of the requirements for constructing the four-laning of CR 512, St. John's River Water
Management District required mitigation for impacting existing wetlands on the proposed CR
512 right-of-way.
Attached, please find a Conservation Easement Agreement drafted by the Indian River County
Engineering Division and Exhibit A (legal description and sketch of easement area) prepared by
Masteller, Moler & Reed Inc The property is located on the south side of CR 512 along the east
bank of the South Prong of the St. Sebastian River (property recently acquired from Robert
Denton), and is an area of mitigation for the CR 512 Widening project (WC Project No. 9611).
The agreement will be between St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and
Indian River County. Indian River County will grant this Conservation Easement as a condition
of SJRWMD permit number 4-061-56415.1 solely to offset adverse impacts to natural resources,
fish and wildlife, and wetlands functions The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to
assure that the property will be retained forever in its existing natural condition and to prevent
any use of the property that will impair or interfere with the environmental value of the property.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1 - Execute attached Conservation Easement Agreement.
Alternative No. 2 - Do not execute Conservation Easement Agreement.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
134
G{i
0
1J
'Nw
•
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1 and requests the Board authorize the Chairman
to execute the Conservation Easement Agreement.
Commissioner Macht left the Chambers at 11:28 a m
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Commissioner
Macht absent) unanimously approved execution of the
Conservation Easement Agreement, as recommended by staff.
EASEMENT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
11.G.5. EAST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MASTER STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN - SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL,
STORMWATER PARK - APPLICATION FOR WATER PROJECT
FUNDING UNDER HOUSE BILL 851 - DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - W. KEITH MCCITI,LY,
STORMWATER ENGINEER (CALPINE/BIATE HERON ENERGY
CENTER, LLC)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of July 24, 2002:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 24 002
FROM: W. Keith McCully, RE., Esq., Stormwater Engineer(
SUBJECT: ADD-ON ITEM No. 9.G.5 - APPLICATION FOR WATER
PROJECT FUNDING UNDER HOUSE BILL 851
SUMMARY
The Florida Legislature has created a new funding process for stormwater
projects through House Bill 851 (now codified as F S. 403.885). The Draft
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 135
iii
•
East Indian River County Master Stormwater Management Plan (Master Plan)
identifies a project that may receive funding from this legislation The
project is identified in the Master Plan as Alternative No. 6 - the Southwest
Industrial Stormwater Node. This stormwater park will receive stormwater
and groundwater inflows from the Indian River Farms Water Control
District's (IRFWCD) canal system. This canal water contains nutrients such
as nitrogen and phosphorus, along with suspended solids, and color. These
pollutants, particularly suspended solids and color, are very harmful to
seagrass beds and they have thus caused serious damage to the Indian
River Lagoon (Lagoon) ecosystem. The proposed stormwater park will
consist of deep storage basins and wetland treatment cells The park will
receive and treat the canal water, removing much of the nutrients and
suspended solids, and perhaps reducing some of the color. The treated
water will be evapotransporated by the wetland plants, released back into
the canal system, or pumped to the proposed Calpine power plant where it
will be evaporated by that facility s cooling system. The stormwater park
will also serve an equally beneficial peripheral function as a bird sanctuary
and educational facility.
The attached funding request is for one million dollars ($1,000,000). The
stormwater park's estimated cost, excluding the pumping facilities and some
influent piping costs, is $4,429,000. Calpine Corporation has agreed to pay
much of the costs required to acquire land and to get the water from the
canal system to the park, if their project is approved by the state.
The purpose of this agenda item is to request the Commission to approve
the attached funding request and authorize its submittal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached Application for Water Project Funding Under House Bill 851 and
authorize the Stormwater Engineer to submit the application to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection on behalf of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Commissioner
Macht absent) unanimously approved the Application for Water
Project Funding Under House Bill 851 and authorized the
Stormwater Engineer to submit the application to the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection on behalf of the County,
as recommended by staff.
COPY OF APPLICATION WILL BE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
136
nli
UI\
n�<
•
11.H.1. RESOLUTION 2002-097 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF
A SUBORDINATION OF COUNTY UTILITY INTERESTS WITH
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
- INTERSECTION OF 6TH AVENUE AND IJS HIGHWAY #1
(SCHINDILER EASEMENT)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 28, 2002:
DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2002
TO: JAMES E CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT ORS
FROM: W. ERIK OLSON
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED
MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E.
AND STAH.ED CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER
BY DEP ARM/ENT OF L 1'1LITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SUBORDINATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT AT THE Th.TERSECTION
OF 6'H AVENUE AND U.S. HIGHWAY ONE
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The Florida Department of Transportation (1tDOT) is requesting that the Department of Utility
Services subordinate a 10' wide utility easement located on private property (see attached
subordination agreement). The easement is used to protect the interest in a 3" diameter force main
located at the intersection of U. S. Highway 1 and 6th Avenue.
The subordination agreement will allow the FDOT to gain primary control over the easement similar to
how they regulate their right-of-ways. Wording in the agreement states that FDOT will be "willing to
participate" in any utility relocation should it be necessary. Ann Endsley, Utility Coordinator with the
FDOT assured staff that the FDOT will pay for like -for -like utility relocation (see attached letter from
Ann Endsley dated July 30, 2002) Therefore, staff recommends that the Board adopt the resolution
provided by the FDOT and execute the attached subordination agreement.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
137
ami
•
i u
:3
v
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board, by a 4-0 vote (Commissioner
Macht absent) unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the
Subordination Agreement for Subordination of a Utility Easement
at the Intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and 6t Avenue and adopted
Resolution 2002-097 authorizing execution of the Florida
Department of Transportation Subordination of County Utility
Interests (improvements to SR -5 [US#1], Item/Segment No.
2285833, Section No. 88010-2505 — Schindler Easement).
SUBORDINATION IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
2002-097
This instrument prepared
under the direction of:
Laurice C. Mayes, Esq.
Legal description prepared by:
Grace K. Abel (7-15-02)
Department of Transportation
3400 W. Commercial Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309
Parcel No.
Item/Segment No.
Section No.
Managing District,
S.R. No.
County:
108.4
2285833
88010-2505
04
5 (U.S. 1)
Indian River
RESOLUTION
ON MOTION of Commissioner
seconded by Commissioner
the following Resolution was adopted.
Adams
Ginn
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
4
•
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation
proposes to construct or improve State Road No. 5 (U.S. 1),
Item/Segment No. 2285833, Section No. 88010-2505, in Indian River
County, Florida: and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that certain
Indian River County be used temporarily by
Department of Transportation: and
lands now owned by
the State of Florida
WHEREAS, said use is in the best interest of the County: and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Transportation has
made application to said County to execute and deliver to the State of
Florida Department of Transportation a subordination of utility
interest, or interests, in favor of the State of Florida, and said
request having been duly considered.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, that the application of the State of Florida
Department of Transportation for a subordination of utility interest,
or interests, is for transportation purposes which are in the public or
community interest and for public welfare; that a subordination of
utility interest, or interests, in favor of the State of Florida
Department of Transportation, in Indian River County, should be drawn
and executed by this Board of County Commissioners. Consideration shall
be $ zero
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that
forwarded forthwith to the State
Transportation at 3400 W. Commer
33309.
a certified copy of this Resolution be
of Florida Department of
cial Boulevard, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a'Resolution
adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida at a meeting held on the 12th day of November
200_,
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Print Name: Kenneth R. Macht
Clerk Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
139
3t
■
1 •
A
•
A \ ►/ ►/ i ► s
REPLACEMENT - WORK AUTHORIZATION 17 INCREASING
THE ZIPPER LIMIT - CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEFE
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 29, 2002:
DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2002
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: W. ERIX OLSON, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED GERALD LEBEAU J�T
& STA41F'±.D BY: INTERUM OPERATIONS MANAGER
SUBJECT: WORK AUTHORIZATION 17 —LNCREASE TO THk
UPPER LLVIIT
BACKGROUND:
On June 12, 2001 the Board of County Commissioners approved Work Authorization 17
submitted by Camp, Dresser, & McKee, (CDM), for engineering services related to membrane
replacement with an Upper Limit of $31,450. (See attached A & B — Exhibit 1). The Scope of
Services included assisting County staff during the bidding and construction stages of the project.
ANALYSIS:
Installation of the Membranes has been completed on Skid Nos. 2, 3, and 4 along with the piping
on Skid No. 2. At this time, Skid # 1 is on hold pending the outcome of Skid # 4. The length of
construction has exceeded the estimated duration due to several factors, such as valve
replacement, membrane delivery, etc. Recently, the project was delayed as a result of scaling of
the second stage membranes, due to a possible faulty Feed Valve on Skid No. 4. This incident
has resulted in extensive out -of -scope assistance to County staff, by CDM, in an effort to
determine the cause of the scaling. CDM membrane and instrumentation specialists have been
involved with this effort The exact reason for the scaling is still to be determined. Should we
find that the contractor is at fault, staff will pursue all avenues necessary to recoup the incurred
related expenses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The out -of -scope work is ongoing, and Skid No 1 remains to be completed. CDM is rapidly
approaching the contractual limit of 331,450. (See attached letter from CDM dated 10/23/02 —
Exhibit 2). The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve expanding the Upper Limit of Worlc Authorization 17 to S45,000. This
represents is an increase of $13,550 over the initial work authorization.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002 140
A
Commissioner Macht returned to the Chambers at 11:31 a.m.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved expanding
the Upper Limit of Work Authorization 17 to $45,000,
representing an increase of $13,550 over the initial work
authorization, as recommended by staff.
WORK AUTHORIZATION WILL BE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
11.11.3. REVERSE OSMOSIS - BRINE TREATMENT - INDIAN RIVER
LAGOON - ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT - GRANT APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
l
c
1
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of \ovember 5, 2002:
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2002
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: GRANT APPLICATION TO DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BACKGROUND.
The Indian River Lagoon has been recognized as one of the most environmentally diverse
ecosystems in North America. As a result of the environmental importance of the
Lagoon, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), has placed programs that
protect this fragile environment on a high priority. Currently, Indian River County uses a
Reverse Osmosis treatment process to treat the drinking water. When groundwater is
treated by Reverse Osmosis a portion of the byproduct water is a Brine reject that is
disposed of by discharging it into the Indian River Lagoon. This Brine reject water has
been determined by the DEP as being detrimental to the Indian River Lagoon.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
141
:d
ar
ANALYSIS:
Indian River County and the EP have entered into a cooperative agreement; a
"Resolution Agreement", that is designed to create a partnership between DEP and the
County that will allow the County to work towards the elimination of these Brine
discharges into the Indian River Lagoon. As a mechanism to avoid these harmful
discharges, the County has developed a unique program that will take the Brine reject
water and mix it with a combination of stormwater and wastewater reuse water. The
result is an alternative means of irrigation water that is available for golf courses: This
alternative water supply source will now supplement local water supply demands.
The Utility Department, as a means to offset the costs of implementing the Brine
Alternative Water Supply Program, (estimated at being $3.5 million dollars), is seeking
grants from the St. John s River Water Management District (SJRWMD) and the DEP in
order to leverage the County's funds To date, the County has received an initial grant of
520,000 from SJRWMD, and has be the County will be receiving an
additional $1,000 000 from DEP toward Phase`I of the project. It is the intent of the
Utility Department to continue working with both the DEP and SJRWMD for additional
funding that will go towards Phase 11 of the project.
The Utility Department wishes to apply for two (2) additional grant fundingpro
gams: SJRWMD sponsored alternative water supply o ��s'
presented to for Commission for approval m December, and 2). AtDaEPlw ter supply
will
grant application under HB 851. As a means to establish a uniform process of funding
critical water supply programs in the State, the legislature at the end of the 2002 session,
approved 1-18 851 Inaddition, the legislature has budgeted $30,000,000 that will be
reviewed, and those that meet DEP program criteria will be submitted to DEP for further
review. Successful projects must not only meet the criteria set by DEP, but must have
support from the local legislative delegation. Local Senate and House delegation will be
important, because it is expected that there will be far more applications by local
governments than there will be funding available.
The Utility wished to submit a grant application to DEP as part of the HB 851 program,
in the amount of $250,000.
RECOMMENDATION.
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board approve the Utilities'
application for grant funding to the DEP, through HB 851.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the
application for grant funding to the Department of Environmental
Protection through House Bill 851, as recommended by staff.
COPY OF APPLICATION WILL BE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
142
UA
at
4S
64
e
11.1.4. CFNTRAI. REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITY - CENTRAD REGIONAL SLUDGE PROCESSING
FACILITY - ODOR CONTROL BLOWER REPLACEMENT (BID
145030) - WGC, INC. - .IACOBS AIR WATER SYSTEMS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 4, 2002:
DATE: NOVEMBER 04, 2002
TO: JAMES E CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: W. ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
i J
PREPARED AARON J. BOWLES, P.E. j
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGNEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: CENTRAL REGIONAL SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITY
ODOR CONTROL BLOWER REPLACMENT
RA C'KGRC)T'N1)•
The Central Wastewater Treatment Facility, located at 3550 49th Street, was purchased by Indian River
County in the late 1970's and is currently operating with a capacity of 2.0 MGD. The Central Regional Sludge
Processing Facility, located adjacent to the Central WWTF at the same address, became operational in March
of 1993. Due to ongoing concerns with odor problems, the Department of Utility Services has implemented
installation of various odor control devices.
AN1T,YSTS•
Through previous approvals, the Board of County Commissioners approved a design/ build contract with
WCG Inc. which included upgrading the existing facilities with odor control that should significantly reduce
the amount of odors emanating from within the sludge processing facility. These revisions include enclosing
the belt press within the facility that leads to the truck loading area via fiberglass paneling additional
enclosures for the sludge thickening units, connecting the sludge thickening units to the existing air scrubber
system via hood mounted air ducts and equipping the south side of the truck loading area with freezer type
strips.
To date, all of the above odor control improvements have been completed and initial start-up of the
upgraded system proved to be promising. Unfortunately, on the first full day of operation, the blower
assembly's fan impellers, responsible for all air movement within the odor control system, sheared off resulting
in a blower fan failure. Due to the blower now being inoperative. it is imperative that it be replaced as soon as
possible to re -gain control of the odors being produced from the subject facility.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
143
r
R.
41.
¢.4
Two separate bids have been received through
Purchasing Department and the results are listed below. emergency Note that the Utilitiso Did # 5030 issued by the
below listed bidders not only for the best price, but due to the circumstances surrounding this subjechas ranemthe
ost
reasonable time frame as well.
Ran Com an N Blower Re.Iacement Bid Results
P Y ame Bid Price
Jacobs Air Water Systems
$74,800
Heil Process Equipment, LLC
45 days (if ordered by 11/7/02)
75 da s if ordered after 11/7/02
60 days (excluding weekends and
holidays) (total 85 days)
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County
ratify the waiver of the formal bidden process and award the Sludge Commissioners
Control
Blower replacement to Tarnhc Air wat g syt cg Thickener Facility's Odor Control
to their bid resultingas presented in Attachment A. This recommendation is due
in the best overall combination of time and cost.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously ratified the waiver
of the formal bidding process and awarded the Sludge Thickener
Facility's Odor Control Blower replacement to Jacobs Air Water
Systems, as recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTATION WILL BE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
11.I. CHILDREN'S SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE - 2002-2005
ASSESSMENT AND PLAN-- NEEDS ASSESSMENT SITB-
COMMITTEE'S REPORT
(CLERK'S NOTE* THIS ITEM WAS DEFERRED FROM THE OCTOBER 22, 2002
MEETING)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 5, 2002:
Indian River County Com • <:
Joyce Johnston -Carlson, Dire
IRC Human Services
November 5, 2002
Subject:
Item for November 12, '02 Agenda — Human Services Department
Needs Assessment Sub -Committee's Report titled,
"Indian River County Children's Services Advisory Committee 2002-2005
Assessment & Plan" (Backup provided separately)
On behalf of the Needs Assessment Sub -Committee of the Children's Services Advisory
Committee I am requesting the Needs Assessment Sub -Committee Report, titled,
"Indian River County Children's Services Advisory Committee 2002-2005 Assessment &
Plan" be placed on the agenda of November 12, 2002
This matter was placed on the agenda of October 22, 2002 and Commissioners
accepted the report, but stated additional time was needed to review the Plan 2002-
2005; and rescheduled this item to be placed on the agenda of November 12th.
Tnis report was approved by the Children's Services Advisory Committee on September
15 2002. The Committee and Staff recommends the Commission approve this report
and plan. Plan 2002-2005 was delivered to the commission office prior to the October
22nd meeting.
Commissioner Ginn realized this was a monumental amount of work and was very
different from the report compiled by CityScape because of the service and human elements. She
felt some things were not covered but could be brought up as we go along. She believed the
poverty rate in the County was the lowest in a number of years.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
Commissioner Ginn noted that Florida Kid Care is now fully implemented. However, the
juvenile crime rate is up by 10% and that should be carefully examined. She found it interesting
that the most helpful services were found to be mental health and substance abuse, while the least
helpful were case management and health services.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the Indian
River County Children's Services Advisory Committee 2002-2005
Assessment and Plan, as recommended by staff.
PLAN AND REPORT ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
12. NORTH COUNTY REGIONAL PARK - DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OFFICE OF COASTAL AND
AQUATIC MANAGED AREAS AMENDMENT #1 TO SITBI.EASF,
4118-01 - AIRMASTERS RADIO CONTROL CLUB, INC. AND
,SEBASTIAN AREA SOCCER ASSOCIATION, INC.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 2002:
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney*
William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney*
Manan E. Fell, Assistant County Attorney
November 6, 2002
MEMORANDUM
To:
From.
Re:
Board of County Commissioners
Paul G. Rangel, County Attorney a
North County Regional Park; Sublease Amendment; Airmasters Radio
Control Club, Inc.; Sebastian Area Soccer Association Inc.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
7d
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize
the Chairman to execute, in substantially the form proposed, Amendment Number 1 to
Sublease Number 4118-01, and License Agreements with Airmasters Radio Control Club,
Inc., and Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc.
Discussion:
Proposed for the Board's approval are Amendment Number 1 to Sublease Number
4118-01 to enlarge the North County Regional Park to accommodate model airplane flying,
and License Agreements with Airmasters Radio Control Club, Inc., and Sebastian Area
Soccer Association, Inc., for use of park property for model airplane flying and soccer,
respectively.
County Attorney Paul Bangel noted that these agreements are all subject to approval by
the Department of Environmental Protection which he is expecting any day now. He also asked
that the Agreements be examined by the Risk Manager. He asked the Board to grant approval for
minor adjustments to the agreements.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved and
authorized the Chairman to execute, in substantially the form
proposed, Amendment Number 1 to Sublease Number 4118-01 and
License Agreements with Airmasters Radio Control Club, Inc. and
Sebastian Area Soccer Association, Inc., as recommended by staff,
and authorized the County Attorney to make minor adjustments to
these agreements.
AMENDMENT AND AGREEMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
13.A.1. CHAIRMAN RUTH M. STANBRIDGE - FLECTION OF
ACTING CHAIRMAN AND ACTING VICE CHAIRMAN
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 6, 2002:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
DATE: November 6, 2002
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Chairman Ruth Stanbridge
SUBJECT: New Chairman and New Vice Chairman
The 12th of November will be the last day I will preside over a County Commission
meeting, although my term and Vice Chairman Tippin's term will end midnight
November 18th. Therefore, this Board needs to elect, at least, a chairperson to preside
over the meeting of the 19th.
I have talked with the County Attorney and listed below are three options that this Board
could consider on Tuesday, November 12th.
(1) Elect an Acting Chairman and Acting Vice Chairman to continue from
November 19th until the first meeting in January where the official re-
organization takes place.
(2) Elect an Acting Chairman to preside from November 19t until the first
meeting in January. Then choose an Acting Vice Chau -man on the 19th of
November to serve to first meeting in January.
Elect a Chairman Pro Tempore to preside over the November 19`h meeting
then elect a new Chairman and Vice Chairman at that meeting.
NOTE The official re -organization will still be necessary in January.
My recommendation would be Option ill for the smoothest transition period, but it is
entirely up to the Board.
John and I are going fishing!
Chairman Stanbridge asked that Recommendation #1 be approved as she and Vice
Chairman Tippin will serve their last day as commissioners on November 18, 2002.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously appointed Kenneth
R. Macht as Acting Chairman and Caroline D. Ginn as Acting Vice
Chair to continue from November 19, 2002 until the first meeting
in January, 2003 when the official reorganization takes place, as
requested.
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
13.A.2. CHAIRMAN RUTH a STANBRIDGE — APPOINTMENT TO
TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED LOCAs, COORDINATING
BOARD AND OTHER COMMITTEES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 12, 2002:
DATE: November 12, 2002
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Chairman Ruth Stanbridge
SUBJECT: Committee Assignments
The committees assigned to me need to be re -assigned. I inherited several
committees from District One Commissioner that I would now like to return.
These are:
Historic Resources Advisory Committee
Indian River Lagoon Advisory Board (Regional/State/Federal)
St. Johns River Water Management District (Regional)
Heritage River Initiative (State/Federal)
Several months ago, I also assigned District One Commissioner Fran Adams
to the new IRL North Feasibility Study Project Delivery Team and I was her
Alternate. I would like to assign that Alternate position to District Five
Commissioner, Caroline Ginn.
Both the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee and
the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board are State -
mandated committees that MUST be chaired by elected county
commissioners.
Therefore, the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee
is assigned to the District Two Commissioner.
While the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board will go
to the District Four Commissioner. NOTE: The Transportation
Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board will be meeting on November
22nd
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
The remaining committees that are assigned to District Two will be left for
the new commissioner in District Two.
IRC Council on Aging
Keep Indian River Beautiful
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
Chairman Stanbridge asked the Board to confirm her committee assignment suggestions.
Commissioner Adams agreed and also wanted to appoint Ruth Stanbridge to act as
County Liaison to: National Scenic Highway, Pelican Island Centennial Committee, American
Heritage River, Greenways and Trails, restoration of the Kitching Railroad Station, and
restoration of the Old School in Fellsmere.
Chairman Stanbridge stated that she would be happy to continue her participation in these
endeavors on behalf of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the
committee appointments as stated in Chairman Stanbridge's
Memorandum, and appointed Ruth Stanbridge to serve as County
Liaison to the following ongoing projects: American Heritage
River, National Scenic Highway, Pelican Island Centennial
Committee, Kitching Railroad and Old School in Fellsmere
Restoration.
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
NOVEMBER 12, 2002
14.8. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would
reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes
are being prepared separately.
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
None.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board
adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
ATTEST:
Minutes Approved:
NOVEMBER 12, 2002