Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/12/2000
r -. - - • • M TUESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2404 - 4:40 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1$40 25`'' Street, Vera Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Fran B. Adams, Chairman Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ruth M. Stanbridge John W. Tippin District 1 District 5 District 3 District 2 District 4 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER James E. Chandler, County Administrator Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 2. INVOCATION Chaplain Maynard Sweigard 3. FLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Paul G. Bangel 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS ADDITIONS: 7.5. Interlocal Agreement with Schaal Board Concerning Scrub Jay Lot Acquisition 13.D.1. Clarification on Mandatory Trash Collection 13.A.2. Vernon Reason's Request for Garbage Pickup in Certain Neighborhoods 13.A.3. Use of Meeting Rooms in County Administration Building MQVE: 11.B.1. to 14.A. -Emergency Services District Matter -Grant Application BACKUP PAGES 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of Proclamation Hanaring Douglas C. Bournique as Florida Outstanding Agriculturist for 2000 1 B. Proclamation Hanaring Monte K. Falls far his service an the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission 2 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None BK 1 16 PC 3 21 7. BACKUP CONSENT AGENDA PAGES A. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated November 30, 2000) 3-3M B. Epilepsy Awazeness Month Proclamation 4 C. Appointment of Francis M. Coffey, Jr. to the Emergency Services District Advisory Committee for District 3 (memorandum dated December 5, 2000) 5-11 D. Appointment of Stephen E. Moler, P.E. to the Professional Services Advisory Committee (letter received October 20, 2000) 12-13 E. Approval of committee appointments for the Boazd of County Commissioners for 2001 (memorandum dated December 5, 2000) 14-16 F. Resignation of Monte K. Falls from the Planning and Zoning Commission (letter dated November 14, 2000) 17 G. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs (memorandum dated December 1, 2000) 18-19 H. Financial Software Consultant (memorandum dated December 5, 2000) 20-21 I. Arbitrage Rebate and Opinion Services Contract Addendum (memorandum dated November 5, 2000) 22-24 J. Membership to the Grant Review Subcommittee of the Children's Services Advisory Committee (memorandum dated December 4, 2000) 25 K. Awazd Bid #3035: Paving of Parking Lot and Rear Driveway at South County RO Plant/LTtilities Department (memorandum dated December 1, 2000) 26-31 L. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 002 (memorandum dated December 4, 2000) 32-53 M. A Resolution of Formal Acceptance of Utility Easements in Westwood Subdivision — 28`h Court SW (memorandum dated December 4, 2000) 54-56 BKII�iPG322 BACKUP 7. CONSENT AGENDA tcont'd.) PAGES N. Appointment of Herbert Bailey to the Council of Public Officials (letter dated December 6, 2000) 57 O. Appointment of Dr. Craig McGarvey to the Economic Development Council (memorandum dated December 6, 2000) 58 P. Appointment of Dorothy Talbert to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, with Steven Mohler serving as an alternate (memorandum dated December 5, 2000) 59 Q. GHO Vero Beach IV, Inc. Request for Release of Ease- ment at 3302 63`d Sq. (The Sanctuary) (memorandum dated December 6, 2000) 60-66 R. Acceptance of Implied Plat Dedications (memorandum dated December 6, 2000) 67-70 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Indian River Courts Ltd.'s Request to Modify the Conceptual Planned Development Plan for Indian River Courts (Legislative) (memorandum dated November 20, 2000) 71-86 2. Wesleyan Church of Vero Beach's Request for Special Exception Use Approval to Add a Social Hall to the Existing Church Facility (Legislative) (memorandum dated November 20, 2000) 87-94 BKi16PG323 BACKUP 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.). PAGES A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.). 3. Westwood Subdivision, 28th Court SW (North off 5th St. SW) Petition Water Service — Resolution III (memorandum dated December 4, 2000) 95407 4. Anita Park Subdivision, 37th & 38th Streets Petition Water Service — Resolution III (memorandum dated December 4, 2000) 108430 B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Sandy and George Kahle's Appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission Decision to Approve an Adnnmi strative Permit Request from Nextel Communications for a 149' Monopole Telecommunications Tower (memorandum dated December S, 2000) 131463 2. Discussion of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amend- ment / Clontz Property (memorandum dated November 30, 2000) 164483 C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS Gun Range — Staffing and Budget (memorandum dated December 6, 2000) 184-192 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Develoument None B. Emer encv Services 1. Approval of FY 2000/2001 EMS County Awards Grant, Purchase of Capital and Operating Equipment with Matching EMS EMS Grant Funds, and Grant Resolution (memorandum dated November 30, 2000) 193-201 2. Approval of Renewal of Class B EMS Cert ificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Indian River Memorial Hospital Medical Transport Service to pro- vide Nan -Emergency Interfacility Advanced Life Support Transport Services (memorandum dated November 30, 2000) 202-227 B��l�PG324 BACK`,'p 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'dJ: PAGES C. General Services Storm Shutters for Old Fellsmere School Building {memorandum dated December 6, 2000} 228-233 D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Bndget None F. Personnel None G. Public Warks Sebastian Canoe Launch, FDEP Grant Extension {memorandum dated December 4, 2444} 234238 H. Utilities None I. Duman Services None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Fran B. Adams Appointment to Fill Vacant At -Large Position an the Planning and Zoning Commission {memorandum dated December b, 2440} 239-2bp B. Vice Chairman Caratine D. Ginn C. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht enc i � � �� � � � p� BACKUP 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.): PAGES D. Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge E. Commissioner John W. Tippin 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS A. Emerencv Services District None B. Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Approval of Minutes — meeting of Nov. 7, 2000 2. Additional Assistance Services Agreement with Keep Indian River Beautiful (memorandum dated November 14, 2000) 261-287 3. Indian River Correctional Institution's Request for Solid Waste Assessment Adjustment (memorandum dated November 16, 2000) 288-292 C. Environmental Control Board None 15. ADJOURNMENT Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m. BK I I� I'G X26 INDEX TO MINUTES BOARI3 OF COUNTS COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2UU� 1. CALL TO ORDER ....................... . ........................ . 1 2. INVOCATION....................................................1 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE .............. . .......................... 1 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ..................................... 1 S.A, PROCLAMATION HONORING DOUGLAS C. BOURNIQUE AS FLORIDA OUTSTANDING AGRICULTURIST FOR 2000 ... . ..................... 2 S.B. PROCLAMATION HONORING MONTE K. FALLS FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION . . ......... . . . ..... . .... 3 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ......................................... 4 7. CONSENT AGENDA ....... ....................................... 4 7.A. Approval of Warrants ................. . ....................... 4 7.B. Proclamation -National Epilepsy Awareness Month -December 2000.. 16 7.C, Emergency Services District Advisory Committee -Appointment of Francis M. Coffey, Jr. (District 3) .. . ................. . ................ 17 7.D. Professional Services Advisory Committee - Appointment of Stephen E. Moler, P.E, to Replace Fred Bonfield, P.E......................... 18 7.E. Appointments of Commissioners to Various Committees for 2001 ..... 19 7.F. Resignation of Monte K, Falls from the Planning and Zoning Commission ..........................................................21 7,G. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs ...................... 22 7.H. Financial Software Consultant -Clerk of Circuit Court -Government Finance Officers Association Research Center . .................... 24 7.I, Arbitrage Rebate and Opinion Services Contract Addendum -Public Financial Management -Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe ............. 26 7.J. Children's Services Advisory Committee -Appointment of Scharlet Chesser to Grant Review Subcommittee ................... . ..... 27 1 7.K 7.L. 7.M. 7.N. 7.0. 7.P. 7.Q 7.R. 7.5. Bid Award #3035 -Paving of Parking Lat and Rear Driveway at South County RO Plant/Utilities Department -Empower Construction, Inc. ... 28 Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 002 .............. . ........... 29 Resolution No. 2000-148 -Formal Acceptance of Easements for Utility Purposes only at 28th Court SW, North of Sth Street, Westwood Subdivision................................................50 Appointment of Herbert Bailey to Council of Public Officials to Represent the Indian River County School District ................ . ....... . . S4 Appointment of Dr. Craig McGarvey to the Economic Development Council as Representative of the Schaal District of Indian River County ..........................................................SS Appointment of Dorothy Talbert to the Metropolitan Planning Organization as Representative of the School District of Indian River County (Stephen Maler to Serve as Alternate) ................................... S6 Resolution No. 2000-149 - GHO Vero Beach IV, Inc. -Release of Easement at 3342 63rd Sq. {The Sanctuary) .... . ............ . .... . S8 Resolution Na. 2000-150 -Acceptance of Implied Plat Dedications - (Townsite of Roseland and Other Subdivisions -Subsequent to Driver v, Indian River County} ......................................... 61 Interlocal Agreement with School Board of Indian River County Concerning Scrub Jay Lot Acquisition {Pelican Island Elementary School) ..........................................................65 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING -MODIFICATION TO THE CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR INDIAN RIVER COURTS -REQUESTED BY INDIAN RIVER COURTS LTD ...................................... 65 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING -SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL TO ADD A SOCIAL HALL TO THE EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY - WESLEYAN CHURCH OF VERO BEACH . . ... . . . ............................... 69 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTION NO.2000-1 S 1 - WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION, 28TH COURT SW {NORTH OF 5TH STREET SW) PETITION WATER SERVICE -RESOLUTION III ............................... 73 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTION NO. 2000-152 - ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION - 37TH AND 38TH STREETS PETITION WATER SERVICE - RESOLUTION III .... . .. ......................................... 79 �� � � � ��i � � � 2 0 0 9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - SANDY AND GEORGE KAHLE'S APPEAL OF A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT REQUEST FROM NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS FOR A 149' MONOPOLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER 89 9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM -DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA - CLONTZ PROPERTY ...... . ..................... 104 } 0. GUN RANGE -STAFFING AND BUDGET -BUDGET AMENDMENT 003 125 1 l.B.l. FY 2000/2001 EMS COUNTY AWARDS GRANT, PURCHASE OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING EQUIPMENT WITH NON-MATCHING EMS GRANT FUNDS, AND GRANT RESOLUTION ... . ......... 135 11.B.2. RENEWAL OF CLASS B EMS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MEDICAL TRANSPORT SERVICE TO PROVIDE NON- EMERGENCY INTERFACILITY ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT TRANSPORT SERVICES .60....00 .... . ... . .... . .0..000.... , 135 11.C. STORM SHUTTERS FOR OLD FELLSMERE SCHOOL BUILDING - CLEARSHIELD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ................. 137 11.G. SEBASTIAN CANOE LAUNCH, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GRANT EXTENSION AMENDMENTS - PROJECT 9819 ........... . ................ 138 13.A.I . CHAIRMAN ADAMS -APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANT AT LARGE POSITION ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ... 139 13.A.2. REQUEST OF VERNON REASONS FOR GARBAGE PICKUP IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS .... . ....... . ......... . ........ 141 13.A.3. POLICY ON USE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MEETING ROOMS BYNON-COUNTY GROUPS ............... 141 13.D. COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE —CLARIFICATION OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ENTITLED "MANDATORY GARBAGE PICKUP RECOMMENDED FOR COUNTY" .. . ... . . . ........... . .... . .142 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ............................... 144 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ..............................145 d 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD ............................ 145 B� I ! � PG 3 3 Q December 12, 2000 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1$40 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, December 12, 2000. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn, Vice Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht; Ruth Stanbridge; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. INVOCATION Chaplain Maynard Sweigard delivered the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE County Attorney Bangei led the Pledge to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Chairman Adams announced the addition of the following items: 7.5. Interlocal Agreement with School Board Concerning Scrub Jay Lat Acquisition; 13.D. L Clarification on Mandatory Trash Collection; December 12, 2000 1 "` ' I 13.A.2. Vernon Reason's Request for Garbage Pickup in Certain Neighborhoods; and 13.A.3 Use of Meeting Rooms in County Administration Building. Chairman Adams announced that item 11.B.1. would be moved to 14.A. (Emergency Services District Meeting) Grant Resolution -Approval of FY 2000/2001 EMS County Awards Grant, Purchase of Capital and Operating Equipment with Non -Matching EMS Grant Funds. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously made the above additions and change to the Agenda. S.A. PROCLAMATION HONORING DOUGLAS C. BOURNIO_ UE AS FLORIDA OUTSTANDING AGRICULTURIST FOR 2000 Chairman Adams read the following proclamation into the record and presented it to Mr. Bournique who accepted it with thanks. He credited the growers, commented how lucky we are to have agriculture as the backbone of this county, and predicted there would be a great citrus crop this year. HONORING DOUGLAS C. BOURNIQUE AS FLORIDA OUTSTANDING AGRICULTURIST FOR 2000 WHEREAS, Douglas C. Boumique is currently the Executive Vice President and General Manager of the Indian River Citrus League, which represents over 1,200 members who grow commercial citrus on approximately 220.000 acres; and WHEREAS, Doug represents the Indian River Citrus League in Washington and Tallahassee on legislative matters that impact growers, and also lobbies on water -related issues with the St Johns River Water Management District, the South Florida Water Management District and the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council; and WHEREAS, Doug currently serves on Congressman Mark Foley's Agricukural Advisory Committee, is a member and Chairman of the USDA Technical Advisory Committee for Trade December 12, 2000 �, 2 s��ibpc�3� in Fruits and Vegetables, and committee member of Congressman Dave Weldon's am Environmental Advisory Committee. His expertise has made him an invaluable member of the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program's Citizen's Advisory Committee, the County's Fairgrounds Advisory Committee, a Director of the Vero Beach YMCA and a Director of the Vero Beach Chamber of Commerce, and WHEREAS, Doug Was in Indian River County, but is known through the Treasure Coast, the state and the nation as the 'number one cheerleader for the world's finest citrus', and his leadership to the agricultural industry has been invaluable to citrus growers and packers throughout Florida; and WHEREAS, in September of 2000, Doug Boumique was named as a Florida Outstanding Agriculturist for 2000 from the Florida Association of County Agricultural Agents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that the Board expresses it appreciation and admiration to Doug Boumique for his hard work and commitment to the community. Adopted this 12th day of December, 2000. BOARO OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA (t/Qmae� Fran B. Adams, Chairman S.B. PROCLAMATION HONORING MONTE K. FALLS FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Chairman Adams read the following proclamation into the record and presented it to Mr. Falls who accepted with thanks for the opportunity and pleasure of having served the County as a member of the PZC. HONORING MONTE K. FALLS FOR HIS SERVICE ON THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHEREAS, Monte K. Falls has announced his resignation from the Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission effective December 14, 2000; and WHEREAS, he was appointed to serv e on the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 28, 1991; and WHEREAS, Monte K. Falls was elected Chairman in January, 1999, and held that position until January, 2000. He has displayed fairn ess and integrity in confronting the myriad problems that arise when dealing with planning and zoning issues; and WHEREAS, Monte K. Falls was involved in the analysis of numerous pro jects, including the Horizon Outlet Malt, the Indian River Mall, Windsor Planned Development, the Disney Residential Resort, the Pointe West Traditional Neighborhood Development and both the North and South County Regional Parks; and December 129 2000 3 BK i i b PG 3 3 3 WHEREAS, some of the most notable accomplishments during his tenure were the 1990/1991 Comprehensive Land Use Plan re -write, the 1990/1991 Land Development Regulations rewrite, the Wabasso Corridor Plan, the State Road 60 Corridor Pian, the Telecommunications Towers Land Development Regulations re -write, the 1995/1996 Comprehensive Plan Appraisal, Review and Amendment Process and Planned Development Review. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board expresses deep appreciation for the professional engineering expertise that Monte K. Falls has exhibited aver the past ten years on behalf of Indian River County and extends their heartfelt wishes for his success in future endeavors. Fran B. Adams, Chairman 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Adams requested 7.S. to be separated from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Vice Chairman Ginn requested that 71 be separated for 7.A. Avn�oval of Warrants The Board re viewed a Memorandum of November 3Q, 204Q: December 12, 2000 C! BK !l�PG334 a question. 'ro: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 2000 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRAN'T'S FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Boazd 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 Boazd, for the time period of November 21, 2000 to November 30, 2000. Attachment: ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period November 21-30, 2000, as requested. CHECK NAME NUMBER 0293014 ANDERSON, FRED 0293015 ANDERSON, CAMELIA AND CITY OF 0293016 BIEMANN, GWEN 0293017 BROXTON, LYDIA 0293018 BEUTTELL, PETER M 0293019 SILKEN GROUP 0293020 BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 0293021 BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H 0293022 BROOKHAVEN, TOWN OF 0293023 BREVARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRTY 0293024 BURGESS, TANGELA AND 0293025 CORK, RHODA L 0293026 CENTURY 21 SEATREK REALTY, INC 0293027 C P E ASSOCIATES 0293028 CAPAK, GERALD T 0293029 CARONE, PAUL 0293030 COASTAL ESCROW SERVICES, INC 0293031 DOOLITTLE,JAMES A & ASSOCIATES 0293032 DOVE, E WILSON December 12, 2000 G� CHECK DATE 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-i1-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-i1-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 2000-11-21 CHECK AMOUNT 239.00 11.00 317.00 224.00 284.00 715.00 281.00 324.00 96.22 522.22 42.00 251.00 286.00 2,814.00 343.00 369.00 63.00 4,400.00 366.00 BK 1 Iii PG 335 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293033 DOYLE, CHERYL 2000-11-21 301.00 0293034 EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113) 2000-11-21 931.00 0293035 EVANS, ALFRED 2000-11-21 400.00 0293036 FOGERTY, GEORGE A 2000-11-21 353.00 0293037 FRESH, DANIEL J 2000-11-21 233.00 0293038 FT PIERCE, CITY OF 2000-11-21 11328.44 0293039 FOGARTY ENTERPRISES, INC 2000-11-21 419.00 0293040 FORD, ROBERT J 2000-11-21 331.00 0293041 GASKILL, ROBERT 2000-11-21 286.00 0293042 GIFFORD GROVES, LTD 2000-11-21 8,692.00 0293043 GRACE'S LANDING LTD 2000-11-21 51113.00 0293044 HOLM, LEO 2000-11-21 494.00 0293045 HUNLEY, J MICHAEL 2000-11-21 414.00 0293046 JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES 2000-11-21 3,338.00 0293047 JAHOLKOWSKI, MIKE 2000-11-21 337.00 0293048 JULIN, PAUL 2000-11-21 170.00 0293049 JOHNSTON, PATTIE 2000-11-21 395.00 0293050 JACKOWSKI, MICHAEL 2000-11-21 309.00 0293051 (JOHNSON, MICHELLE AND F P & L 2000-11-21 19.00 0293052 JONES, ALPHONSO 2000-11-21 251.00 0293053 %KOLB, GREGORY L - DECEASED 2000-11-21 438.00 0293054 jKNOWLES, MARK OR ANNA 2000-11-21 241.00 0293055 �,KISSIMMEE, CITY OF 2000-11-21 304.22 0293056 •LAWRENCE, TERRY A 2000-11-21 185.00 0293057 LANGLEY, PHILIP G 2000-11-21 235.00 0293058 LINDSEY GARDEN'S APARTMENTS 2000-11-21 9,294.00 0293059 LAPPERT, ANN OR RONALD 2000-11-21 234.00 0293060 MIXELL, LLONALD AND/OR 2000-11-21 255.00 0293061 M 0 D INVESTMENTS 2000-11-21 891.00 0293062 MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM 2000-11-21 203.00 0293063 MALGERIA, PRISCILLA 2000-11-21 419.00 0293064 MORRILL, TINA AND CITY OF 2000-11-21 31.00 0293065 MULLINS, B FRANK 2000-11-21 558.00 0293066 MCGRIFF, SHARON AND CITY OF 2000-11-21 26.00 0293067 MEAD, THOMAS H OR HELEN S 2000-11-21 281.00 0293068 NORMAN, DOUGLAS OR BARBARA 2000-11-21 337.00 0293069 ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING AND 2000-11-21 613.22 0293070 PALMER TRAILER PARK 2000-11-21 267.00 0293071 PITTMAN, CATHERINE & FLORIDA 2000-11-21 34.00 0293072 POLLY, EMMA 2000-11-21 833.00 0293073 PIERSON, JOHN H DBA 2000-11-21 318.00 0293074 PALUMBO, LOUIS 2000-11-21 343.00 0293075 PUERTO RICO DEPARTMENT OF 2000-11-21 405.22 0293076 REAGAN, WILLIE C 2000-11-21 271.00 0293077 RAUDENBUSH, ERNEST 2000-11-21 245.00 0293078 RICOTTI, RICARDO 2000-11-21 317.00 0293079 RIVER PARK PLACE 2000-11-21 51393.00 0293080 ST FRANCIS MANOR 2000-11-21 41479.00 0293081 SCROGGS, BETTY DAVIS 2000-11-21 318.00 0293082 SACCO, JACQUELINE AND/OR 2000-11-21 245.00 0293083 STEWART, REUBEN W 2000-11-21 455.00 0293084 STUART HOUSING AUTHORITY 2000-11-21 389.22 0293085 SANDY PINES 2000-11-21 4,846.00 0293086 �SHELTON, ROBERT L 2000-11-21 423.00 0293087 jSTARCK, MICHAEL R 2000-11-21 207.00 0293088 irSTRIBLING, WILLIAM JR 2000-11-21 267.00 0293089 ;SUNDMAN, IVAN 2000-11-21 333.00 0293090 ISTIMELING, PAUL B OR MARGARET 2000-11-21 273.00 December 12, 2000 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293091 SARTAIN, CHARLES S & TELECIA 2000-11-21 79,938.05 215.00 0020883 0293092 TOWN & COUNTRY LEASING 2000-11-21 495.00 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC 0293093 TOLBERT, JEANETTE AND CITY OF 2000-11-21 00208:: 75.00 2000-11-28 0293094 TUMLIN, TRACY N 2000-11-21 320.00 0293095 ULZSKY, WILLIAM B OR MARLENE 2000-11-21 ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT 183.00 9,994.95 0293096 VERO MOBILE HOME PARR 2000-11-21 2000-11-29 337.00 0293097 VERO FIRST CORPORATION 2000-11-21 1,576.00 0293098 WILLIAMS, DEBRA WASHINGTON 2000-11-21 160.00 029310& 0293099 WILLIAMS, EDITH 2000-11-21 99.74 270.00 `ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC 0293100 YORK, LILLY B 2000-11-21 029310' 189.00 2000-11-30 0293101 YORK, DAVID 2000-11-21 029310E 378.00 2000-11-30 0293102 ZANCA, LEONARD 2000-11-21 0293109 588.00 2000-11-30 76,054.76 0020882 INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT 2000-11-22 79,938.05 0020883 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- 2000-11-28 126,536.44 0020884 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC 2000-11-28 2,154.60 00208:: BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF 2000-11-28 19,946.01 00208�R= ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT 2000-11-28 9,994.95 00208H? TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769 2000-11-29 5,335.29 02931C:2 -ACE PLUMBING, INC 2000-11-30 66.00 029310& ACTION PRINTERS 2000-11-30 99.74 029310<� `ADVANCED GARAGE DOORS, INC 2000-11-30 1,510.00 029310' !ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE 2000-11-30 429.01 029310E 'APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 2000-11-30 308.39 0293109 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 2000-11-30 1,101.16 0293110 AHS PUMPS, INC 2000-11-30 523.16 0293111 AQUAGENIX 2000-11-30 105.00 0293113 ART RRIEGER CONSTRUCTION INC 2000-11-30 500.00 0293114 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES 2000-11-30 77.11 0293115 A T & T 2000-11-30 169.78 0293117 ARNOLD'S AIR CONDITIONING INC 2000-11-30 4,175.00 0293119 ANDERSON, MARGARET M 2000-11-30 1,000.00 0293120 AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC 2000-11-30 3,913.67 0293121 ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS CLUB 2000-11-30 68.89 0293122 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 2000-11-30 15.00 0293123 AMERICAN REPORTING 2000-11-30 472.50 0293124 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL 2000-11-30 170.00 0293125 ASSOCIATES, THE 2000-11-30 7,310.16 0293127 ALL CLEAR LOCATING SERVICES 2000-11-30 492.50 0293128 A M ENGINEERING & TESTING INC 2000-11-30 776.00 0293129 AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL FUND 2000-11-30 32.00 0293130 ADNAN INVESTMENT & DEV INC 2000-11-30 100.00 0293131 BAIRD, JOSEPH A 2000-11-30 84.34 0293132 BAKER DISTRIBUTING CO 2000-11-30 217.06 0293134 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2000-11-30 6,672.76 0293135 BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY 2000-11-30 488.49 0293137 BARYON, JEFFREY R- CLERK 2000-11-30 208,426.66 0293138 BARYON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 2000-11-30 2,991.75 0293139 SERGGREN EQUIPMENT CO, INC 2000-11-30 3,242.50 0293141 BRODART CO 2000-11-30 3,156.98 0293143 BLUE CROSS SLUE SHIELD OF 2000-11-30 232.80 0293145 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 2000-11-30 608.40 0293147 BELLSOUTH MOBILITY 2000-11-30 438.28 0293148 BELLSOUTH 2000-11-30 13,181.48 0293149 BEAZER HOMES, INC 2000-11-30 1,000.00 0293150 BEST POWER 2000-11-30 123.23 0293151 HELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION 2000-i1-30 30.38 0293152 BARYON, JEFFREY R 2000-11-30 497.42 0293153 BELFORD, DENNIS 2000-11-30 141.40 December 12, 2000 II BK 1 16 PG 3 3 7 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0243154 BIG DIPPER PRODUCTIONS 2000-11-30 210.04 0293155 BAKER, PAMELA A 2040-11-34 75.40 4293157 B & 5 SOD INC 2004-11-30 575.00 0293158 SLACKMON, SHANITA 2000-11-30 43.77 0293159 BANGEL, PAUL G 2000-11-34 343.78 0243164 BARZE, BILL 2400-11-30 162.46 0293161 BOWLES, AARON 2000-11-30 6.00 0293162 BIOMASS PROCESSING 2000-11-30 59,020.84 0293163 BELLSOUTH 2404-11-30 690,72 0293264 BUSINESS & LEGAL REPORTS ZNC 2000-11-30 233.94 0293165 CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANX 2000-11-30 477.62 029316b CAMPr DRESSER & MCKEEr INC 2040-11-30 39,637.31 0293167 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC 2404-11-30 1,487.42 0293168 CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC 2000-11-30 706.34 0293170 CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL 2000-11-30 75.04 0293172 COLLINS BROWN CALDWELL AND 2004-11-30 20,375.80 0293172 COMMUNICATIONS ZNT'L INC 2000-11-30 13,390.17 0293174 COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING 2000-11-30 18,824.56 0293276 CUSTOM HOMES 2000-I1-34 1,004.00 0293177 CALL ONE, ZNC 2044-11-30 54.00 0293178 C ORE PROGRAM 2000-11-30 220.00 0293184 COASTLINE DEVELOPMENT, INC 2040-11-30 500.00 0243181 CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO 2440-11-34 4,412.56 0293183 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 2000-11-30 58.50 0293184 CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC 2000-11-30 43.54 0293186 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 2000-11-30 256.50 4293188 CONSOLIDATED RESOURCE RECOVERY 2040-11-30 46,647.42 0293190 CENTRAL FLORIDA PRIMA 2000-11-30 25.00 0293192 CALLAHAN, RONALD L 2000-11-30 355.60 4293194 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP 2400-11-34 4,888.68 0293195 CARBITE GOLF 2000-11-30 62.80 0293196 CARLUCCI, LEONARD A 2000-11-30 343.00 0293197 CENTRAL AZR CONDITIONING & 2440-11-30 88.93 0293198 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 2004-11-30 46.50 0293199 DAVIS, JAMES 2040-11-30 67.75 0293200 DELTA SUPPLY CO 2044-21-30 816.61 0293241 DEMCO INC 2400-11-34 118.76 0293202 DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC 2000-11-30 122.65 0293203 DICRERSON-FLORIDA, INC 2000-11-30 1,091.44 0293204 DON SMITH'S FAINT STORE, INC 2000-11-30 448.63 02932Q5 DOW, HOWELL, GILMOREr 2000-11-30 1.775.40 0293206 DATA SUPPLIES. INC 2000-11-30 365.58 0293207 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 2004-11-30 540.00 0293208 DATA FLOW SYSTEMS, ZNC 2000-11-30 2,297.50 0293209 DAY -TIMERS, INC 2000-11-30 8.61 0293210 DIROCCO CONSTRUCTION 2040-11-30 500.00 December 12, 2404 B1{ ii��'G�3� CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293211 DARE PAPER COMPANY 2000-11-30 413.28 0293212 DESIGNED TRAFFIC 2000-11-30 58,179.44 0293214 DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC 2000-11-30 226.02 0293215 DILLARD, CABBIE 2000-11-30 29.61 0293217 DOYLE, STEVE 2000-11-30 19.72 0293218 DOLPHIN DATA PRODUCTS INC 2000-11-30 642.55 0293219 DIVINE SERVICE ENTERPRISES INC 2000-11-30 615.00 0293220 DAUGHERTY, JOYCE 2000-11-30 25.72 0293223 ELLIS R PHELPS AND CO, INC 2000-11-30 73.50 0293224 E G P INC 2000-11-30 305.84 0293225 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 2000-11-30 1,625.00 0293226 ELPEX, INC 2000-11-30 50.00 0293227 ENVIRONMENTAL LEARNING 2000-11-30 250.00 0293228 EMS INSIDER, 2000-11-30 130.00 0293229 ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC 2000-11-30 5,107.86 0293230 ESQUIRE DEPOSITION SERVICES 2000-11-30 185.00 0293231 ENGLE, SARAH 2000-11-30 18.02 0293232 EMERTECH, INC 2000-11-30 95.00 0293233 ENGLISH, ELEANOR 2000-11-30 42.28 0293234 FAHRO 2000-11-30 156.25 0293236 FEDEX 2000-11-30 282.08 0293237 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY 2000-11-30 175.00 0293238 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 2000-11-30 376.78 0293240 FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO 2000-11-30 438.00 0293241 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 2000-11-30 73,338.69 0293242 FLORIDA TURFGRASS ASSOCIATION 2000-11-30 175.00 0293243 FOOTJOY 2000-11-30 1,185.97 0293244 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF 2000-11-30 165.04 0293247 FLORIDA EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 2000-11-30 300.00 0293248 FLINN, SHEILA I 2000-11-30 259.00 0293249 FREEMAN, ROGER 2000-11-30 60.00 0293251 FLOW -TECHNOLOGY 2000-11-30 184.72 0293252 FELLSMERE, CITY OF 2000-11-30 85.54 0293253 FLORIDAFFINITY, INC 2000-11-30 4,870.50 0293254 FENIMORE, CHARLES 2000-11-30 75.00 0293255 FELLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT 2000-11-30 50.00 0293256 FRED RENAUD, INC 2000-11-30 2,250.00 0293257 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 2000-11-30 55.00 0293258 FLORIDA SOFTWARE, INC 2000-11-30 103.00 0293259 F & W PUBLICATIONS INC 2000-11-30 240.94 0293260 FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH 2000-11-30 1,630.63 0293261 FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL 2000-11-30 562.50 0293263 FULLER, APRIL L 2000-11-30 38.62 0293265 FRITZ T BROWN BOOKS 2000-11-30 44.00 0293266 FOXWELL, MAUREEN 2000-11-30 247.76 0293267 GALE GROUP, THE 2000-11-30 962.58 December 12, 2000 . 9 BK f ! � PG 339 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293268 GATOR LUMBER COMPANY 2000-11-30 7.49 0293270 GENE'S AUTO GLASS 2000-11-30 50.00 0293271 GLZDDEN COMPANY, THE 2000-11-30 248.54 0293272 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC 2000-11-30 851.43 0293273 GOVERNMENT FINANCE 2000-11-30 450.00 0293274 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 2000-11-30 2,431.41 0293275 GALL'S INC 2000-11-30 74.00 0293276 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER 2000-11-30 434.28 0293277 GREENE, ROBERT E 2000-11-3Q 1,916.67 0293278 GIFFORD GROVES, LTD 2000-11-30 43$.00 0293279 GRILL REFILL, ZNC 2000-11-3p 141,40 0293280 FLORIDA GAME & FRESH WATER 2000-11-30 25.00 4243281 GE05YNTEC CONSULTANTS 2000-11-30 21,683.27 0293282 GREEN & METCALF, PA 2000-11-30 1,664.54 0293283 GRABEL, JORDAN MD 2000-11-30 500.00 0293284 GOMERSALL, EDWARD 2000-11-30 500.00 0293285 GAUDET, RON 2000-11-30 28,350.00 0293286 GAMBINO, ELIZABETH 2000-11-30 164.36 0293287 HICKMAN'S BRAKE & ALIGNMENT 2000-11-30 2,279.05 0243288 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES 2000-11-30 401.10 0293289 HERITAGE BOORS, INC 2000-11-30 453.70 0293291 HACH GOMPANX 2000-11-30 372.65 0243242 HIGGZNSON BOOK COMPANY 2000-I1-30 87.50 0293293 HILL MANUFACTURING 2000-11-30 304.86 0293294 HARPRING, JAMRS G. 2000-11-30 1,348.00 4293295 HORIZON NURSERY 2000-11-30 15.80 0293246 HIGHLANDS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2000-22-30 162.00 0293298 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 2000-11-30 3,500.00 0243299 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 2000-11-30 2,301.06 0293300 HANSEN, SUSAN 2000-11-30 87.00 0293301 HAMRZCK'S AUTOMOTIVE ZNC 2000-11-30 803.35 0293302 HUNTER, TAMIKA 2000-11-30 43.77 0293303 HOME DEPOT 2000-11-30 15.99 0243304 HUBBS, DONALD R 2000-I1-30 125.46 0293306 HOLIDAY ZNN EXPRESS 2000-11-30 158.00 0293307 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2000-11-30 60,273.87 0293308 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID 2000-11-30 12,633.06 0293309 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2004-11-30 200.00 0293310 INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC 2000-11-30 510.20 0293311 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC 2000-11-30 1,147.20 0293312 INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC 2004-11-30 282.49 0293313 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 2000-11-30 84?.60 02$3315 INTERNATIONAL RIGHT OF WAY 2000-11-30 155.00 0293317 INVESTIGATIVE SUPPORT 2000-11-30 400.00 0293318 ICMA 2000-11-30 822.67 0293321 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 2000-11-30 392.19 December 12, 2000 • " � CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293322 INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY 2000-11-30 196.03 0293323 IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT 2000-11-30 144.29 0293324 INTEGRITY COURT REPORTING INC 2000-11-30 1,925.20 0293325 JACKSON ELECTRONICS 2000-11-30 219.60 0293326 JACOBS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR 2000-11-30 76.00 0293327 JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES 2000-11-30 277.00 0293328 JIFFY PHOTO CENTER 2000-11-30 7.17 0293329 JIM WALTERS HOMESr INC 2000-11-30 11094,79 4293330 JOHN DEERE COMPANY 2000-11-30 6,407.28 0293331 JOBEARr INC 2000-11-30 100.00 Q293332 JIM WALTERS HOMES, INC 2000-11-30 1,094.79 Q293334 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA 2000-11-30 854.62 4293335 JAFFEr ROBERT Fr ES 2000-11-30 100.00 0293336 JUNGINGER, DEAN CARYr JR 2000-11-30 50.00 0293337 JDSS COMPANIES INC 2000-11-30 10500.00 0293339 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC 2000-11-30 16,910.98 0293340 KNIGHT & MATHISr INC 2000-11-34 211.88 0293342 KLUCINECx MONA 2000-11-30 19.86 0293343 KAUFFMANN, ALAN 2000-11-30 312.00 0293344 K S M ENGINEERING & TESTING 2000-11-30 125.00 0293345 KRUGER CONSTRUCTION CORP 2000-11-30 30.00 0293346 KOMARNICKIr WALTER 2000-11-30 75.00 0293347 K & M ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 2000-11-30 5.43 0293348 KING, PAMELA C 2000-11-30 213.00 0293349 LONG, JAMES T ESQUIRE 2000-11-30 7x800.00 0293350 LUCAS WATERPROOFING COr INC 2000-11-30 31360.00 0293351 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC 2000-11-30 477.39 4293352 LOWExS COMPANIESr INC. 2000-11-30 2x660.57 0293353 LANDRUMr GREGORY C PSY D 2000-11-30 625.00 0293354 L B SMITH, INC 2000-11-30 1,096.53 0293355 LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS 2000-11-30 615.64 4293356 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 2000-11-30 22r520.10 0293357 LESCO, INC 2000-11-30 361.37 0293358 LETTSr DAVID 2000-11-30 5,244.00 0293359 LANDSCAPE CONNECTION 2000-11-34 73.55 0293361 LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION 2000-11-30 11000.00 0293362 LEBEAUx GERALD 2000-11-30 101.46 0293365 KLEMENSr KENNETH & DORIS 2000-11-30 1,350.00 Q293366 LONDON GRAPHICS 2000-11-30 125.20 0293367 LYNDEL & COMPANY 2000-11-30 275.40 0293368 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 2000-11-30 65.84 4293370 INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE 2000-11-34 18,977.91 0293371 MIKES GARAGE 2000-11-30 285.00 0293372 MDS MATRX 2000-11-30 682.86 0293374 MASTELLER & MOLER, INC 2000-11-30 58x123.72 0293375 MELITI, DENNIS 2000-11-30 60.00 December 12, 2000 11 BK 1 16 PG 3 41 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293376 -MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC 2000-11_30 38.31 0293377 !MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY 2000-11-30 11346.94 0293379 (MARTIN, WILLIAM T & PATRICIA 2000-11-30 75.00 0293380 MERCURY TECHNOLOGIES 2000-11-30 512.35 0293382 MENZ, NICHOLE 2000-11-30 141.54 0293383 MICHAEL SCHLITT CONSTRUCTION 2000-11-30 500.00 0293385 MGB CONSTRUCTION INC 2000-11-30 2,000.00 0293386 MACWILLIAMS, KEVIN ESQ 2000-11-30 6,000.00 0293387 'MURPHY, DEBBIE 2000-11-30 168.00 0293390 MCCULLY, WILLIAM KEITH 2000-11-30 6.00 0293391 MIRANDA, LOUISE E 2000-11-30 500.00 0293392 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 2000-11-30 225.95 0293393 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING 2000-11-30 736.53 0293394 NEWSBANK 2000-11-30 18,253.50 0293395 NOLTE, DAVID C 2000-11-30 149,698.44 0293396 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC 2000-11-30 361.99 0293397 NICOSIA, ROGER J DO 2000-11-30 1,660.00 0293398 NEW YORK GENEALOGICAL & 2000-11-30 22.00 0293399 N C R 2000-11-30 1,644.00 0293400 NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER 2000-11-30 150.00 0293401 NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY 2000-11-30 440.47 0293402 NAPIER, WILLIAM MATT 2000-11-30 113.55 0293404 VEOPOST 2000-11-30 145.00 0293406 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE 2000-11-30 499.33 0293409 1OFFICE DEPOT, INC 2000-11-30 544.55 0293410 JOCEAN OAKS DENTAL GROUP 2000-11-30 700.00 0293411 ORLANDO, KAREN M 2000-11-30 308.00 0293412 'OREGON DMV 2000-11-30 3.00 0293413 (PAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING CO 2000-11-30 80.00 0293414 (PARKS RENTAL INC 2000-11-30 943.36 0293415 (PEPSI -COLA COMPANY 2000-11-30 237.50 0293416 IP TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT,INC 2000-11-30 47.98 0293419 !P B S & J 2000-11-30 41,590.00 0293420 .PETTY CASH 2000-11-30 34.34 0293421 PETRILLA, FRED Jr PHD 2000-11-30 500.00 0293422 PORT CONSOLIDATED 2000-11-30 1,523.32 0293423 PAK-MAIL 2000-11-30 40.15 0293424 PAGE, LIVINGSTON 2000-11-30 138.75 0293425 .PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 2000-11-30 15.00 0293426 PIERSON, JOHN H DBA 2000-11-30 309.00 0293427 •PINELLAS GENEALOGY SOCIETY 2000-11-30 242.00 0293428 ;PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION 2000-11-30 246.00 0293429 PEGASUS TRAVEL 2000-11-30 431.50 0293430 'PANKIEWICZ-FUCHS, PATRICIA A 2000-11-30 48.00 0293431 PROSPER, JANET C 2000-11-30 259.00 0293432 PERMA-FIX 2000-11-30 17,575.00 December 12, 2000 12 Bi{ 11 6 'PG 342 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293433 PESHA, JESSICA 2000-11-30 29.61 0293434 RELIABLE SEPTIC AND SERVICES 2000-11-30 900.00 0293435 RZNGHAVER 2000-11-30 635.20 0293436 �ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEFT 2000-11-30 28.00 0293437 ,ROBZNSON EQUIPMENT COMFANY,INC 2000-11-30 8.43 0293438 RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC 2000-11-30 1,848.99 0293439 ROHERTS & REYNOLDS PA 2000-11-30 13,920.61 0293440 RIORDAN, MICHAEL C PSY.D. 2000-1I-30 550.00 0293442 R & G SOD FARMS 2000-11-30 240.00 0293443 RAYNOR, WILLIAM M A SHIRLEY 2000-11-30 191.20 0293444 RADRE, PETER 2000-11-30 20.30 0293445 ROYAL CUP COFFEE 2000-I1-30 162.65 0293446 RAPP, PAMELA 2000-11-30 36.00 0293447 ROMANO, CHRISTINA 2000-11-30 3b.05 0243448 ROLOFF, LLOYD 2000-11-30 500.00 0293449 ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET 2000-11-30 187,60 0293451 ROSELAND, NICK 2000-11-30 500.00 0293452 iRUPPERT, DAVID 2000-11-30 500.00 0293453 SAFETY KLEEN CORP 2000-11-30 129.41 0293454 ISCHOPP, BARBARA G 2000-11-30 63.00 0293455 SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS 2000-I1-30 90.00 0293456 SCOTTY'S, ZNC 2000-11-30 11.55 0293457 SCOTTY'S, INC 2000-11-30 104.71 0293458 SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT 2000-11-30 78.00 0293459 iSEHASTIAN, CITY OF 2000-11-30 150.00 0293450 �SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC 2000-11-30 196.25 0293461 SE7LUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE 2000-11-30 4,676.75 0293462 SOUTHERN CULVERT, DIV OF 2000-11-30 1,056.00 0293463 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING, 2000-12-30 575,40 0293464 SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY 2000-11-30 111.32 0293465 1ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC 2000-11-3D 175.90 0293465 STANDARD & POOR'S 2000-12-30 1,093.14 029346? 'STATE ATTORNEY 29TH CIRCUIT 2000-11-30 18,147.25 0293468 �STURG23 LUMBER & PLXWOOD CO 2000-11-30 956.42 0243469 SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC 2000-11-30 416.50 0243470 SAFESFACE ZNC 2000-11-30 1,250.00 8293471 SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES 2000-11-30 2,925.96 0293473 SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF 2000-11-30 808.22 0293474 STEWART MINING INDUSTRIES ZNC 2000-11-30 305.28 0293475 SCHNEIDER, LOUIS 2000-11-30 22.50 0293476 SPORT -HALEY INC 2000-11-30 82.16 0293477 SARAH BRYSON INDUSTRIES 2000-11-30 952.90 0293478 SECURITY FIRST TITLE PARTNERS 2000-11-30 ?,500.00 0293479 SEVEN TRENT -AVATAR UTILITY 2000-11-30 6,020.59 0293480 SEVERN -TRENT -AVATAR UTILITY 2000-11-30 4,568.29 0293481 SOFTSPZRES INC 2000-12-30 524.72 December 12, 2004 13 BKII�PG34� s i CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293483 SUNGARD BUSINESS SYSTEMS ZNC 2000-11-30 10,431.52 0293484 SOUTH CAROLINA GENEALOGICAL 2040-12-30 37.40 0243486 SPARKS, GORDON 2000-11-30 212.20 0293487 SOUTHERN HERITAGE PRESS 2000-11-30 38.40 0243488 SANDERS, LINDA T 2000-11-30 60.20 0293484 SMITH, JEFFREY R 2000-11-30 140.40 0293490 SAMARITAN CENTER 2000-11-30 4,465.58 0243441 SAVE THE MOMENT 2000-11-30 46.00 0293492 TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, SNC 2000-11-30 10,808.87 0243493 TITLEIST 2000-I1-30 44.83 0243494 TRI -SURE CORPORATION 2000-11-30 8,191.20 0293495 TROY FAIN INSURANCE, INC 2000-11-30 92.94 0293496 TREASURE COAST REFUSE 2000-11-30 40,294.04 0293497 TREASURE COAST AMERICAN PUBLIC 2040-I1-30 75.00 0243448 TEXACO CREDIT CARD CENTER 2000-11-30 1,327.72 0293500 TAYLOR, ED 2000-11-30 309.18 0293501 TINDALE OLZVER & ASSOC., INC 2000-11-30 $,455.15 0243502 TRANE PARTS CENTER OF SOUTH 2000-11-30 53.72 0293503 TEM SYSTEMS INC 2000-11-30 147.00 0243504 TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 2000-11-30 52.00 0243505 SMITH, TERRY L 2000-11-30 46.1? 0243506 TREASURE COAST BUILDERS 2000-11-34 500.00 0293508 T A P SOD 2000-11-34 4,387.42 0293504 TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS 2000-11-30 1,529.44 0293520 TREASURE COAST SPORTS 2000-11-30 2,397.43 0243511 TREASURE COAST SAFETY COUNCIL 2004-iI-30 50.00 0293512 TIME MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC 2000-11-30 90.75 0293513 THYSEEN ELEVATOR CO 2000-11-30 550.00 0293514 TONDO, CL & KAREN 2000-I1-30 4,121.00 0243515 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP 2000-11-30 13,191.48 0293516 USA BLUEBOOK 2000-I1-30 276.81 4293517 UNZSHIPPERS 2000-11-30 25.70 0293518 UNIVERSAL LAND TITLE INC 2000-iI-30 10,000.00 4243514 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 2000-11-30 11.14 0293520 UNIVERSAL LAND TITLE 2000-11-30 10,000.00 0293522 VERO REACH VOLUNTEER FIRE 2000-I1-30 20.04 0243523 VERO REACH, CITY OF 2000-1i-34 18,117.39 0293524 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2040-11-30 4,458.37 0243525 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2000-11-30 134.85 0293526 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC 2000-11-34 26.05 0293527 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC 2000-11-30 SOS.I9 4243528 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2000-11-30 230.70 0293524 VERO BEACH: CITY OF 2000-11-34 1,683.74 0243530 VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER 2000-11-30 31.00 0293531 VERO BEACH HIGH SCHOOL 2000-11-30 200.00 0243533 VERO BEARING & BOLT 2004-21-30 437.75 December 12, 2000 14 B� � i q PG � �� � is r i, t CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293534 VERO HERITAGE, INC 2000-11-30 636.24 0293535 VANTAGE EQUIPMENT CO 2000-11-30 80.15 0293536 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 2000-11-30 218.01 0293537 VICKERS, REGINALD 2000-11-30 150.00 0293538 WAKEFIELD, JUDITH A 2000-11-30 200.00 0293539 WAL-MART STORES, INC 2000-11-30 5.06 0293540 WILLHOFF, PATSY 2000-11-30 208.00 0293541 WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC 2000-11-30 288.00 0293542 WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS 2000-11-30 145.73 0293543 WATERWORKS CAR WASH 2000-11-30 69.50 0293544 WHITESIDE PARTS & SERVICE INC 2000-11-30 138.45 0293546 WASTE MANAGEMENT 2000-11-30 86,844.12 0293548 W W GRAINGER INC 2000-11-30 12.49 0293549 W C G, INC 2000-11-30 36,372.24 0293550 WINKEL, TOM 2000-11-34 500.00 0293551 WATSON, LOUISE E 2000-11-30 247.58 0293552 WARBURTON, M 2000-11-30 41.27 0293553 XEROX CORPORATION 2000-11-30 287.48 0293554 BARTEE, GENISE 2000-11-30 18.66 )293629 FLACH, N W 2400-11-30 52.45 0293630 CARROLL, DEANN 2000-11-30 27.41 0293631 BROZENICK, JOSEPH M 2000-11-30 85.34 4293632 COUNTRYSIDE N MOBILE HOME PARK 2000-11-30 23.19 0293633 VANDUSEN, RODNEY & SYLVIA 2000-11-30 26.17 0293634 CHAMBLISS, CLAY 2000-11-30 65.47 0293635 AAC BUILDERS, INC 2000-11-30 72.01 0293636 ORCHID ISLAND PROPERTIES, INC 2000-11-30 104.73 0293637 PIAZZA, LORI 2000-11-30 21.09 0293638 GHO VERO BEACH, INC 2000-11-30 311.67 0293639 JOYNER, BONNIE 2000-11-30 9.89 0293640 SPROFERA, BLAYNE 2000-11-30 69.78 4293641 MGB CONSTRUCTION, INC 2000-11-30 33.54 0293642 HOME ENVIRONMENT CENTER 2000-11-30 80.81 0293643 BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA, INC 2000-11-30 82.26 0293644 KELLY, CHAD 2000-11-30 34.35 0293645 HODGE, CAREY A 2000-11-30 39.68 0293646 THORNTON, CANDIDA 2000-11-30 25.36 4293647 HALLMAN, BRUCE 2000-11-30 60.90 4293648 GONZALEZ, JORGE 2000-11-30 17.51 0293649 MC GLYNN, KEVIN F 2000-11-30 42.31 0293650 MC CULLERS JR., GEORGE OR BRUCE 2400-11-30 22.54 0293651 PENDLETON, THOMAS & VALERIE 2000-11-30 88.22 )293652 WALKER -HUGHES, LORI 2000-11-30 52.75 4293653 STUCKEY, ANNIE 2000-11-30 40.42 0293654 ARIAS, AURA STELLA 2000-11-30 10.74 4293655 KOYKAS, NIKOLAOS OR LILLIAN 2000-11-34 18.45 December 12, 2000 15 8KlIfPG345 CHECX NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0293656 SPADA, EUGENE IDA 2000-11-3q 60.60 0293657 MODINE, RICHARD & EUNICE 2000-11-30 85.43 0293658 I.ANDIS, DANIELLE 2000-1i-30 55.24 0293659 PITHIE, HARRY 2000-11-30 84.21 0293660 WALKER, DODDIE 2040-11-34 24.94 0293651 CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES 2000-11-30 182.81 0293662 AUGER, KIM 2404-11-30 12.67 0293653 MC KENZIE, RICARDO 2000-11-30 14.88 0293664 RAYNOR, WILLIAM OR SHIRLEY 2040-11-30 44.96 0293665 CANTRELL, CAROLINE 2000-11-30 28.02 0293666 SEMBLEA, STEPHEN N 2000-11-30 14.92 0293667 SMITH, CHERYL 2000-11-34 51.53 4243668 BUSCAGLIA, GHRIS 2000-11-30 17.80 0293669 FRONK, CHERYL 2040-11-34 43.59 0293670 NIX, CHRISTOPHER J 2000-I1-30 6.56 4293671 OLVERA, OMAR 2044-11-34 33.1b 0293672 GRANT, ALMARIE 2040-12-34 12.37 0293573 THOMAS, ALAI) & PAULA 2000-11-30 64.18 02936?4 BAUER, ANN 2004-11-30 55.68 0293675 DEL VECCHIO, LARRX & TERI 2044-I1-30 34.10 0293675 WILLIAMS, WANDA 2000-11-34 6.72 0293677 WORTHY, DRUSILLA 2000-i1-30 34.52 0293678 KROPIIiOUT, VICKI A 2000-11-30 44.28 0293679 LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION, INC 2404-11-30 51.70 0293680 ROBENHYMER, SHARON M 2040-11-30 35.02 4293681 BOND, MELANIE 2000-11-30 55.83 0293682 GARCIA, ROBERTO M 2004-11-30 38.82 0293683 GRAD, PETER H 2000-11-30 69.98 0293684 FANTO, SHEILA & FRANK 2000-11-34 82.16 1,814,489.81 7. B. Proclamation -.National Epilepsy �4 wareness lV�onth - L)ecember 2lI(1© { �! T)T) n /"� T A ll T A *TTlI'RT DESIGNATING Tiff MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2000, AS NATIONAL EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH IN kIVDIAN RIPER COUNTY, FLORIDA WHEREAS, Epilepsy, also known as Seizura Disorder, has alilicted mankind sinca the dawn of our species and has been nxognized sinca the earliest medical writings; and WHEREAS, as long ago as 480 B.C. Hippocrates. the Faihtr of Medicine, repudiated ancient beliefs that Epilepsy was either a visitation from die gads and sacred ar that it was s erase Dorn the gods and people a@licted with this disorder hdd prophetic powers. Hippocrates balloted that Epilepsy was s brain disorder; and WHEREAS. s seizure is a sudden, brief attack of altered conseiotistiecs, motor activity ar ttauory phenomasa. It is a sign that cerniti brain calls, known as rieurors, ane dudwgitig m tatceasiva amount of dactricd impulses; and December 12, 2000 16 �� � � �3 �� ���? .,,,. :� ,� . � ;,, :��� .�. :� • �� �_ ,�� �� in Indian River County. Adopted thin 12� day of December, 2000. i i � � �� � , f �_ i ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously designated the month of December 2000 as National Epilepsy Awareness Month in Indian River County. 7. C. Emer�encv Services DistrictAdvisory Committee - Anointment of Francis M. Coffev. Jr. (District 3) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 5, 2000: December 12, 2000 17 6Ki16PG347 To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: December 5, 2000 Subject: APPOINTMENT TO THE EMERGENCY SERVICE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ESDAC) FOR DISTRICT 3 From: Fran B. Adams Chairman Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht has submitted the name of Francis M. Coffey as his appointment to the ESDAC for District 3. Attachment: Francis Coffey Resume ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously acknowledged Commissioner Macht's appointment of Mr. Coffey to the Emergency Services District Advisory Committee for District 3. 7.D. Professional Services Advisory Committee - Appointment of Stephen E. Moler, P. E. to Replace Fred Ban field. P.E. The Board reviewed a memorandum of November 14, 2000, and a letter from Mr. Moler as follows: TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Kim Massung Executive Aide to Board of County Commissioners Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director November 14, 2000 Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) Openings Currently, there are two openings on the PSAC. One is to replace Fred Banfield (engineer) and the other is to replace Bob Swift (developer). Both recently moved out of state. December 12, 2000 18 BKiIr4 PG348 local engineer Steve Moler has submitted a request to be considered for appointment to the PSAC. Steve has practiced in Indian River County for many years and is familiar with local LDRs and development issues. I have delayed sending you Steve's request because I expected to get another request for a replacement for Bob Swift. However, to date I have received no other appointment requests so I am sending you Steve's. Please let me know if and when Steve's request is to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. Attachment: Letter of Request from Steve Maler ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously appointed Stephen E. Moler, P.E. to the Professional Services Advisory Committee to fill the seat vacated by Fred Barfield, P.E. 7.E. A�,nointments ofCommissioners to T-'arious Committees for 2001 The Board reviewed a memorandum of December 5, 2000 and list attached: TO; Board of County Commissioners FROM: Fran B. Adams, Chairman DATE: December 5, 2000 RE: Committee Appointments for 2001 As per the attached list, I request approval of the Committee appointments for the Board of County Commissioners for 2001. December 12, 2000 19 BKIi6PG349 LIST OF COMMITTEES FOR EACH COMMISSIONER REVISED W2110G ,SECRETARY FRAN B. ADAMS — District 1 Agriculture Advisory Committee Reta Aquaculture Use Zone (Ad Hoc Committee) Reta Beach & Shore Preservation Advisory Committee Reta Emergency Services District Adv. Committee Vickie Metropolitan Planning Organization Vickie Parks and Recreation Committee Reta Fairgrounds Advisory Committee (sub -comm. of P&R) Reta Southern Regional Recreation Advisory Council Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Alternate) Upper St. Jahns Technical Advisory Council CAROLINE Q. GINN —District 5 Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Planning Committee Audit Selection Committee Board of Trustees of Law Library Council of Community Services Council of Public Officials Vickie Indian River Emergency Outreach Board Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee Cyndie Metropolitan Planning Organization Vickie Primary Care/Public Health Committee Vickie Space Needs Committee Reta Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Utility Advisory Committee Vickie KENNETH R. MACHT —District 3 Children's Services Network HumanServiois County Pubiic Safe#y Coordinating Committee Reta Juvenile Justice Committee Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Reta Metropolitan Planning Organization Vickie Public Library Advisory Board Vickie Treasure Coast Sports Commission RUTH M. STANBRIDGE —District 2 Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee Cyndie Communi#y-Oriented Policing Program {COPE} Florida Greenways & Trail Health & Human Services Historic Resources Advisory Committee Cyndie Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program IRC Council on Aging Jobs and Education Partnership Keep Indian River Beautiful Metropolitan Planning Organization (Alternate) Vickie Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Reta Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council December 12, 2000 Secretary JOHN W. TIPPiN — District 4 Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Reta Court Administrator's Budget Committee Economic Development Council Cyndie Liaison between County and Economic Development Division Medical Examiner Budget Committee Metropolitan Planning Organization Vickie MPO Advisory Council (state) South Regional Recreation Advisory Council (Alterriate)(SJRWMD) Tourist Development Council Cyndie Transit Strategic Plan Advisory Committee Treasure Coast Council of Local Governments Vickie Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Alternate) Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Conflict Committee Paul Rangel QN MQTIQN by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECQNDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved their appointments to the various committees as set out in the 7.F. Resi nation o�Monte K. Fallsufrom the Planning and Zoning �otnmission The Board reviewed a letter of November 14, 2800: November 14, 2000 Fran B. Adams, Commissioner, District I Indian River County Administration Building 1840 25"' Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3365 Dear Fran: l would like to thank you and the County Commission far having the confidence in me to serve on the Planning and Zoning commission far the past ten years. However, 1 have coI e to the conclusion that it is time for me to step down cram this position in order to December 12, 2000 pU1 sue some other personal goals. I have thoroughly enjoyed having the opportunity to serve this County and am proud to have had a part in shaping its future. I leave my post knowing that the County is in good hands. The experience and foresight of the current County Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission is second to none. Your Community Development Department is fantastic! Their professionalism shines through as they deal with the rapid growth issues that continually confront them. Again, thank you and the County Commission for this privilege, thanks to the staff for their dedication, and best of luck to my fellow Planning and Zoning Commissioners in their future decisions. Sincerely, A0R Monte K. Falls, P.E. xc: John W. Tippin, Commissioner, District 4, Indian River County Kenneth R. Macht, Commissioner, District 3, Indian River County Caroline D. Ginn, Commissioner, District 5, Indian River County Ruth M. Stanbridge, Commissioner, District 2, Indian River County Indian River County Planning and Zoning Commission Indian River County Community Development Department ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously acknowledged with regret the resignation of Monte K. Falls from the Planning and Zoning Commission. 7. G. Pavments to Vendors o,f Court Related Costs The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 1, 2000: December 12, 2000 BN l i d PG 3 5 2 22 T0: Board of County Commissioners n FROM: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney �,(,�;7 DATE: December 1, 2000 SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs The Office of the County Attomey has processed and approved payment to the following vendors for the weeks of November 13, 2000 through November 27, 2000. Listed below are the vendors and the amount of each court -related cost. Vendor: Payment for: Amount: Celeste Hartsfield Transcription 70.00 Celeste Hartsfield Transcription 77.00 Barbara G. Schopp Transcription 63.00 Janet C. Prosper Transcription 154.00 Patricia B. Held Transcription 10.50 Patricia B. Held Transcription 73.50 Unishippers State Attorney Costs 25.70 Medical Record Services State Attomey Costs 10.77 Travel by Pegusas State Attomey Costs 227.00 Ed Taylor, Esq. State Attomey Costs 309.18 Travel by Pegusas State Attomey Costs 204.50 Big Dipper Productions Public Defender Costs 210.00 Gregory C. Landrum, Psy.D. Clinical Evaluation 625,00 Michael C. Riordan, Psy.D. Clinical Evaluation 650.00 Jiffy Photo State Attorney Costs 7.17 DMV Records Services State Attorney Costs 3.00 Holiday Inn Express State Attorney Costs 158.00 Nicole P. Menz State Attorney Costs 141.54 Fred Petrilla, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 London Graphics Transcription 125.20 Integrity Court Reporting, Inc. Transcription 1,925.20 James G. Harpring, Esq. Indigent Dependency Case 1,348.00 Green 8 Metcalf, P.A. Indigent as to Costs 488.20 American Reporting Indigent as to Costs 472.50 Green &Metcalf, P.A. Indigent as to Costs 1,181.34 Eleanor English Witness Coordination 42.28 Medical Record Services State Attorney Costs 27.54 Margaret M. Anderson, Esq. Indigent Dependency Case 1,000.00 Janet C. Prosper Transcription 70.00 Janet C. Prosper Transcription 35.00 Karen M. Orlando Transcription 175.00 Sheila I. Flinn Transcription 196.00 James T. Long, Esq. Public Defender Contract -Felony 5,400.00 James T. Long, Esq. Public Defender Contract -Juvenile 1,800.00 James T. Long, Esq. Public Defender Contract-Misd. 600.00 Investigative Support Spec. Public Defender Costs 400.00 Stone's Transportation Witness Coordination 230.00 Kenneth Hammond Witness Coordination 84.00 Howard Johnson Express Inn Witness Coordination 216.00 Pegasus Travel Witness Coordination 337.00 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 31.50 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 45.50 Shirley E. Corbin Transcription 129.50 American Reporting Transcription 13.00 Patricia Held Transcription 147.00 Patricia Held Transcription 147.00 Spherion Transcription/Court Reporter 316.00 Total 20,502.62 December 12, 2000 23 BK I I S PG 3 5 3 NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. 7.H. Financial .Software Consultant -Clerk of Circuit Court - +Government Finance +Officers Association Research Center The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 5, 2000: TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2004 SUBJECT: FINANCIAL SOFTWARE CONSULTANT �,- THROUGH: JOSEPH A. J. BAIRD, ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMII�TISTR'jATOR ''-�-' FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR, FINANCE DIRECTOR ���,E�j,,"'"n` �J - ` The Clerk's Finance Department is serving as the lead department for the acquisition of financial software to provide a fully integrated fmancial system. This system will provide for integration of the purchasing system, the budget system, the accounts payable system, the personnel system, and other systems. Currently, each system is independent, which requires each department to rnanualIy input similar information. The accounts payable system is over twenty years old. The budget system is over ten years old, The purchasing system runs on a PC based platform, which is incompatible with the platform used far budget and accounts payable. None of the Board's departments have computer access to the budget, purchasing, and accounts payable systems, but must rely upon paper reports that are provided once a month. Weare in the process of developing a Request For Proposal for an enterprise financial system. The Request Far Proposal will inform software providers of the County's requirements for budget, accounts payable, purchasing, personnel, payroll, accounts receivable, and other needs. The identification of an enterprise financial system that will meet the County' needs and the acquisition of that system will be a very important process. As part of the five year plan for the use of Local Option Sales Tax funds, $750,000 was designated for the acquisition of financial software. Since this is a unique process and a significant expense, I recommend that a consultant be hired to assist in the process of developing our RFP, identifying softwaze providers that can provide an enterprise financial system, evaluating the responses to the RFP, and negotiating a contract. The Government Finance Officers Association has a reseazch center that can provide the services we require. The Goveninent Finance Officers Association Research Center has been involved in research efforts regarding financial systems far many years. They have provided financial systems consulting services to numerous governments throughout the United States, including Volusia County, Hillsborough County Sheriff, and Palm Beach. I believe that they will provide an unbiased, professional approach to the task of acquiring an enterprise financial system. December 12, 2000 24 The GFOA Research Center provided a proposal to serve as our consultant. The cost will be $50,000. They will perform the following tasks: 1) Develop a project plan; 2) Review the County's RFP; 3) Identify software providers to receive the RFP; 4) Develop an evaluation plan; 5) Assist in the evaluation of responses to the RFP; 6) Prepare vendor demonstration scripts; 7) Attend on-site vendor demonstrations; 8) Assist in selection of two vendors for contract negotiations; 9) Assist in the development of a Statement of Work, a Software Contract, and an Implementation Services Agreement; 10) Assist with parallel contract negotiations. Using the GFOA Research Center as a consultant will be very beneficial for us. They have a great knowledge of enterprise financial systems, can identify the vendors who would be able to met the County's needs, and can help us obtain an enterprise financial system at the lowest cost. I recommend that the Board provide $50,000 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for a consulting contract between the Clerk and the Goverment Finance Officers Association Research Center. Funding to be from the current allocation of software funds in the Local Option Sales Tax Fund. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously provided $50,000 to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for a consulting contract between the Clerk and the Government Finance Officers Association Research Center with funding from the current allocation of software funds in the Local Option Sales Tax Fund, as recommended in the memorandum. lv December 12, 2000 S geed CONTRACT�rB'E PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 25 BKi16PG355 7.I. Arbitrage Rebate and Opinion Services Contract Addendum - Public Financial 1Vlana�ement -Orrick. Herrington &Sutcliffe The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November S, 2000: i i !' !i! ! DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 2000 • i 1 1 '! 1 t i !' I Public Financial Management and Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe have performed the arbitrage rebate calculations for the County's outstanding band issues. While performing a review of the County's outstanding bonds, they asked if any County bonds had been advanced refunded. The Refunding Revenue fonds, Series 1992, were advance refunded on September 1, 2000. They recommended that arbitrage rebate caicutations be made an those Bonds since a debt service reserve was funded by the issuance of those Bands. Request the Honorable Board of County Commissioners authorize the Chair to sign the two enclosed Arbitrage Rebate Compliance Services Addendum to .Engagement Letter dated September 27,2000, with Public Financial Management and Orrick, Herrington &Sutcliffe. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the Arbitrage Rebate Compliance Services Addendum to Engagement Letter dated September 27, 2000 with Public Financial Management and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, as recommended in the Memorandum. ADDENDI.IM TO ENGAGEMENT LETTER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD December 12, 2000 U. Children's Services Advisory Committee - Apintment of Scharlet Chesser to Grunt Review Subcommittee The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 4, 2000: TO: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joyce Johnston-Carlso� DATE: December 4, 2004 SUBJECT: Membership to the Grant Review Subcommittee, Sub -Committee to the Children's Services Advisory Committee Staff requests appointment of Ms. Scharlet Chesser to the Grant Review Sub -Committee. mice Chairman Ginn advised she was very impressed by Ms. Chesser when she appeared before them last month, however she was unsure if Ms. Chesser lived in Indian River County. She thought, because this sub -committee would be reviewing grant disbursements that there should be some residence or property ownership requirement. Chairman Adams advised that Ms. Chesser is a student at the University of Central Florida and at age 21 it was unlikely she would own property. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED B� Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously appointed Scharlet Chesser to the Grant Review Subcommittee of the Children's Services Advisory Committ memorandum. December 12, 2040 0 27 ee, as requested in the 7.K. Bid Award #3035 "Paving of Parking Lot and Rear Driveway at South County RO Plant/Utilities Department - Empower Construction, Inc. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 1, 2000: DATE: Decemb.r 1, 2000 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator Thomas Frame, General Services Director-r"�+*..ec.�.��Ca+-�`.._ FROM: Fran Powell, Purchasing Manages SUBJECT: Award Bid #3035: Paving of Parking Lot and Rear Driveway at South County RO Plant/Utilities Department BACKGROUND: Bid Opening Date: Advertising Dates: DemandStar Broadcast List to Plans Requested By: BID TABULATION: f VENDOR Empower Construction, Inc. Frostproof, Florida Palm Shore Paving Melbourne, Florida ESTIMATED BUDGET: SOURCE OF FUNDS: November 22, 2000 at 2:00 P.M. November I & 8, 2000 One Hundred Fifty Two (152) Vendors Nine (9) Vendors $14,125.44 X10,000,00 VENDOR Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. Ft. Pierce, Florida Utilities Paving Material {471-2i9-536-035.3 i} TOTAL $ I0,840.40 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Empower Construction lnc. as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #3035 to Empower Construction, Inc., in the amount of $8,608.00, as recommended in the memorandum. December 12, 2040 r 7.L. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 002 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 4, 2000: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 4, 2000 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 002 THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird �,� Assistant County Administrator��,..�" FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS � The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. On September 5, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved a grant from the Indian River County Healthy Start Coalition to fund a parent education opportunities program. This grant provides funding for salaries, benefits, and operating costs associated with the program. The attached entry appropriates these grant funds. 2. The Multi -Agency Criminal Enforcement (M.A.C.E.) Unit has requested the release of $6,000 from the Multi -Jurisdiction Trust Fund. The attached entry appropriates Binding. 3. The Indian River County Library has received a "Bom to Read" grant from the=lorida Department of State in the amount of $6,754. The attached entry appropriates Binding. 4. The new Teamsters contract, which was approved on October 3, 2000, provides for a $60.00 boot allowance for employees required to wear steel -toe safety boots, Only $30.00 was budgeted per employee for this expense. The attached entry appro �riates funding for the difference. 5. On November 21, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved an Article V Grant from the State for $31,538. The attached entry appropriates the use of the grant funds. 6. On November 21, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved a Court Reworting Grant -In -Aid from the State of Florida for $26,784. This is greater than the amount budgeted forthis grant. As such, the attached entry appropriates the additional funds. 7. Friends of the Library intends to donate funds to the library for the book leasing program. The attached entry appropriates funding in the amount of $15,000. 8. The annual maintenance contract for the Court Reporting system has exceeded the amount budgeted by $7,715. The attached entry appropriates funding to coyer the shortfall from General Fund contingencies. — December 12, 2000 29 BK!l�PG�59 0 9. The new Teamsters contract, which was approved on October 3, 2000, eliminated the employee contribution of $1.00 per week for uniforms. The attached entry apprgpriates funding for the County to pick up this cost. 10. The annual maintenance contract for the air conditioning system at the Courthouse exceeded the amount budgeted. The attached entry provides funding forthe difference form General Fund contingencies. 11. American Heritage River has raised funding to produce a video promoting eco -tourism along the Indian River. Indian River County's portion is $5,000, and funding is akailable from Tourist Development Fund cash forward. 12. On October 17, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved a Groundwater Mornitoring and Remediation Plan at the Gifford Closed Landfill Site at a cost of $573,13. The attached entry appropriates funding from Optional Sales Tax cash forward revenues and contingencies. 13. On May 2, 2000, the Board of Commissioners authorized the Chamber of Con• merce to solicit proposals for a tourism study on behalf of the County. The attached entry appropriates funding in the amount of $64,741 from Tourist Development cash forward. 14. The chiller at the Main Library is in need of replacement. Since an expan,;ion is planned during the current year at the library, it is not financially feasible to reply ce the unit. The best solution is to lease a chiller while the expansion is under construction. Once the expansion is complete, a new, larger chiller will be installed to service the entire library. Funding is provided by General Fund contingencies. 15. On October 3, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved a new empf yment contract with the Teamsters Union. The contract provides fora 3% Cost oI ving Adjustment (COLA) for all employees in the bargaining unit. Non-union emp oyees were given this same COLA increase. The attached entry appropriates funding from contingencies in the appropriate funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached tudget amendment. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment 002, as recommended in the memorandum. December 12, 2000 30 BY Ii5PG�60 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager Entry..... . ... ... .. F ,. , ., ,... . _, ........ ,., ........,., , ..._ ,..,..... , .,. .� und/De�iartment/ BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 DATE: December 12. b000 Number Account Name Account Number 1. REVENUES MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT! Healthy Start Grant EXPENSES MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT/ Recreation) Regular Sataries MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT! RecreatioN Social Security MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT/ RecreatioN Retirement MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT/ Recreation/ Health Insurance MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXING UNIT/ Recreation/ Worker's Comp. MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXWG UNIT/ Recreation/ Medicare Match MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAXWG UNIT/ RecreatioN Supplies 2. I REVENUES MULTI -JURISDICTION TRUST FUND/ Project Generated Income EXPENSES MULTI -JURISDICTION TRUST FUND! Sheriff! Law Enforcement 004-108-572-011.12 Increase $38,064 $24,717 004-108.572-012.11 � $1,533 004-108-572-012.12 004-108-572-012.13 004-108-572-012.14 004-108-572.012.17 004-108-572-035.29 126-000-351-020.00 r i 126-600-521-099.04 3, � REVENUES IGENERAL FUND/ Bom to Read Grant Revenue 001.000-334-717.00 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND! Library/ Bom tc Read Program December 12, 2000 I D: grease m E� $2,262 � $0 $5,181 � $0 $1,513 .60 $3S8 80 $2,500 � p0 $6,000 � $i0 $6,000 � $a $6,754 001-109-571-038,61 ( $6,754 $t7 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager Entry Fund/Department/ Number AccouniiName 4. REVENUES SOLiD WASTE DISPOSAL QISTRICT(S.W.D.D.)/ Cash Forward COUNTY UTILITIES/ Cash Forward FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Interest EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Parks/ Uniforms GENERAL FUND/ Buildings & Grounds/ Uniforms GENERAL FUND/ Contingencies TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road & Bridge/ Uniforms TRANSPORTATION FUND/ County Engineering/ Uniforms TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Traffic Engineering/ Uniforms TRANSPORTATION/ Contingencies EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ ALS/ Uniforms EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ ALS/ Contingencies S.W.D.D./ Refuse/ Uniforms S.W.D.D./ Landfill/ Uniforms S.W.D.D./ Recycling/ Uniforms COUNTY UTILITIES/ Wastewater Treatmentl Uniforms COUNTY UTILITIES/ Water Production/ Uniforms COUNTY UTILITIES/ Sludge Operations! Uniforms COUNTY UTILITIES/ Wastewater Collection/ Uniforms COUNTY UTILITIES/ Water Distri bution/ Uniforms FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Uniforms December 12, 2000 32 x • � � it i +� BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 QATE: Account Number iii ' r^r ii 471-000-389-040.00 501-000-361-010.00 II 1 001-210-572-035.24 001-220-519-035.24 001-199-581-099.91 111-214541.035.24 111-244-541.035.24 111-245-541-035.24 111-199-581-099.91 114-253-526-035.24 114-253-526-099.91 411-209-534-035.24 411-217-534035.24 411-255-534-035.24 471-218-536-035.24 471-219-536-035.24 471-257-536-035.24 471-268-536-435.24 471-269-536-035.24 501-242-591-035.24 Qecember 12. 244U increase ( Decrease $540 $0 $0 $1,350 $1,890 $0 $0 $30 $180 $0 $360 $0 $510 $0 •. r TO: Members of the Board of Gounty Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager ._. Entry..,.. , .._ .. , Fur Number A r BUDGET AMENDMENT: 4!a2 DATE: December 12.200) Name Account Number Increase 5. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Amide V Court Grant 001-000-334-820,00 $31,538 ' EXPENSES GENERAL FUND! Circuit Court! Public Defender Conflicts 001.901-621-033.11 $10,000 GENERAL FUND! Circuit Court! 4 Expert Witness Fees 001-901-619-034.92 $6,538 GENERAL FUND! Circuit Court/ Court Reporter Transcription 001-905-615-033.32 $15,000 1 S. (REVENUES I GENERAL FUNDt Court Reporting Grant-tn-Aid 001-000-334-081.00 $8,064 EXPENSES � GENERA( FUND! Court Reporting! Reporting Services 001-905-675-033.32 $8,064 7. REVENUES GENERAL FUND! Donations - Booic Leasing 001-000-366-107.00 $15,000 (EXPENSES GENERAL FUND! Main Library! Book Leasing Program 001-109-571-035.49 $15.000 t3. EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Court Reporting/ Equipment Maintenance 001-905-712-034.63 $7,715 GENERAL FUND/ Contingencies (001-199-581-099,91 $0 December 12, 2000 33 Decrease $I $�) $� $� $� I $0 4'� �0 $7715 1 �K I I� PG 3�3 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown �� Budget Manager Entry Fund/DeEia'rtment! Number Account Name 9. REVENUES S.W.D.D./ Cash Forward UTILITIES/ Cash Forward FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Interest EXPENSES I GENERAL FUND/Recreation/Uniforms GENERAL FUND/ Parks/ Uniforms GENERAL FUND/ Buildings & Grounds/ Uniforms GENERAL FUND/ Contingencies TRANSPORTATION/ Road & Bridge/ Uniforms TRANSPORTATION/ County Engineering/ Uniforms TRANSPORTATION/ Traffic Engineering/ Uniforms TRANSPORTATION/ Contingencies ESD/ ALS/ Uniforms ESD/ ALS/ Contingencies S.W.D.D./ Refuse/ Uniforms S.W.D.D./ Landfill/ Uniforms S.W.D.D./ Recycling/ Uniforms 1 GOLF COURSE/ Food/ Uniforms GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Uniforms I GOLF COURSE/ Cash Forward 418 UTILITIES/ WW Treatment/ Uniforms UTILITIES/ Water Production/ Uniforms 4 UTILITIES/ Sludge/.Unifor } UTILITIES/ Customer Svc./ Uniforms UTILITIES/ WW Collection/ Uniforms UTILITIES/ Water Dist./ Uniforms �. , , ., I AN . R.. iANI A December 12, 2000 BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 DATE: Account Number 411-000-389-040.00 471-000-389-040.00 501-000-361-010.00 001-108-572-035.24 001-210-572-035.24 001-220-519-035.24 $1 001-199-581-099.91 111-214-541-035.24 111-244-541-035.24 111-245-541-035.24 111-199-581-099.91 114-253-526-035.24 114-253-526-099.91 it 1411-209-534-035.24 411-217-534-035.24 j 411-255-524-035.24 418-232-572-035.24 to 418-236-572-035.24 1 1.236-572-099.92 471-218-536-035.24 ms 71-219-536-035.24 471-257-536-035.24 No 471-265-536-035.24 11 471-268-536-035.24 4 FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Un 71-269-536-035.24 5 „ 01-242-591-035.24 Is December 12. 200C increase $3,796 $416 $3,952 $312 E Decr ase $q $C $C $Cl I TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown T-' DATE: December 12.2000 Budget Manager Entry � .. .. Fund/D ,et .rt.. ,,, ..... ,......, ,..._... , ....,,. ....,.,. ..., __ pa ment! Number Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 10. EXPENSES GENERAL FUNDI Buildings 8 Grounds! AJC Maintenance 001-220-519-034.62 $7,500 � $0 GENERAL FUNDI Reserve for Contingencies � 001-199-581-099.91 � $0 � $7,500 �, 11. (REVENUES TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND/ Cash FonnraM Revenue 119.000-389-040.00 $5,000 $0 EXPENSES I TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUND/ Other Professional Services (119-144-572-033.19 � $5,000 $0 ! 1 12. � REVENUES � I fOPTIONAL SALES TAX! Cash 1 Forward 315-000-389-040.00 � $223,619 � $0 EXPENSES I OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Glosed Landfill Monitoring 315-217-534-033.49 $323,138 I $0 OPTIONAL SALES 7AX! Reserve for Contingencies 315-199-581-099.91 � $0 � $99,51n 1 13. `REVENUES TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDI I Cash Forward Revenue 119-000-389-040.00 $64,741 $0 EXPENSES TOURIST DEVELOPMENT FUNDI Other Contractual Services � 119.144-572-033.49 $64,741 $0 14. EXPENSES i I GENERAL FUND! Buildings & Grounds! Equipment Rental 001-220-519-034.49 � $12,000 $0 GENERAL FUND! Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-581-099.91 $0 $12,00 December 12, 2000 R � N ! TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown X-r Budget Manager Entry Fund/Dep+tment/ Number Account Name 15 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ BCC Operations/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ BCC Operations/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ BCG Operations/ Retirement Contribution (GENERAL FUND/ BCC Operations/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ BCC Operations/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ County Attorney/ Regular Salaries IGENERAL FUND/ County Attorney/ Social Security Matching I GENERAL FUND/ County Attomey/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ County Attorney/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ County Attorney/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ Recreation/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ Recreation/ Other Salaries and Wages GENERAL FUND/ Recreation/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ Recreation/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ Recreation/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ Recreation/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Other Salaries and Wages GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Worker's Compensation December 12, 2000 BK11�PG3�6 BUDGET AMENDMENT; x)02 DATE: December 12, 2i30Q Account Number Increase Decrea:*)e I 001-101-511-011.12 1 4,354 001.101-511-012.11 I 270 001-101-511-012.12 1,727 001-101-511-012.14 151 001-101-511-012.17 63 i 001-102-514-011.12 8,643 001-102-514-012.11 I 536 001-102-514-012.12 ( 5,136 001-102-514-012.14 31 001-102-514-012.17 125 001-108-572-011.12 i 12.303 001-108-572-011.13 3,689 001-108-572-012.11 991 001-108-572-012.12 1,463 001-108-572-012.14 979 001-10&572-012.17 232 001-109-571-011.12 20150 001-109-571-011.13 4,726 001-109-571-012.11 i .542 001-109-571-012.12 2.276 001-109-571-012.14 � 87 36 TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDM:NT: 002 of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown DATE: DATE: December 12. 2000 _..... _.. Budqet Manager Entry Fund/Dep rtment/ Number Account Dame Account Number Increase Decrease GENERAL FUNDI Main Library/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ North County Library/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ North County Library/ Other Salaries and Wages GENERAL FUND/ North County Library/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ North County Library/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ North County Library/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ North County Library/ Medicare Matchinq GENERAL FUND/ IR Soil/Water Conservation/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ IR Soil/Water Gonservationt Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ IR Soil/Water Gonservation/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ IR Soil/Water Conservation/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ IR Soil/Water Conservation/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ Law Library/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ Law Library/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ Law Library/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ Law Library/ Worker's Comoensation GENERAL FUND/ Law Library/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ Reserves/ Gontimencies GENERAL FUND/ Administrator Operations/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ Administrator Operations/ Social Security Matchinq GENERAL FUND/ Administrator Operations) Retirement Contribution AN FUND/ Administrator Operations/ Worker's Compensation December 12, 2000 37 001-109-571-012.17 001-112-571-011.12 001-fi 12-571-011.13 001-112-571-012.11 001-112-571-012.12 001-112-571-012.14 001-112-571-012.17 001-118-537-011.12 001-118-537-012.11 001-118-537-012.12 001-118-537-012.14 001-fi 18-537-012.17 001-119-714-011.12 001-119-714-012.11 001-1 fig -714-012.12 001-119-714-012.14 001-119-714-012.17 001-201-512-011.12 001-201 -512-012.11 001-201-512-012.12 001-201-512-012.14 360 11,026 833 736 1,085 41 172 1.521 94 139 5 22 928 57 85 3 14 6,81 4 207 6 23 2,540 24 8K I I E PG 3� 7 ,237 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown APs — Budget Manager ' 1 Entry Fund/Depanent/ Number Account ame GENERAL FUND/ Administrator Operations/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ General Services/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ General Services/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ General Services/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ General Services/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ General Services/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ Personnel/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ Personnel/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ Personnel/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ Personnel/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ Personnel/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ Veterans' Service/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ Veterans' Service/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ Veterans' Service/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ Veterans' Service/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ Veterans' Service/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Management/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Management/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Management/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Management/ Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Management/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND/ Parks/ Regular Salaries December 12, 2000 G: BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 DATE: Decembe 12. 2000 Account Number 001-201-512.012.17 001-202-513-011.12 001-202-513-012.11 001-202-513-012.12 Q01-202-513-012.14 001-202-513-x12.17 001-203-513-011.12 001-203-513-012.11 001-203-513-012,12 001-203-513-012.14 001-203-513-012.17 001-206-553-011.12 001-206-553-012.11 001-206-553-012.12 001-206-553-012.14 001-206-553-012.17 001-208-525-01 i .12 001-2Q8-525-012.11 001-208-525-012.12 001-208-525-012.14 I 001-208-525-012.17 001-210-572-011.12 Increase 99 3.346 207 306 121 48 6,641 4121 607 24 97 3,281 203 1 300 1 12 47 5.214 323 477 18 76 20,667 Decrease ! TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown C�,'= Budget Manager ��""�� Entry Fund/Dep rttnenU Number Account�ame Account Number BUDGET AMENDMEtJT: 002 DATE: December 1;�. 2000 GENERAL FUND/ Parks/ Social Security Matching 001-210-572-012.11 GENERAL FUND/ Parks/ Retirement Contribution 001-210-572-012.12 GENERAL FUND/ Parks/ Worker's Compensation 001-210-572-012.14 GENERAL FUND/ Parks/ Medicare Matching 001-210-572-012.17 GENERAL FUND/ Welfare/ Regular Salaries 001-211-564-011.12 GENERAL FUND/ Welfare/ Sociat Security Matching 001-211-564-012.11 GENERAL FUND/ Welfare/ Retirement Contribution 001-211-564-012.12 GENERAL FUND/ Welfare/ Worker's Compensation 001-211-564-012.14 GENERAL FUND/ Welfare/ Medicare Matching 001-211-564-012.17 GENERAL FUND/ AG Extension/ Regular � Salaries 001-212-537-011.12 GENERAL FUND/ AG Extension/ Social Security Matching 001-212-537-012.11 GENERAL FUND/ AG Extension/ Retirement Contribution 001-212-537-012.12 GENERAL FUND/ AG Extension/ Workers Compensation 001-212-537-012.14 GENERAL FUND/ AG Extension/ Medicare Matching 001-212-537-012.17 GENERAL FUND/ Youth Guidance/ Regular Salaries I 001-213-523-011.12 GENERAL FUND/ Youth Guidance/ Social Security Matching 001-213-523-012.11 GENERAL FUND/ Youth Guidance/ Retirement Contribution I 001-213-523-012.12 GENERAL FUND/ Youth Guidance/ Workers Compensation 001-213-523-012.14 GENERAL FUND/ Youth Guidance/ Medicare Matching � 001-213-523-012.17 GENERAL FUND/ Purchasing/ Regular Salaries I 001-216-513-011.12 GENERAL FUNDI Purchasing/ Social Security Matching 001-216-513-012.11 GENERAL FUND/ Purchasing/ Retirement Contribution I 001-216-513-012.12 December 12, 2000 39 Increase 1,282 1,891 72 299 3,716 230 340 227 I 54 2,878 179 264 10 41 3,162 197 289 11 45 3,875 240 355 Dewrease i�� �c ��� TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 of County Commissioners V From: Jason E. Brown r-' DATE: December 12. 2000 Budget Manager Entry Fund/Depirt�nent/ Number Account Mme Account Number Increase De:rease GENERAL FUND/ Purchasing/ Worker's Compensation 001-216-513-012.14 14 GENERAL FUND/ Purchasing/ Medicare Matching 001-216-513-012.17 56 GENERAL FUND/ Building and Grounds/ Regular Salaries 001-220-519.011.12 19,813 GENERAL FUND/ Building and Grounds/ i Social Security Matchinq ( 001-220=519-012.11 1,228 GENERAL FUND/ Building and Grounds/ j Retirement Contribution ( 001-220-519.012.12 11813 (GENERAL FUND/ Building and Grounds/ Worker's Compensation 001-220-519-012.14 1,092 IMedicare GENERAL FUND/ Bu€lding and Grounds/ Matching 001-220-519-012.17 1 287 GENERAL FUND/ O.M.& B./ Regular Salaries 001-229-513-011.12 311631 GENERAL FUND/ O.M.& B./ Other Salaries and Wages 001-229-513-011.13 558 GENERAL FUND/ O.M.& B./ Social Security Matching 001-229-513-012.11 231 GENERAL FUND/O.M.& B./ Retirement Contribution 001-229-513-012.12 341 GENERAL FUND/ O.M.& B./Worker's ! Compensation j 001-229-513-012.14 13 IGENERAL FUND/ O.M.& BJ Medicare Matchinq I 001.229-513-012.17 541 GENERAL FUND/ FPL Grant Expenditures/ Regular Salaries 001-237-525-011.12 M831 GENERAL FUND/ FPL Grant Expenditures/ Social Security Matchinq 001.237-525-012.11 73 lGENERAL FUND/ FPL Grant ExDenditures/ Retirement Contribution 001-237-525-012.12 109 GENERAL FUND/ FPL Grant Expenditures/ Worker's Compensation 001-237-525-012.14 4 lGENERAL FUND/ FPL Grant I Expenditures/ Medicare Matching + 001-237-525=012.17 17 GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Base Grant/ Regular Salaries 001-238-525-011.12 1,987 (GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Base Grant/ Social Security Matching 1 001-238-525-012.11 123 lGrantl GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Base Retirement Contribution 001-238-525-012.12 182 lGENERAL FUND/ Emergency Base Grantl Worker's Compensation 1 001-238-525-012.14 1 71 December 12, 2000 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners BUDGET AMENDMEWT: 002 From: Jason E. Brown �'-' DATE: December 12. 2000 Budget Manager Number .,,� ..FuA� e�...,ment! . _, ...._,._......,...Account Numbe „._.,,.. , . _ ., _ .�. unt me r (GENERAL FUND/ Emergency Base Grant/ Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND) Computer Services/ Regular Salaries GENERAL FUNDI Computer Services) Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND) Computer Services/ Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUNDI Computer Services/ Worker`s Compensation j GENERAL FUND/ Computer Servicest j Medicare Matching ! GENERAL FUND/ County Animal ! ControU Regular Salaries GENERAL FUND) County Animal Control) Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND) County Animal j ControU Retirement Contribution (GENERAL FUND/ County Animal +Control! Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND) County Animal Control! Medicare Matching GENERAL FUND! MailroomlSwitchboardJ� Salaries GENERAL FUND/ Mailroom /Switchboard) Other Salaries GENERA[. FUND Mailroom Switchboard! Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND Mailroom Switchboard) Retirement Contribution GENERAL FUND/ Mailroom Switchboard/� Worker's Compensation GENERAL FUND) Mailroom SwitchboardJ� Medicare Matching (GENERAL FUND! Circuit Court! Regular Salaries GENERAL FUNDI Circuit Court/ Social Security Matching GENERAL FUND) Circuit Court) Retirement Contribution (GENERAL FUND/ Circuit Court) Worker's compensation GENERAL FUND! Circuit Court) Medicare] Matching f December 12, 2000 41 001-238-525-012.17 001-241-513-011.12 001-241-513-012.11 q01-241-513-012.12 001-241-513-012.14 I 001-241-513-012.17 !( 001-250-562-011.12 I 001-250-562-012.11 I OOi-250-562-012.12 001-250-562-012,14 001-250-562-012.17 001-251-519-011.12 001-251-519-011.13 001-251-519-012.11 j 001-251-519-012.12 I 001-251-519-012.14 001-25i-519-012.17 I 001-901-605-011.12 001-901-605-012.11 OOi-90i-605-012.12 I 001-901-605-012.14 I 001-901-605-012.17 Increase f Decrease 29 2,675 166 245 9 39 4,280 266 I 392 1ss 62 1,252 667 11$ I 176 7 28 622 39 57 2� 9+ . BKIIE�PG371 T0: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown, DATE: December 12, 2000 Budget Manager Entry Fund/Depmentl Number Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease GENERAL FUND/ Probation/ Regular Salaries 001-908-523-011.12 41452 GENERAL FUND/ Probation/ Social Security Matching 001-908.523-012.11 276 GENERAL FUND/ Probation/ Retirement Contribution 001-908-523-012.12 407 GENERAL FUND/ Probation/ Worker's Compensation 001-908-523-012.14 16 GENERAL FUND/ Probation/ Medicare Matching 001-908-523-012.17 64 M.S.T.U. FUND/ North County Recreation/ Regular Salaries 004-108-572-011.12 31057 M.S.T.U. FUND/ North County Recreation/ Other Salaries and Wages 004-108-572-011.13 750 M.S.T.U. FUND/ North County Recreation/ Social Security Matching 004-108-572-012.11 236 M.S.T.U. FUND/ North County Recreation/ Retirement Contribution 004-108-572-012.12 349 M.S.T.U. FUND/ North County Recreation/ Worker's Compensation 004-108-572-012.14 233 M.S.T.U. FUND/ North County Recreation/ Medicare Matching 004-108-572-012.17 55 M.S.T.U. FUND/ Reserves/ Contingencies 004-199-581-099.91 364203 M.S.T.U. FUND/ Planning and Development/ Regular Salaries 004-204-515-011.12 3,439 M.S.T.U. FUND/ Planning and Development/ Social Security Matching 004-204-515-012.11 213 M.S.T.U. FUND/ Planning and Development/ Retirement Contribution 004-204-515-012.12 315 M.S.T.U. FUND/ Planning and Development/ Worker's Compensation 004-204-515-012.14 12 M.S.T.U. FUND/ Planning and Development/ Medicare Matching 004-204-515-012.17 50 M.S.T.U. FUND/ County Planning/ Regular Salaries 004=205-515-011.12 15,693 M.S.T.U. FUND/ County Planning/ Social Security Matching I 004-205-515-012.11 973 M.S.T.U. FUND/ County Planning/ Retirement Contribution 004-205-515-012.12 1,436 M.S.T.U. FUND/ County Planning/ Worker's Compensation 004-205-515-012.14 55 M.S.T.U. FUND/ County Planning/ 1 Medicare Matching I 004-205-515-012.17 227 P I ER.... Elp RIP ._..... _. December 12, 2000 42 DV I TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown _ Budget Manager i Entry Fund/Departrhent/ Number Account alve M.S.T.U. FUND/ Code Enforcement/ Regular Salaries IM.S.T.U. FUND/ Code Enforcement/ Social Security Matchinq +M.S.T.U. FUND/ Code Enforcement/ ((Retirement Contribution IM.S.T.U. FUND/ Code Enforcement/ Worker's Compensation IM.S.T.U. FUND/ Code Enforcement/ Medicare Matchinq ►M.S.T.U. FUND Parks Reqular Salaries IM.S.T.U. FUND/ Parks/ Social Security Matchinq (M.S.T.U. FUND/Parks/Retirement Contribution IM.S.T.U. FUND/ Parks/ Worker's Compensation IM.S.T.U. FUND/ Parks/ Medicare Matching M.S.T.U. FUND/ Telecommunications/ Reqular Salaries M.S.T.U. FUND/ Telecommunications/ Social Security Matching (M.S.T.U. FUND/ Telecommunications/ Retirement Contribution IM.S.T.U. FUND/ Telecommunications/ Worker's Compensation IM.S.T.U. FUND/ Telecommunications/ Medicare Matchinq (IRC HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND/ Reqular Salaries IRC HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND/ Social Security Matchinq (IRC HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND/ Retirement Contribution IIRC HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND/ Worker's Compensation IIRC HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND/ Medicare Matchinq (IRC HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND/ Continqencies RENTAL ASSISTANCE FUND/ Regular Salaries December 12, 2000 43 BUDGET AMENDN ENT: 002 DATE: December 12. 2000 Account Number Increase I 004-207-524-011.12 I 5,239 004-207-524-012.11 I 325 004-207-524-012.12 I 479 I004-207-524412.14 I 36 I004-207-524-012.17 76I I 004-210-572-011.12 1 827 1 I004-210-572-012.11 I 51 11 004-210-572-012.12 I 761 004-210-572-012.14 I 3 I004-210-572-012.17 I 12 I 004-234-537-011.12 I 1,695 004-234-537-012.11 I 105 004-234-537-012.12 I 1551 004-234-537-012.14 I 6 004-234-537-012.17 I 25 107-226-554-011.12 I 2,174 107-226-554-012.11 I 135 I 107-226-554-012.12 I 199 I107-226-554-012.14 I 8 107-226-554-012.17 I 31 I 107-226-554-099.910&222-5644 11 v 12 07-226-554-099.9108-222-564-011.12 I 29 721 @ecrease 2,547 BK 116 PG 373 TO: Members of the Board BUDGET r% 1vtEIti T: 002 of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown DATE: December 12, 2000 Budget Manager Entry Fund/De0aitmentl Number Accoun ame Account Number Increase Decrease RENTAL ASSISTANCE FUND/ Social Security Matching 108-222-564-012.11 168 RENTAL ASSISTANCE FUND/ Retirement Contribution 108-222-564-012.12 249 RENTAL ASSISTANCE FUND/ Worker's Compensation 108-222-564-012.14 9 TRENTAL ASSISTANCE FUND/ Medicare Matching 108-222-564-012.17 39 (RENTAL ASSISTANCE FUND/ I Contingencies 108-222-581-099.91 31186 SECONDARY ROAD CONST. FUND/ Contingencies 109.199-581-099.91 4,422 SECONDARY ROAD CONST, FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Regular Salaries 109-214-541-011.12 I 30764 I (SECONDARY ROAD CONST./ Road and I I Bridge/ Social Security Matching 109-214-541-012.11 234 SECONDARY ROAD CONST. FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Retirement I 109-214-541-012.12 345 SECONDARY ROAD CONST. FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Worker's Comp. ( 109-214541-012.14 25 SECONDARY ROAD CONST, FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Medicare I 109-214-541-012.17 I 541 TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Reserves/ I I lContinqencies 111-199-581-099.91 164,8 Z2 (TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Regular Salaries 111-214-541-011.12 74.261 TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Other Salaries and Wages 111-214-541-011.13 576 TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Social Security Matching 111-214.541-012.11 4,640 (TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Retirement Contribution 111-214-541-012.12 61848 (TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Worker's Compensation 111-214-541-012.14 4,228 TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Road and Bridge/ Medicare Matching 111-214-541-012.17 1,085 (TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Public Works/ Regular Salaries 111-243-519-011.12 12,734 TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Public Works/ Social Security Matching 111-243-519-012.11 790 TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Public Works/ Retirement Contribution I 111-243-519-0`12612 1,165 TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Public Works! Worker's Compensation 111-243-519-012.14 45 El December 12, 2000 BKtI�PG374 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Browne - Budget Manager Entry Fund/Dep rt� rnent/ Number Account Name TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Public Works/ Medicare Matching TRANSPORTATION FUND/ County Engineering/ Regular Salaries TRANSPORTATION FUND/ County Engineering/ Social Security Matching (TRANSPORTATION FUND/ County Engineering/ Retirement Contribution (TRANSPORTATION FUND/ County Engineering/ Workers Compensation (TRANSPORTATION FUND/ County Engineering/ Medicare Matching (TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Traffic Engineering/ Regular Salaries TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Traffic Engineering/ Overtime TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Traffic Engineering/ Social Security Matching TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Traffic Enoineerinq/ Retirement Contribution TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Traffic Engineering/ Worker's Compensation TRANSPORTATION FUND/ Traffic Engineering/ Medicare Matching iIRCCLHAP/SHIP FUND/ Regular Salaries IIRCCLHAP/SHIP FUND/ Social Security Matchinq lIRCCLHAP/SHIP FUND/ Retirement Contribution IRCCLHAP/SHIP FUND/ Workers Compensation IRC:CLHAP/SHIP FUND/ Medicare Matching IRCCLHAP/SHIP Contingencies (METRO PLAN ORGANIZATION FUND/ Regular Salaries (METRO PLAN ORGANIZATION FUND/ Social Security Matching (METRO PLAN ORGANIZATION FUND/ Retirement Contribution (METRO PLAN ORGANIZATION FUND/ BUDGET AMENDMENT:_tdL DATE: December 12.2Q100 Account Number I Increase Decreake 111-243-519-012.17 111-244-541-011.12 111-244-541-012.11 111-244-541-012.12 44 111-244-541-012.14 111-2-541-012.17 I 111-245-541-011.12 111-245-541-011.14 111-245-541-012.11 111-245-541-012.12 111-245-541-012.14 111-245-541-012.17 123-228-569-011.12 123-228-569-012.11 123-228-569-012.12 123-228-569-012.14 123-228-569-012.17 123-228-569-099.91 124-204-515-011.12 124-204-515-012.11 124-204-515-012.12 Workers Compensation I 124-204-515-012.14 December 12, 2000 45 185 27,664 1,715 2,532 188 402 17,677 15,000 1,096 1,618 120 256 728 45 671 2,197 136 201 8 BK l l 6 PG 3 7 5 0 TO: From: Entry Number Members of the Board oIN County Commissioners Jason E. Brown, Budqet Manager Fund/Depar�menU Account Ngme METRO PLAN ORGANIZATION FUNDt Medicare Matching METRO PLAN ORGANIZATION FUND/ Contingencies SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUNDI Refuset Regular Salaries SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND! Refuse/ Social Security SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Refuse/ Retirement SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUNDI Refuse/ Worker's Camp. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Refuse/ Medicare Matching SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Landfill/ Regular Salaries SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Landfill/ Socia! Security SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Landfill/ Retirement SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Landfill/ Worker's Comp. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Landfill/ Medicare Matching SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Landfill/ Contingencies SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Recycling/ Regular Salaries SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Recycling/ Social Security SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Recvclina/ Retirement SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Recycling/ Worker's Como. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT FUND/ Recycling/ Medicare Matching GOLF COURSE/ Food and Beverage/ Reqular Salaries GOLF COURSE/ Food and Beverage/ Other Salaries and Wages GOLF COURSE/ Food and Beverage/ Social Security Matchino GOLF COURSE/ Food and Beverage/ Retirement Contribution December 1.2, 24QO BUDGET AMENDMENT 002 DATE: becember 12. 'II Account Number Increase Decrease i 24-204-515-012.4 7 34 124-204-515-099.91 411-209-534-011.12 5.072 411-209-534-012.11 315 411-209-534-012.12 465 1 411-209-534-012.14 605 411-209-534-012.17 73 411-217-534-011.12 21,803 411-217-534-012.11 1,351 411-217-534-012.12 1.994 411-217-534-012.14 1.882 441-217-534-Qi2.17 316 411-217-534-099.91 411-255-534-011.12 13,512 411-255-534-412.11 838 411-255-534-012.12 1,237 411-255-534-012.14 19167 411-255-534-01 2.17 196 418-232-572-011.12 21, 342 41$-232-572-011.13 591 418-232-572.012.11 182 418-232-572-012.12 268 2.573 50,826 0 TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 of County Commissioners! From: Jason E. Brown DATE: December 12. 2000 Budget ManaI OMNI NAM ger Entry Fund/Depa Ment/ Number Account N me Account Number Increase Decrease GOLF COURSE/ Food and Beverage/ Worker's Compensation 418-232-572-012.14 84 GOLF COURSE/ Food and Beverage/ Medicare Matching 418-232-572-012.17 42 GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Regular Salaries 418-236-572=011.12 10,677 GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Other Salaries and Wages 418.236-572-011.13 6,067 GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Social Security Matching 418-236-572-012.11 14038 GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Retirement Contribution 418-236=572412.12 1,5321 GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Worker's Compensation 418-236-572-012.14 11025 GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Medicare Matching i 418-236-572-012.17 243 GOLF COURSE/ Clubhouse/ Contingencies 418-236-572-099.91 24,091 BUILDING DEPARTMENT/ Regular Salaries 441.233-524-011.12 18.026 BUILDING DEPARTMENT/ Social Security Matching 441.233-524-012.11 19117 BUILDING DEPARTMENT/ Retirement Contribution 441-233-524-012.12 1,649 BUILDING DEPARTMENT/ Worker's Compensation 441-233-524-012.14 122 BUILDING DEPARTMENT/ Medicare Matching 441-233-524-012.17 262. BUILDING DEPARTMENT/ Contingencies 441-233-524-099.91 210176 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Treatment/ Reoular Salaries 471-218-536-011.12 16,060 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Treatment/ Social Security Matching 471-218-536-012.11 996 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Treatment/ Retirement Contribution 471-218-536-012.12 1,469 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Treatment/ Worker's Compensation 471-218-536-012.14 555 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Treatment/ Medicare Matchina 471-218-536-012.17 233 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Reduction/ Regular Salaries 471-219-536=011.12 16,326 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Reduction/ Social Security Matching 471-219-536-012.11 1,012MAN ,MAMMON �ll December Y2, 2000 T0: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMEtJT: 002 of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown DATE: December 12.2000 Budget Manager 11 1 Entry Fund/Department/ Number Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Reduction/ Retirement Contribution 471-219-536-012.12 1,494 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Reduction/ Worker's Compensation 471-219-536-012.14 563 UTILITY SERVICES/ Waste Water Reduction/ Medicare Matching 471-219-536-012.17 236 UTILITY SERVICES/ General and Engineerings Regular Salaries 471-235-536-011.12 240897 UTILITY SERVICES/ General and Engineering/ Social Security Matching 471-235-536-012.11 1.543 UTILITY SERVICES/ General and Engineering/ Retirement Contribution 471-235-536-012,12 29278 UTILITY SERVICES/ General and { Engineering/ Worker's Compensation 471-235-536-012.14 f 87 UTILITY SERVICES/ General and Engineerinq/ Medicare Matching 471-235-536-012.17 361 UTILITY SERVICES/ General and Engineering/ Contingencies 471-235-536-099.91 125,486 UTILITY SERVICES/ Sludge/ Regular Salaries 471-257-536-011.12 29216 UTILITY SERVICES/ Sludge/ Social Security Matching 471-257-536-012.11 137 UTILITY SERVICES/ Sludge/ Retirement Contribution 471-257-536-01212 203 UTILITY SERVICES/ Sludge/ Worker's Compensation 471-257-536=012.14 76 UTILITY SERVICES/ Sludge/ Medicare Matching 471-257-536-012.17 32 UTILITY SERVICES/ Customer Service/ Regular Salaries 471-265-536-011.12 13,562 UTILITY SERVICES/ Customer Service/ Social Security Matching 471-265-536-012.11 841 UTILITY SERVICES/ Customer Service/ Retirement Contribution 471-265-536-012.12 11241 UTILITY SERVICES/ Customer Service/ Worker's Compensation 471-265-536-012.14 48 UTILITY SERVICES/ Customer Service/ Medicare Matching 471.265-536-012.17 197 UTILITY SERVICES/ Wastewater Collection/ Regular Salaries 471-268-536-011.12 11,656 UTILITY SERVICES/ Wastewater Collection/ Social Security Matching 471-268-536-012.11 722 UTILITY SERVICES/ Wastewater Collection/ Retirement Contribution 471.268-536-012.12 1,067 December 12, 2000 TO: From: Entry Number Members of the Board of County Gommissioners � �` Jason E. Brown � �,\ Budget Manager, ,...,,, .__..,..._,., .. _ ...._, ..... ., ....._ Fund/Departrrl�enU BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 DATE: December 12., 2000 Account Name Account Number UTILITY SERVICES/ Wastewater Collection/ Worker's Compensation 472-268-536-012.14 UTILITY SERV#CES/ Wastewater Collection/ Medicare Matching 471-266-536-012.17 UTILITY SERVICES! Water Distribution! Regular Salaries UTILITY SERVICES) Water Distribution/ Social Security Matching UTiL1TY SERVICES! Water Distribution) Retirement Gontribution UTILITY SERVICES/ Water Distribution! Worker's Compensation UTILITY SERVICES! Water Distribution/ Medicare Matching FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Regular Salaries FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Social Security Matching FLEET MANAGEMENT! Retirement Contribution FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Worker's Campensaiion FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Medicare Matching FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Contingencies SELF INSURANCE FUNDI Regular Salaries SELF INSURANCE FUND/ Social Security Matching SELF INSURANCE FUND/ Retirement Contribution SELF INSURANCE FUND/ Worker's Compensation SELF INSURANCE FUND/ Medicare Matching SELF INSURANCE FUN01 Contingencies 91 i SURCHARGE / Regular Salaries 911 SURCHARGE ! Social Security Matching 911 SURCHARGE / Retirement Contribution December 12, 2pQQ 49 Increase 403 169 471.269-536-011.12 21,459 471-269-536-012.11 1, 331 471.269-536-012.12 1.964 471.269-536-012.14 744 471-269-536-012.17 312 501-242-591-011.12 10,125 501-242-591-012.11 628 `Decrease 501.242-591-012.12 926 I 501-242-591-012.14 413 501-242-591-012.17 146 501-242-591-099.91 12,238 502.246-513-011.12 3,485 502-246-513-012.11 216 502-246-513-012.12 31$ 502-246-513-012.14 12 502-246-513-012.17 50 502-246-513-099.91 4.081 120-133-519-011.12 1,004 120-133-519-012.11 62 120-133-519-012.12 102 , I ��{ � � � �� TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 002 of County Commissioners From: Jason E. Brown DATE: December 12. 000 Budget Manager Entry Fund/Dep; rbmen V Number Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 911 SURCHARGE/ Workers Compensation 120=133=519-012.14 4 911 SURCHARGE / Medicare Matching 120-133-519-012.17 15 REVENUE 911 SURCHARGE / Wireless 911 Fees 120-000-335-220.00 I 11187 7.M. Resolution No. 2000-148 - Formal Acceptance of Easements for Utility Purposes only at 28th Court SW. North of Sth Street. Westwood Subdivision The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 4, 2000: DATE: DECEMBER �, 2000 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS. P.E.\\ DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERA 1 PREPARED JAMES D/ CHAST AND STAFFED MANAGER Oi4 SSMENT PROJECTS B1': DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SLIB.IECT: A RESOLUTION OF FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY' EASEMENTS IN wEtiTwOOD SLBDIVISION -28"' COGRT SW' INDIAN RIVER COL' -TY' PROJECT NO. Uw-00-11-DS December 12, 2000 50 BACI:(:ROUND On \o�ember i 1.'000 the Indian Rirer C'Out$ 0V Board of Count} Commissioners appro%ed Re,uluuon 1 (00-1451 and Resolution ii t00-1-46). ti%hich contained the preliminarn assesnntent roll and net the date of the public hearing for the abo%e-referenced subdivision. .a'YALYSI5 In connection with installing water line b� the Ueparunent of Utilit}Serrices for West��uod Sttbdi%. inion - 28`' Court SW. North of 5"' St SN . it is necessary that the County formal accept the utilits easements in accordance with the subdi\, ision plat dedication certification condition. TtECOMMENDATION The [?apartment of !'tility Services recommend, that the Board of County Commissioners approse and authorize the Chairman to stun the attached. resolution accepting the necessan_ utilits easements. ,I1)C''idc attachments ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2040448 formally accepting easements for utility purposes only, at 28th Court SW, north of 5th Street in Westwood Subdivision. RESOLUTION N0.2000.� 48 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FORMALLY ACCEPTING EASEMENTS FOR UTILITY PURPOSES ONLY, AT 281" COURT, SW, NORTH OF 51" STREET, IN WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION. December 12, 2004 WHEREAS, it is necessary for Indian River County to expand the County's water system to serve properties in the area of 28ih Court, SW, north of 5t° Street, and such expansion serves a legitimate public purpose; and WHEREAS, in connection with the expansion of the County's water system, it is necessary for the County to formally accept an easement for utility purposes only, on 28' Court, SW, north of 5' Street (a/k/a Rebel Road), shown as 28" Court on the Westwood Subdivision plat recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 66, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida, together with the other utility easements depicted on such plat for utility purposes only, consistent with the Certificate of Dedication set forth on such plat, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board of County Commissioners hereby formally accepts an easement for utility purposes only, on 28" Court SW, north of 5' Street SW (a/k/a Rebel Road), shown as 28th Court on the Westwood Subdivision plat recorded in Plat Book 9, Page 66, of the public records of Indian River County, Florida, together with the other utility easements depicted on such plat for utility purposes only, in Indian River County, Florida, as shown on EXHIBIT "A", attached hereto. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ginn ,and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Ave Commissioner John W. Tippin Aya Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge AvP The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed an d adopted this 12th day of December, 2000. Attest��K. Barton, GG�Ct.�t Deputy Clerk Attachment: EXHIBIT "A" December 12, 2000 BKIf�PG382 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By� G2n� fB Fran B. Adams Chairman �010laq ILre 52 C� ApprOvtY Dale Admin �� W Legal /(� ( pJ Budget _ 1 tv Qep t. 2 /G /60 Aisk Mgr. pecQmbeC 12� ��< 20©� 6� � � 6 e�' 3�3 7.N. Avnointment of Herbert Bailey to Council of Public Officials to Represent the Indian River County School District The Board reviewed a letter of December 6, 2000: School District of Indian River County "A CummUN1TY Partnership Toward Educational Excellence •' December 6, 2000 Dorothy Talbert Dtstnct I Stevrn Mohler Dtsaict 2 R. Craig McGarvey. Ed -D. Council of Public Officials Distnct3 Board of County Commissioners Herbert L bailey 1840 25th Street Dtstnct4 Vero Beach, FL 32960 Kathryn A. Wilson Districts Subject: Membership RECEIVED BOARD C�F COUNTY COMMISS10N At the annual organization meeting of the Indian River County School Board, Chairman Herbert Bailey was appointed to serve on the Council of Publi� Officials for one year. Please forward all meeting notices and minutes to Mr. Bail ay in care of the School Board Office. In addition, please continue to send all meeting notices and cancellation: to me as well as to the Chairman. I can be reached at 564-3200 or fax 564-310. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, : ISTpIBUT10N LIST. al Commiss overs� � \ Adminis rctor�'� \ ersorne, Personnel Ms. Judy A. Stang P�b;;tt�ork' Executive Assistant to School Board Jtp:gas. jas/ cin n.z_ 1990 25th Street . Vero Beach, Florida 3296 Telephone: 561-564-3200. Suncom Number: 257-1011. Fax: 561-564-3105`10x, %e Equal Opportunity Educator and Employer C� �[ C yn l�� 1 `� YK December 12, 2000 54 BK { Ib PG 384 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously acknowledged the appointment of Herbert Bailey to the Council of Public Officials as Representative of the School District of Indian River County. 7.0. Appointment o.,f Dr. Cram McGarvey to the Economic Development Council as Representative off' the School District off' Indian River County The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 6, 2000: School District of Indian River County "A CommUNl"fY Partnership Toward Educational Excellence" RECEIVED �- - .- •�g .. . Stevrn Mohler Dtstnct 2 R. Cmg McGarvey. Ed.D. Economic Development Council a:tnt:t s Board of County Commissioners Hereen �, B„ iey 1840 25th Street ��• Vero Beach, FL 32960 Kathryn A. Wilwn �n;<es Subject: Membership SEC � F 2nn, BOARD OF COUNTY COti�MISSION Dr. Roger Deerntg Supmntettdrnt At the annual organization meeting of the Indian River County School Board. Board Member Dr. Craig McGarvey was appointed to serve on the Economic Development Council for one year. Please forward all meeting notict:�s and minutes to Dr. McGarvey in care of the School Board Office. In addition, please continue to send all meeting notices and cancellations to me as well as to Dr. McGarvey. I can be reached at 564-3200 or fax 564-3105. Thank you for your help. December 12, 2000 55 BKIi�PG385 Sincerely, Ms. Judy A. Stang Executive Assistant to School Board jos! DIS7�IDUTION L1�,>T Commissioners A�miristrotar�'� Ditorrev P:rsannz` PcC�is Norks Camsnat::ly Oev. Uiiiilies Finonr dj�R Emerg. Sery frisk Mgs. Other�l^� rw "�' }Cin,... 1990 25th Street .Vera Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: 561-564-3200. Suncom Number: 257-1021 . Faz: 56I-564-3105 Equa! Qpporsnnicy Educator and Employer ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously acknowledged the appointment of Dr. Craig McGarvey to the Economic Development Council to represent the School District of Indian River County. 7.P. Annointment of Dorothy Talbert to the .Metropolitan Plunnin� (?rganization as Representative o�'the School District oflndiar� River County rStenhen Moler to Serve as Alternate, The Board reviewed a letter of December 5, 2404: December 12, 2000 Sb 77 School District of Indian River County "A ComtnUNITY Partnership Toward Educational Excell PIECEIVED SCHQ'sOARD December 5, 2000 _ +J Dorothy Talbert BOARD OF COUNTY Dnaut I COMMISSION Steven Mohler Dwrtct 2 R. Craig McGarvey, Ed.D. Metropolitan Planning Organization Psata3 Board of County Commissioners Herbst L ftley 1840 25th Street Distmt Vero Beach, FL 32960 KatlttynA. Wilton District s Subject: Membership Dr. At the annual organization meeting of the Indian River County School Board, Board Member Dorothy Talbert was re -appointed to serve on the Metropolitan Planning Organization for one year, with Steven Mohler serving as an alternate. Please forward all meeting notices and minutes to Mrs. Talbert in care of the School Board Office. In addition, please continue to send all meeting notices and cancellations to me as well as to Mrs. Talbert. I can be reached at 564-3200 or fax 564-3105. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, DISTRIBUTIPN LIST fommissionerr Administrator. c,�� Atiorner Ms. Judy A. Stang Recording Secretary haS/ 1990 25th Street .Vera Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: 56i•564-3200. Suncom Number. 25'7-10i 1 . Fax: 561-Sb4-3145 Equal Opportunity Educator NQ ACTION REQUIRED QR TAKEN. December 12, 2000 and Employer ?obiit Works loF?Imunity DlY. UNiilier Fincnu 4MB cmerg. Serr. visit Mgt � utittr lit CAJ se� kt r1, •.. 7. . Resolution No. 2000449 - GHO Vero Beach IV, Inc. - Release of Easement at 3302 63rd Sq. (The Sanctuary) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 6, 2000: TO: James E. Chandler Countv Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Directory THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois. AICP Chief. Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement FROM: Kellv Zedek Code Enforcement Officer DATE: 12/6/00 RE: GHO VERO BEACH IV, INC. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF EASEMENT AT 3302 63RD SQ (THE SANCTUARY) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 1_', 2000. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The County has been petitioned by GHO VERO BEACH IV, INC., owner of a parcel at 3302 63RD Square, for release of a five foot -wide portion of a ten foot -wide drainage and lake maintenance easement. The purpose of the easement release request is for the construction of a house (see attached map). ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The request has been reviewed by the Indian River County Road &Bridge and Engineering Divisions, the County surveyor, and the Property Owners Assocation. The easement is dedicated for drainage and lake management only, and not for utilities. Therefore, review by utility providers is not warranted. None of the reviewing agencies expressed an objection to the requested release of easement. Therefore, it is staff's position that the requested easement release would have no adverse impact to drainage and lake maintenance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached resolution, release a five foot -wide portion of the drainage and lake maintenance easement, as more particularly described in said resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed County Resolution Abandoning Easement 2. Maps) depicting easement proposed for release December 12, 2000 BK I1 bPG388 ss - I ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2000-149 releasing a portion of an easement on Lot 109, The Sanctuary Subdivision. R+ TNH Rt:eoRDa of dEfFRtY K. BARTON CLERK CIRCUIT COURT INDIAN RIVER CO., FLA. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-149 DOCUMENTMY STAMPS DEED =•% 0 NOTEi �EFFREYK. SARTDN, CLERIC INDIAN RIPER COUNTY A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING N A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT ON LOT 109, THE SANCTUARY SUBDIVISION � WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a drainage and lake maintenance � easement on Lot 109 of The Sanctuary Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of the easement, as described below, serves no public purpose; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: c v This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State � � of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to v v '" GHO VERO BEACH IV, INC. 3 5610 CORPORATE WAY ry WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33407 ro �� v _� its successors in interest, heirs and assigns, as Grantee, as follows: � Indian River County does hereby release and abandon all right, title, and interest that it may have in the following described easement(s): the northwesterly five feet of the southeasterly ten foot -wide side yard drainage and lake maintenance easement of Lot 109, The Sanctuary Subdivision, according to the plat thereof' as recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 23B of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. U THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner �i nn .seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge ,and adopted on the 12th day of December 2000, by the following vote: Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn �►ye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ave � Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye — Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge �A �g_ w N G7 tV December 12, 2000 — w 59 Bi{ � � � P� � 8 �i RESOLUTION N0.2000-149 The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 1 ?th December ,2000. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER CO/U"')NTY, FLORIDA Fran B. Adams �'`��.�, b,i''•. Attested STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Deputy Clea,`-, (.1;}` �, � `• �_ ..��� .•j�;�i• fir+f� i x,,.DjJ,�'�f�..•....'�O l� ��'Ji's43 ��,i, . _ :k., 4 day of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of December 2000, by FRAN B. ADAMS, as Chairma o �e�Board of Couniy Commissioners of Indian River Couniy, Florida, and byPA� RtGiA M• R��` ,Deputy Clerk for JEFFREY K. BARYON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who are personally known to me. N_� O,, T`/ARY PUBL�IvC Printed Name Ki mharl y F . c c",__ n�__ Commission No.: C,C.RF5a3E, Commission Expiration: Jul V 15. 2003 APPROVED AS LEGAL FORM: William G. Collins II Deputy County Attorney ease.doc proj/apl. no. 20001001b0l25715 December 12, 2000 ' B� � � � �� ��� .t x.: r MY COMMISSION t CC85S13b QUIRE$ ;k: July t5; 2003 ,:. ;.��.+ apinEDRkU IYOYFAWHC ..; 3 :, 7.R. Resolution No. 2400-150 - Acceptance of Implied_ Plat Dedications - �(fiownsite of Roseland and Other Subdivisions -, Subsequent to Driver v. Indian River Caunt�) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 6, 2000: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FRQM:.�,,;�,,, William G. Collins 11 —Deputy County Attorney DATE: December 6, 2000 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Implied Plat Dedications As a result of Judge Kenney's ruling in Driver v. Indian River County that all street dedications implied by their depiction on a plat must under the common taw iwhich existed prior to the 1971 statutory platting scheme} be accepted, we have prepared a resolution for the Board to accept platted rights -of --ways in the Townsite of Roseland and other subdivisions. The Planning Department searched for old plats which provide street access to water bodies in particular. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the attached resolution and authorize the Chairman to execute same. WGC/nhm Attachment ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2000-150 formally accepting the dedication of streets, alleys, and easements shown on certain plats which predate statutory laws of platting set out in Chapter 177, Part 1, Florida Statutes. December 12, 20U0 '°� 61 RESOLUTION N0.2000-150 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FORMALLY ACCEPTING THE DEDICATION OF STREETS, ALLEYS AND EASEMENTS SHOWN ON CERTAIN PLATS WHICH PREDATE STATUTORY LAWS OF PLATTING SET OUT IN CHAPTER 177, PART 1, FLORIDA STATUTES. IN 7HE RECi)RDS OF JEFFREY K. �BARTON CLERK CIRGIIIT COURT INDIAN RIVER CO., FLA. WHEREAS, laws relating to the platting of land were not enacted by the !=lorida Legislature until 1971; and WHEREAS, plats filed of record prior to that date sometimes had no language of express dedication of rights-af--way, streets, alleys and easements to public use; and WHEREAS, by making a sale of platted lots, the owner of a tract manifests an intent to dedicate streets and rights -of --way necessary to access those lots; and WHEREAS, common law dedication requires {1 } an intention by the owner to dedicate the property for public use; and {2} an acceptance by the public; and WHEREAS, Judge Scott Kenney rendered a Finai Judgment in the case Driver v. Indian River County, in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, in and far Indian River County, Florida (Case No. 00-Q343 CA19} ruling that there must be clear, satisfactory and unequivocal evidence that the public has accepted such dedications, either formally, or by the improvement, maintenance or use of said streets and rights -of --way, December 12, 2000 1 m a 0 0 m c-7 -a w ry -r N 3 c� 0 .�- N O d RESOLUTION N0.2000-150 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that all dedicated rights-of-way, streets, easements, and alleys shown on the following listed platted lands are hereby expressly and formally accepted: • Townsite Plat of Roseland, Plat Book 1, Page 43, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, now lying in Indian River County, Florida. • Plat of Wauregan, Plat Book 1, Page 178, Public Records of Brevard County, Florida, now lying in Indian River County, Florida. • Subdivisions Nos. 1 and 2, Ambersand Beach, originally platted in Brevard County at Plat Book3, Page 76, and also being recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 8-A, Public Records of Indian River County. • A. A. Beny Subdivision, recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 14 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, said lands now lying in Indian River County, Florida. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ginn ,and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanbri dge , and, upon being out a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Fran B. Adams Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge December 12, 2000 63 to BK I if PG 393 RESOLUTION NO.2000.1go The Chairman thereupon declared the resalution duly passed and adopted this 17th day Of December, 2000. ':i' •! i i i • •� DEAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By 0902 _ 16 Fran B. Adams, Chairman ATTEST: �,leffrey K. Ba Clerk D$puty Clerk If11 APPROVED AS TO FORM ANO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY WILLIAM G. COLLINS 11 DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY 3 December 12, 2000 BK 1 16 PG 3 9 4 04 7.S. Interlocal Agreement with School Board o�f'Indian RiverCounty Concerning Scrub Jav Lot Ac�►uisition (Pelican Island Ele�zentary Sch ooll The Board reviewed the proposed Interlocal Agency Agreement. Chairman Adams suggested an addition be made to the second paragraph on page 2 in case the loan is not repaid as follows: In the event the loan is not repaid before June 30, 2001, interest shall accrue at the prime percentage rate per annum thereafter. (C'LERK'S NOTE: The interest rate was subsequently changed just prior to the end of the meeting to "... the rate authorized under provisions of Florida Statute 215.84" at the request of the School Board and concurrence of the Commissioners.) ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously approved entering into an interlocal agreement with the School Board of Indian River County concerning the Scrub Jay Lot Acquisition by Pelican Island Elementary School as amended at the meeting. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - MODIFICATION TO THE CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR I DIAN RIVER COURTS -REQUESTED BY INDIAN RIVER COURT�LTD. PROOF OF PUBLICATION [S ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of November 20, 2000 with the aid of a site map projected on the overhead: December 12, 2000 65 BK 1 1� PG 3 9 5 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D I N HEAD CONCURRENCE: // .,. � �. Obert M�Keating, AIBP Community Development Direc�or �- THROUGH: Stan Bolin��CP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICD' � � IIVj Senior Planner, Current eve opment DATE: November 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Indian River Courts Ltd.'s Request to Modify the Conceptual Plannei Development Plan For Indian River Courts It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of Count}' Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 12, 2000. � �► �►� �► Captec Engineering, Inc. has submitted an application on behalf of Indian River Courts Ltd. tc modify the approved conceptual planned development plan for Indian River Courts. The subject PD, project area is located generally at the northwest corner of Indian River Blvd. and 4151 Street, an is zoned RM -8. At its regular meeting of July 20, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners granted conceptual planned development plan approval for Indian River Courts. The July 20, 1999 staff report for that project is attached (attachment #3). As approved, the plan allows for 36 single-family lots, and 20C multi -family units. Distinct from the multi -family units, the proposed single-family units are tc be sold off with each unit on its own individual tot. The applicant is now requesting that the approved setbacks for the single-family area be modified. Pursuant to PD ordinance section 915.26, any reduction to the setbacks previously established through the PD process requires approval, through the public hearing process, of a modified conceptual plan. ■ PD Plan Modification To change the project's approved setbacks, the applicant must modify the currently approved conceptual PD plan. Once the modified conceptual PD plan is approved by the Board, no other project plan revisions will be needed. The project's existing preliminary PD plan and land development permit will remain in force. No project design changes are needed to make use of the requested setback change. ■ Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of November 9, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to recommend approval of the Planned Development setback modifications. December 12, 2000 gK � � � �� � � 6 66 ■ Board of County Commissioners Consideration Pursuant to section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board is to consider the appropriateness of the proprised modification based on the PD plan and suitability for that area. The Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request for the modification. The county may attach conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate the impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. The applicant is requesting a reduction in the setbacks currently approved for the single-family lets. The number of lots, Iot size, and lot width will remain the same. As approved, the setbacks for the single-family area are consistent with RM -8 single-family district criteria. The applicant is requesting to reduce the frontyard setback from 25' to 20', the sideyard setback from 10' to 7.5', and the rearyard setback on interior lots from 25' to 15'. WAIVERS REQUESTED Single -Family Setback Requirements RM4 Original Requested Front 25' 25' Side 10' 10' Rear (perimeter) 25' 25' 25' Rear (interior) 25 ' 25' Max. Bldg. Height 35' 35' 35' Pools, Decks, Patios Lot Size 71000 69000 16,000 Lot Width 70' 58' 1 58' Note: ®figures are the requested changes from the ori ginal approval. The applicant is requesting these changes to the dimensional criteria in response to a request fro n home builders. The builders are requesting the ability to construct larger homes an these lots chart originally anticipated. Based an the existing land use and zoning pattern within the area, staff anticipates that the entire aztla to the south will develop with medical uses, and that the area abutting the proposed single familly subdivision will develop as either attached single-family or as multi -story, multi -family. The PID compatibility standards in LDR section 915.16 do not require buffers when a residentia l development is located adjacent to an Mw or M-2 designated property. All of the property north of 3I" Street is designated M-1. Thus, the PD ordinance requires no buffers. In addition, it is staff; opinion that the proposed single-family development will likely be the least intensely developed parcel in the immediate area, which is another reason why staff has recommended that no perimete buffers be required. December 12, 2040 m r w lI U ► I � i ► Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant conceptual PD plan approval to modify the single-family setbacks of the Indian River Courts Conceptual PD plan to be consistent with the waivers referenced above, with the original canditians of approval to remain in effect. :irU+�►1 1. Application 2 Location Map ;. Board of County Commissioners July 20, 1949 Staff Report 4. Site Plan 5. Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes (Draft) The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Pat FerIin, a registered engineer with Captec Engineering, Inc. ,advised that Captec agreed with staff and requested approval based on staff's recommendation. It was determined that no ane else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. Vice Chairman Ginn advised that she could not vote in favor of this because she felt that a Planned Development Plan needed to be set in stone and not approved in cone ept. She also saw no need for a PD plan on this property and no reason for having the waivers. She felt that this "signals" that anything can be built internally as long as it looks good :From the outside. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board by a vote of 4-1 (Vice Chairman Ginn opposed) granted conceptual PD plan approval December 12, 2000 68 B� i i� PG 398 to modify the single-family setbacks of the Indian River Courts Conceptual PD plan to be consistent with the waivers referenced in the memorandum, with the original conditions of approval to remain in effect. 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL TO ADD A SOCIAL HALL TO THE EXISTING CHURCH FACILITY - WESLEYAN CHURCH OF VERO BEACH PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of November 20, 2x00 using a site map displayed by the overhead projector: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D SIO HEAD CONCURRENCE: '%l L Roberf M. Keanng, AIBP Community D^evelopment Direc r 1a t THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy �� Senior Planner, Community Development DATE: November 20, 2000 SUBJECT: Wesleyan Church of Vero Beach's Request for Special Exception Use Approval to Add a Social Hall to the Existing Church Facility It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 12, 2000. Mosby Associates, Inc. has submitted an administrative approval application and special exception use approval application on behalf of the Wesleyan Church of Vero Beach to add a 1,500 December 12, 2000 69 BK 116 PG 399 sq. Ft. social hall to the existing church facility. No day care or school use is proposed. Since the site is located within the RS -6 zoning district and the applicant proposes a church building expansion of greater than 10%, special exception use approval is required for the project. ■ Planning and Zoning Commission Action At its regular meeting of November 9, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously {7-0) to recommend approval of the proposed expansion of the special exception use. The accompanying administrative approval plan has already been approved by staff subject to the Board's action on the special exception use request. Therefore, the administrative approval application will become effective, if the Board approves the special exception use. I'fi7iA`��-F'� 1. Total Area of Development: 107,472 sq. Ft. or 2.47 acres 2. Zoning Classification: RS -6, Single -Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre) 3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density (up to 6 units per acre} 4. Total Impervious Surface; Existing: 6.088 sq. ft. Proposed Additional: 1 _SOO,�a=f% Total: 7,588 sq. ft. Note: The proposed new impervious surface an the site wilt consist solely of building area. S. Open Space: Required: 40% Proposed: 74.3% Note: The open space does not include the grassed parking lot. 6. Building Area; Existing: 4,657 sq. ft. pYs�sesi; I,500 s4 fi Total: 6,157 sq. ft. 7. Traffic Circulation; This site is accessed from 27�' Avenue via an existing driveway which serves on-site parking spaces. No change to the driveway, traffic circulation system, or parking spaces is required, and none is proposed. 8. Off-street Parking: Required: 27 spaces (stabilized, unpaved} Existing: 30 spaces (stabilized, unpaved} Note: The proposed fellowship hall addition does not require additional parking. 9. 5tormwater Management: The proposed stormwater management plan, which includes provision of a small retention area along the north side of the addition, has been approved by the Public Warks Department. _- Decem ber 12, 2000 B� E � � �� � o a '° 10. Landscaping Plan: The landscaping plan is in compliance with Chapter 926 requirements. The plan depicts a Type "D" buffer along 1" Street SW, between the building and the adjacent single-family zoned property to the north, and a Type "C" buffer between the building and a portion of the site's west perimeter. Based on the scope of the addition, the applicant must provide a buffer along a portion of the west property where the addition would be visible from the adjacent property. The applicant's plan labels the buffer azea appropriately. Although the site plan labels the buffer areas, the applicant will need to submit and obtain planning staff approval of detailed landscape plans prior to site plan release. 11. Utilities: The site will continue to be serviced by the county potable water system and will connect to the county sewer system. These utility provisions have been approved by the Environmental Health Department and the Department of Utility Services. 12. Specific Land Use Criteria: The application must satisfy all applicable specific land use criteria for a place of worship. The place of worship specific land use criteria aze as follows: a. No building or structure shall be located closer than thirty (30) feet to any property line abutting a residential use or residentially designated propem�. Note: The existing structures and proposed addition aze more than 30' from all property line. b. Access shall be from a major thoroughfaze unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Department. Note: The site has access from 27`� Avenue, which is a major thoroughfaze roadway. c. Any accessory residential use, day caze facility or school upon the premises shall provide such additional lot area as required for such use by this section and shall further be subject to all conditions set forth by the reviewing procedures and standazds for that particulaz use. Accessory residential uses may include convents, monasteries, rectories or pazsonages as required by these regulations. Note: No such facilities aze proposed. d. Type "C" screening shall be provided along all property boundaries where the facility is located adjacent to asingle-family residentially designated property. Type "D" screening shall be provided along all property boundaries when the facility is located adjacent to amultiple-family residentially designated property. 1. The Boazd of County Commissioners may waive or reduce the buffer requirements where the place of worship is located next to an existing cemetery, place of worship, childcaze facility, community center, or school. Consideration shall be given to security, noise, and visual impacts. Where a waiver or a buffer reduction is granted, normal perimeter landscaping requirements shall apply, and alternative requirements (such as fencing) may be required. Note: The applicable buffers have been provided and are depicted on the proposed site plan. December 12, 2000 71 BK 116 PG4al 13. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: I" Street SW, First United Pentecostal ChurchlRS-6 South: Singe -Family HameslRS-6 East: 27"' Avenue, Single Family Homes/RS-6 West: Single -Family Homes/RS-6 �uu ►�a •► Based an the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception approval for the requested place of worship use, subject to the following conditions: I . Prior to site plan release, the applicant shall submit and obtain planning staff approval of a detailed landscape plan for the required Type "C" and "D" buffers. 2. .� a Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the place of worship use, the applicant shall install the required buffers. 1. Application 2 Location Map 3. Site Plan �. Draft Panning and Zoning Commission Minutes --- --� =inl; in i.rC vl j rart.'3t c'i i ..; •� `l�l'� Aamtn. � �'''f�" It.,ll ,jf G. 1 legal � r�.� : , G��; - � BuagetJ � � � ,., Deet -I.. J l i Aistc Mgr. # � �, The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously granted special exception approval for the requested place of worship use, subject to the fallowing conditions: 1} prior to site plan release, the applicant shall submit and obtain planning staff approval of a detailed landscape pian for the required Type "C" and "D" buffers, and 2} prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy far the place of warship use, the applicant shall install the required buffers. December 12, 2000 BK I��PG4Q� 72 9.A,3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2000-151 - WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION, 28TH COURT SW (NORTH OF 5TH STREET SW) PETITION WATER SERVICE - RESOLUTION lII PROOF OF PUBLICA'T'ION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Utility Services Director Donald R. Hubbs reviewed a Memorandum of December 4, 2000: DATE: DECEMBER -1, 2000 TO: .LAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTI' ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HCBBS, P. DIRECTOR OF ['TILITS: S �S PREPARED 3.AMES D. CHAS AND STAFFED MANAGER O A S� ENT PROJECTS BY: DEPARTIYIEN �TILITY SERV#CES SUBJECT: W'ESTW'OOD SUBDIVISION, 28rtt COURT S. ��. (NORTH OFF �ttt ST SVV► PETITION W. -ITER SERV'IC'E INDIAN RIVER CO[�NTI' PROJECT NO.L��-00-I I-Dti RESOLt�TION III- P[BLIC HEARING On tia�rmhcr !�. 't){}{}, the Indian River t•aunty Baard of C'aunn C'ammissionrrs approved Rrsolutwn� ! +_'U()U-1-t�t and Rrsulutiott 1! t'_OItU-1�6. Resaltttian I contained the prtluninar� assessment roll describing the project and cost. Resolution II set the date of the public hearin�� for the subject prosect. Property a��ners have been notitied of the public hearing h� mail. Resoivaan i t_'000-I-t�} vtas published in the Vera Beach Press Journal an Navember 17, �'0(t(l. lsee attached agenda item and implementation of the abavr rneetinµ�-Exhibit 1, Plat 1�tap-F�hibrt _, and Estimated Project Cost -Exhibit �}. On November �8, '{}0{t at ':Ot} p.m. an intiyrmatianal meeting w•as held for the benefit of the proper}• auners. in the Indian River County Board of County Commission Chambers. Design of tht water distribution s�strm has been completed by the [>epartment u! t�tilin tirn ice, staff: December 12, 2(104 73 .a,ALI"Siff There are 1 � platted residential lots. which may beneftt from this prape�scd water line on �8'h Court SUS'. The petition has been signed b}� 10 of the 1? owners (8 � ° �:t. The lots are .� � :acre. fhe attached map displays the area to benetit ti•om the assessment prui�ct. Che' lots abutting �`h Street were provided water sen•ice in the Phase 1 Water Project. which was completed ��n .}anuar� t`_'. l�)N3 and are not included, i see attached EXHIBIT_- Plat tap). taf rite I? >ubdivisions al�}n<.; �''' Street SVk _between _'7'" and -t �"' Ai emus_ the installation c}f Count water service in L4'estwoad Subdivision will leave just Vv'est Side Subdivision in this area without County water Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan states. "The Count}•'s water system shall be expanded to supply the parable water needs of the eastern half of the County• during the period 1986-'_UU�.�� {See attached Exhibit S. page -! of the Potable V��ater Sub -element. This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners alon_ the proposed water line route. In the interim. fundin�� will be from the Assessment Fund No.-17�-ODU-16y-X89.00. The total estimatc;d project cast and amount to be assessed, including engineering_. construction and administration is $-}9'61.UU. The estimated cost per square foot is $ U.177794 {rounded}. (See attached Exhibit -I- Assessment Roll>. REC0�1`IEVD.-�TIOti The staff of the Department of [hility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Resolution III. which at'fitirts the preliminary assessment roll on the subject propem. LIST OF EXHIBITS 1-13CC implementation tiovember 1-t__'UUU Z -Plat ititap -Es[imated Praiect Cost & Summary Schedule of Properties 4-Preliminan• Assessment Roll -Paee �i Potable 1�'ater Sttb-element December 12, 2000 BK I 1 � PG (-� a � 74 o � The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED 131r Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2000-151 confirming the special assessments in connection with a water main extension to Westwood Subdivision (28tH Court SW, North of 5`" Street); providing for special assessment liens to be made of record. Public Hearing {Third Reso.} IN THE RECORDS OF _ RESOLUTION NO, 2000- 151 JEFFREY K.BARTo><t CLERK CIRCUIT COURT rt: INDIAN RIVER CO., FLA. .:- rte A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION G WITH A WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION (28TH COURT, SW, NORTH OF 5TH STREET); PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE MADE OF RECORD. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by Resolution No. 2000-145, adapted November 149 20001 determined #o make special o assessments against certain properties to be serviced by a water main extension to M Westwood Subdivision (28"Court, SW, north of 5'h Street); and WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said special assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are to be paid; and ry > WHEREAS, the resolution was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal, as cv required by Section 206.04, Indian River County Code; and cn WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County passed Resolution No. 2000.146 on November 14, 2000, and set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints as to said project and said special assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section IWD 206.07, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was published in the Press Journal Newspaper on Friday, November 17, 2000, and once again on Friday, November 24, 2000 (twice one week apart; the last being at least one week prior to the hearing), as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and c.n December 12, 2000 75 RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 151 WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County on Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public hearing with regard to the special assessments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety. 2. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the properties assessed anti! paid in full. 3. The Board finds that the properties assessed by this resolution will receive special benefits equal to or greater than the cost of the assessment. 4. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution, which describes the properties assessed and the amounts of the special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitu#e prima facia evidence of the validity of the special assessments. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ti ppi n ,and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge ,and, upon being put to a vats, the vats was as follows: Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Gommissianer John W. Tippin Aye Gommissianer Ruth Stanbridge Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adapted this 12`" day of December, 2000. Attest::-,-�1�.-K. Barton, C B�/�Lt.e:c.e:.w: � . � ., .. - DepUty:C�erk 1 Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL {to be recorded on Public Records) December 12, 2000 � >r BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA �, / �, r� Fran B. Adams Chairman 76 �inMm fLwr Ca AOOroved Dafe Admin. +^T��-�r �;,��1 h Legal � I L�j 1r.�� ( euagz� I Il Dev 1 � �;3�-I �a�� Rlsh Mgr. 0 W ._.i O tat W t� 0 0 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION - 28TH COURT (NORTH OFF 5TH ST SW) WATER SERVICE PROJECT i. R. C. NO UW -0O -ii- DS J. 0. C. PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00002.0 SQ Fi. 23,089 ASSESSMENT d,i05.08 OWNER JOHNSTON, DANIEL A 8 PATTIE K 446 28TH CT SW VERO BEACH, FL 32960-3212 LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION LOT 2 � PBI9-66 � PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00003.0 SO FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,f05.48 OWNER WtIMOUTH, EUGENE A 8 MARY S 440 28TH CT SW VERO BEACH, Fl. 32968-3212 LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION LOT 3 PBI 9 - 66 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00004.0 SO FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 OWNER WILSON , JOHN D JR &MARTHA ELAINE 406 28TH GT SW �'' VERO BEACH, FL. 32968-3212 � IEGAI WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION LOT 4 PBi 9 - 66 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00005.0 SQ Fi'. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 OWNER PtCARDt, DOMENICO &MARIA 386 28TH CT SW /� VERO BEACH, FL. 32968-3205 �' LEGAL WESTWOOO SUBDIVISION LOT 5 PBI 9.66 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00049 0000 00006.0 SO FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105A8 OWNER VETTER, JOHN G 8 PATRICIA G 366 28TH CT SW 0` VERO BEACH. FL. 32968-3205 `r LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION LOT 6 PBI 9 - 66 0 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00007.0 SO FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 � OWNER FOX, SAMUEL L & MELANIE S C.a 310 28TH CT SW � �,J VERO BEACH, FL. 32968.3205 C7`� _, LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION LOT 7 PBI 9 - 66 � t� O CJ1 .�"' O EXNIBITM,�4 December 12, 2444 0 77 ex�����4a7 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00008.0 SO FT. 23,069 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 OWNER GILSON, WANDA 325 28TH CT SW VERO BEACH, FL. 32968-3295 f LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION LOT 8 PBI 9 - 66 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00009.0 SQ FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 OWNER DENNIS, WAITER P 365 28TH CT SW J VERO BEACH, FL. 32968-3295 1 LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION LOT 9 PBI 9 - 66 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00410.0 SO FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 OWNER JACKSON} RICHARD 385 28TH CT SW / VERO BEACH, FL. 32968-3295 1 LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIYISlON 1OT10 PS! 9-66 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00011.0 SO FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 OWNER OSWALD,SANDRA O 405 28TH CT SW I VERO BEACH, FL. 32962-3206 LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION L0T11 PBI9-66 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00012.0 SO FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 OWNER COLGAN, JOHN E. 425 28TH CT SW / VERO BEACH, FL. 32968-3206 LEGAL WE$TWOOO SUBDIVISION 1OT12 PBI9-66 PARCEL # 22 33 39 00009 0000 00013.0 SO FT. 23,089 ASSESSMENT 4,105.08 OWNER BEARE, ROBERT L SR &LINDA J 445 28TH CT SW ,v5 VERO BEACH, FL. 32968-3206 4` LEGAL WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION LOT13 PBI9-66 ESTIMATED SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE ASSESSED ESTIMATED PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT WESTWOOD28THCTASSMTROLL NOVEMBER 20, 200Q JDC 2 December Z2, 20Q4 27,066 (ROunded) $49,261.00 :.� W -J <,-� O CJi .� 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTION N0.2000-152 -ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION - 37TH AND 38TH STREETS PETITION V��ATER SERVICE -RESOLUTION III 2000: PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Utility Services Director Donald R. Hubbs reviewed a Memorandum of Dec ember 4, DATE: DECEMBER -1. 2000 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COC'\TY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. 1 DIRECTOR OF UTILITY' SE _� PREPARED .LAMES D. CHASTA AND STAFFED MANAGER OF SMENT PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION, 37rtt & 38T" STREETS PETITION WATER SERVICE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -00 -08 -DS RESULC�TION III- PUBLIC HEARING BACKGROUND On November 7. '_000. the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners appro� ed Resolutions I (_'ODU-1-1't and Resolution Il ('_OOU-131. Resolution I contained the preliminary assessment roll descrihien� the project and its cost. Resolution II set the date of the public hearten_ for the subject project. Propert}' owners have keen notified of the public hearien_ h.' mail. Resolution 1('_000-1�4�) was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal on November 13. �00(I. (see attached agenda item and implementation of the above meeting -Exhibit 1. Plat tap-Exhihit 2. Estimated Project Cost &Preliminary .-assessment Roll -Exhibit � I. On November 1 �. '_00O at 7:00 p.m. an informational meeting was held for the benefit of the property owners, in the Indian River Count} Board of County Commission Chambers. Nine (9) owners attended the meeung and all present appeared in favor of this project. Design of the eater distribution system has been completed b}' the Department of L•tili[� Services staff. December 12, 2000 79 BKilbP6�0� ANALYSIS There aze'� owner occupants of the 4� platted residential lots. ��hich ma}� benetit from the proposed installation of water lines on 37`x' & 38`t' Streets l a portion of :finita Park Subdivision t supponine the proposed prc�iect (�6 °ioi. and a purchaser (pendin�s transaction) who has ��iven verbal Support (�8 °jo}, according to the petitioner. Owners of the 'U tots wlto have not supported the petition. are Iargel�� nan-owner tenants or vacant lots. {see attached Exhibit -1- Schedule of Properties}. The properties are n•pically U.17 of an acre. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. (see attached Exhibit 3- Plat Map I. Approval of the attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminar}• assessment. Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan states, "The County"s water s�•stem shall be expanded to supply the potable water needs of the eastern half of the County durint~ the period 1986-?00�."" {See attached Exhibit �. page -# of the Potable Water Sub -element. and page " of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -element I. This praiect is to be paid through the assessment of propem- owners alone the proposed water line route. In zhe interim. fundin<< will be from the Assessment Fund l�io. =IT-UUU-I b9--E87.U(). The total estimated project cost and amount to be assessed. including entineerin��. construction and administration is S IUO?-4_.UU. Thz estimated cost per square foot is $ U.�83�6-((rounded). t See attached Exhibit �- Assessment Roil }. RECOMy1ENDATION The staff of the Department ��f ��tilit} Services recommends that the Board Commissioners approve the attached Resolution II1, which affirms the preliminary roil on the subject property. LIST OF EYHIBITS 1 -BCC implementation November 7. '_UUU 2 -Plat Map 3 -Estimated Project Cast �: Preliminan Assessment Roll �-Schedule of Properties �-Parte -4 Potable Vl�'ater Sub -element o! C'uunt� assessment The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. December 12, 2000 80 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution No. 2000-152 confirming the special assessments in connection with a water main extension to Anita Park Subdivision 37`h and 38`h Streets, east of 58`h Avenue and west of 56`h Avenue; providing for special assessment liens to be made of record. Public Hearing (Third Reso.} 10/00(reso�seb3a}k1DG IN THE RECORDS OF _ RESOLUTION NO. 2000- 152 CLERK CIRCUIT COURT ry INDIAN RIVER CO., FLA. rte` A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,_ CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH A WATER MAIN EXTENSION TO ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION 37TH AND 38TH STREETS, EAST OF 58TH AVENUE AND WEST OF 56TH AVENUE; PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE MADE OF RECORD. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County has, by c Resolution No. 2000-142, adopted November 7, 2000, determined to make special o assessments against certain properties to be serviced by a water main extension to rn Anita Park Subdivision (37`h and 38" Streets, east of 5$'" Avenue and west of 561" — Avenue); and co WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said special N, assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are to be paid; and WHEREAS, the resolution was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal, as required by Section 206.04, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County passed �-� Resolution No. 2000-143 on November 7, 2000, and set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints as to said o project and said special assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section 206.07, Indian River County Code; and r� -,t WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was published in the Press Journal Newspaper on Friday, November 10, 2000, and once again on Friday, November 17, 2000 (twice one week apart; the last being at least one week prior to the hearing), as required by Section 206,06, Indian River County Code; and ;v WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and December 12, 240 4 sl BX 116 PG�11 RESOLUTION NO. 2000 - 152 WHEREAS, the Board of County Gommissianers of Indian River County an Tuesday, December 12, 2000, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public hearing with regard to the special assessments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety. 2. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment rail are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in full. 3. The Board finds that the properties assessed by this resolution will receive special benefits equal to or greater than the cost of the assessment. 4. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution, which describes the properties assessed and the amounts of the special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ci nn ,and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n ,and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Vice Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Ruth Stanbridge qye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 12th day of December, 2000. Attest: J. K. Barton, C By �..� • Gel-,. "Deputy Clerk . /1 `' Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL (to be recorded on Public Records) December 12, 2000 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ,� ; �. Fran B. Adams Chairman 0 �Intm Rir� Ce AOorovetl Date ( w Admin � �t � j,�1�j�y I �.) legal � Ct� � �'{.tS`i�'c� � '� � euac�, � i �_ � !zlt�� I � Dept. t � �� � Rlsh Mgf, � � �„ C.J PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT 30-12-2000 ANITA PARK SUBDIVISION - 37TH & 38TH STREETS -WATER SERVICE J.D.C. PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00009.0 SQ. FT. 16,076 ASSESSMENT 4,553.76 OWNER ESSLlNGER, FLORA M. 5706 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1806 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOTS 9 & 10 BLK 2 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00011.0 SO. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61 OWNER ROWE, CHARLOTTE S 5726 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1806 LEGRL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 �' LOT 11 BlK 2 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00012A SQ. FT. 7,331 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61 OWNER ROBBINS, THOMAS L 5730 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1806 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 12 BLK 2 � PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00013.0 SO. FT. 14,662 ASSESSMENT 4,153.22 OWNER VAUGHN, WAYNE A &DONNA L 5746 38TH ST VERO BEACH, Fl 32960-1606 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBi 4 - 66 /� LOT 13 8 14 BLK 2 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0020 00015.0 SO. FT. 16,076 ASSESSMENT 4,553.76 OWNER RIDENOUR, FAY A 5766 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1806 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 15 & 16 BLK 2 [ PARCEL # 2$ 32 39 00007 0030 00001.0 SQ. FT. 8,745 ASSESSMENT 2,477.15 OWNER STILLMAN, CHARLES J PO BOX 690001 VERO BEACH, FL 32969-0001 f LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 1 BLK 3 December 12, 2000 ���� (n � � ,��ir 11 � ! 83 BK 116 PG 413 0 a GJ -J PARCEL # 28 32 39 40007 0030 00002.0 SO. FT OWNER STILLMAN, CHARLES J PO BOX 690001 VERO BEACH, FL 32969-0001 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 2 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00003.0 SC2. FT OWNER EMS ENTERPRISES INC. 2966 59TH AV VERO BEACH, FL 32966-6464 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 3 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00004.0 SO. FT. OWNER SCHER, DONALD J {TR} & MORNA G. 3705 57TH AV VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1824 LEGAL ANITA PARK SU8 PBf 4 - 66 LOT 4 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00005.0 SO. FT. OWNER IPPOLITO, VINCENT (TRS} &HELEN (TRS} 990 SEMINOLE DR ROCKLEDGE, FL 32955 - 2808 LEGAL ANITA PARK SU8 PBI 4 - 66 LOTS&6 BLK3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00007.0 SQ. FT OWNER ALLEN, BERNICE 5715 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1805 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 7 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00008.0 SO. FT OWNER SILBA, ANGELO A &BETTY D 5705 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1805 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBi 4 - 66 LOT 8 BLK 3 2 December 12, 2000 �� � �� �� �}��F 7,331 ASSESSMENT 7,331 ASSESSMENT 7,331 ASSESSMENT 14,662 ASSESSMENT 7,331 ASSESSMENT 8,745 ASSESSMENT 2,076.61 2,a1s.61 2,076.61 4,153.22 2,076.61 2,477.15 0 W -J 0 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00009.0 SO. FT. 8,798 ASSESSMENT 2,492.16 OWNER SCHER, DONALD J (TOK) (TR) 8 MORNA 3705 57TH AV VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1824 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 9 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00010.0 SQ. FT. 7,368 ASSESSMENT 2,087.09 OWNER SCHOFIELD, STEPHEN L 5716 37TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1876 f� LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 10 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00011.0 SO. FT. 14,720 ASSESSMENT 4,169.65 OWNER WINKLER, JOSEPH JR & CARLA M 5736 37TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1876 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 11 8 12 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00013.0 SQ. FT. 7,352 ASSESSMENT 2,082.56 OWNER BLACK, WILLIAM V � PATIENCE (DEC) 5746 37TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1876 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 13 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00014.0 SQ. FT. 7,347 ASSESSMENT 2,081.14 OWNER MOODY, BILLIE P & WAYNE H 5756 37TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1876 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 /� LOT 14 BLK 3 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00015.0 SQ. FT. 7,342 ASSESSMENT 2,079.73 OWNER JAHOLKOWSKI, PAUL (TR) MAIL 1090 10TH LN VERO BEACH, FL 32960 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PB14 - 66 / LOT 15 BLK 3 PROPERTY 5766 37TH ST PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0030 00016.0 SQ. FT. 8,751 ASSESSMENT 2478.85 OWNER JAHOLKOWSKI, PAUL (TR) MAIL 1090 10TH LN VERO BEACH, FL 32960 %L LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 -{� LOT 16 BLK 3 PROPERTY 5776 37TH STREET December 12, 2000 3 BK 116 PG 415 W J n O C11 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00008.0 SQ, FT, 8,905 ASSESSMENT 2.522.47 OWNER. BRUGGEMAN, ELIZABETH MAIL RTE 295 RICHMOND, MA 01254 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 ' LOT 8 BLK 5 PROPERTY 5606 38TH STREET PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00009.0 SQ. FT. 8,113 ASSESSMENT 2,298.12 OWNER HAMPTON, ROBERT G: & MICHELLE G. MAIL 5616 38TH STREET VERO BEACH, FL 32966 0+ LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 9 & E 4 FT OF LT 10 BLOCK 5 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00010,0 SQ. FT, 71331 ASSESSMENT 21076.61 OWNER GUZMAN, JOSE & YOLANDA MAIL P O BOX 274 WINTER BEACH, FL 32971 r LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 G� LOT 10, LESS E 4 FT BLK 5 PROPERTY 38TH STREET PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00011.0 SQ, FT. 7,722 ASSESSMENT 21187.37 OWNER GUADAGNO, NICHOLAS & MICHAEL G. GUADAGNO MAIL 5646 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 p� LOT 11 BLK 5 pC PROPERTY 5646 38TH ST PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 p0012.0 SQ. FT. 7,722 ASSESSMENT 2,187.37 OWNER GUADAGNd, NICHOLAS &MICHAEL G. GUADAGNO MAIL 1710 46TH AVE VERO BEACH, FL 32966 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOTS 12 BLK 5 PROPERTY 38TH STREET PARGEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00013.0 SQ. FT. 7,723 ASSESSMENT 2,187.65 OWNER GRUSKOS, HENRY & VIVIAN J MAIL 5646 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1802 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOTS 13 BLK 5 PROPERTY 5656 38TH STREET PARGEL # 28 32 39 00007 0050 00014.0 SQ. FT. 8,846 ASSESSMENT 2,505.76 OWNER SWEAT, BETTY J 1307 HWY 34 WEST i NEWMAN, GA 30263-5665 I LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT 14 BLK 5 December 12, 20110 B�116PG�16 0 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00001.0 SO. FT. OWNER SMITH, RICHARD M JR & MELINDA M 5665 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1801 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOTS 1 & 2 BLK 6 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00003.0 SO. FT. OWNER FOSTER, GRAHAM LEE & DEBORAH LYNN 5645 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1801 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOTS 3 & W 1/2 OF LOT 4 BLK 6 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00004.0 SO. FT. OWNER CHESSER, PHILLIP KEITH 5625 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1801 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 E 1/2 OF LOT 4 & ALL OF LOT 5 , BLK 6 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00006.0 SO. FT OWNER DARCY, DENNIS S. 5605 38TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32968-1801 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOTS 6 & 7 , BLK 6 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00008.0 SQ. FT OWNER MONTGOMERY, JOSEPHINE 3705 56TH AV VERO BEACH, FL 32966-1847 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 = 66 LOT 8 , BLK 6 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00009.0 SO. FT. OWNER BARBIERI, GEORGE J & LORENA L 5616 37TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1804 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOT go BLK 6 December 12, 2000 16,569 ASSESSMENT 11,583 ASSESSMENT 11,583 ASSESSMENT 16,624 ASSESSMENT 9,003 ASSESSMENT 7,806 ASSESSMENT 4,693.41 3,281.05 3,281.05 4,708.99 2,550.23 2,211.16 BK I I � PG 417 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00010.0 SQ. FT. OWNER BLACKBURN, JOSEPH R JR 8 JENNIFER 5626 37TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1804 LEGAL AN17A PARK SUB PB14 - 66 LOT 10 , BLK 6 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00011.0 SQ. FT OWNER CNESSER, PHILiiP O &ELAINE S 1501 EASTLAKE LN SEBASTIAN, FL 32958-6583 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBi 4 - 66 LOT 11 ,BLK 6 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00012.0 SQ. FT OWNER MCCONKEY, JOHN M 8 LINDA M 5646 37TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960-t 804 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PB14 - fi6 LOTS 12 $ 13 , BLK 6 PARCEL # 28 32 39 00007 0060 00014.0 SQ. FT OWNER TOYS, CHARLES A & JANICE M 5676 37TH ST VERO BEACH, FL 32960-1880 LEGAL ANITA PARK SUB PBI 4 - 66 LOTS 14 , BLK fi TOTAL ESTIMATED SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE ASSESSED PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT TOTAL December 12, 2000 ' � � i� t 7,801 ASSESSMENT 2,209.75 7,795 ASSESSMENT 2,208.05 15,572 ASSESSMENT 4,414.99 8,910 ASSESSMENT 2,523.89 354,238 D $ 100,343.00 9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - SANDY AND GEORGE KAHLE'S APPEAL OF A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMIISSION DECISION TO APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT RE6UEST FROM NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS FOR A 149' MONaIPOLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of December 5, 20 DO using an aerial photograph, a site map, and a towerslocation map of Indian River County: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DI IO HEAD CONCURRENCE: 1�Zr K . ert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Dir ctor ' FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: December 5, 2000 SUBJECT: Sandy and George Kahle's Appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission Decision to Approve an Administrative Permit Request from Nextel Communications for a 149' Monopole Telecommunications Tower It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of December 12, 2000. Sandy and George Kahle own property adjacent to the site of a proposed telecommunications tower and have appealed a decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission that approved the tower (see attachment #1). The decision being appealed was made by the Planning and Zoning Commission on a 5-2 vote at its November 9, 2000 meeting (see attachment #2). The administrative permit application that is the subject of the appeal was submitt ed by Kimley- Horn &Associates, Inc. on behalf of Nextel Communications. That application reflects the applicant's proposal to develop a 149' foot tall monopole tower designed for multiple personal communications services users (see attachment #3, staff's report on the project to the Planning and Zoning Commission). The site of the proposed tower is located at the west end of the 20 acre Immanuel Baptist Church site at 455 58" Avenue SW. The site is located outside the Urban Service Area and is zoned A-1 (Agricultural up to 1 unit/5 acres). Based on the site's A4 zoning, a commercial monopole tower between 75' and 150' in height is allowed as an administrative permit use on the subject site. December 12, 2000 BK 1 16 PG 419 Under the LDRs, the Board is now to consider the administrative permit application and the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to approve the application (see attachment 94). The Board may uphold or overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision. In doing so, the Board may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the administrative permit application. The county's land development regulations (LDRs} provide criteria for the Boazd to use in its revie a• of the appeal of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision on the administrative permit application. These criteria, based on LDR section 902.07 (4) and (5) (see attachment #4), are as follows: (1) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to follow the appropriate revie�. procedures? (2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner" (3) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects oI' the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? (4) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County? The Board is to consider each of these criteria and make findings in all 4 areas addressed by the criteria. Staff's analysis of the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision in regard to the 4 criteria, and the appeal letter "response", are as follows: (I) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to foliow the appropriate review procedures? — Appeal Letter Response: The appeal letter raises no objections to the procedures followed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, although the appeal letter (see attachment #1) implies that the applicant did not adequately respond to certain questions and issues raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. — Staff's Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail in regard to following appropriate review procedures. Although the application request did not require a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission allowed the appellant to provide input at the November 9`h meeting. Thus, the Commission followed procedures and accommodated input from the appellant. (2) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? — Appeal Letter Response: The appeal letter does not allege that the Planning and Zoning Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously. — Staff's Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously but acted in accordance with the LDRs that are applicable to the application request. December 12, 2000 I1 R 11 (3) Did the PIanning and Zoning Commission fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon suaounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare? — Appeal Letter Response: The appeal letter alleges that the Planning and Zoning Commission did fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed tower upon surrounding properties which include homes and an adjacent pre-school (170 children, plus staff). The letter also cites negative aesthetic impacts That the tower would have on the surrounding twat neighborhood. — Staff's Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fait to consider adequately the effects of the proposed tower because it followed county LDRs that address effects on surrounding properties and traffic circulation, and it followed legal advice from the County Attorney's Office regarding possible environmental effects ofradio-frequency emissions. In regard to effects on surrounding properties, the Planning and Zoning Commission applied the appropriate zoning district and specific land use criteria. Those criteria were enacted by the Board of County Commissioners as a resuli of extensive public workshops on telecommunications towers and are part of a county -wide regulatory agproach that requires non -camouflaged commercial telecommunications towers to be located outside of residentially zoned areas, and within agriculturally zoned areas such as the subject site. Such non -camouflaged towers are specifically allowed in very low density, larger parcel areas {such as the area of the subject site}, so that tower impacts will affect fewer residents and so that greater setbacks can be applied. In addition, the LDRs restrict non -camouflaged towers to monopoles under 1 SO feet in height {such as the type proposed) in the agricultural areas east of I -9S (the area of the subject site}. In A-2 and A-3 zoned areas, which are located west of I -4S, and within industrial areas, the LDRs allow towers 1 SO feet and taller. Thus, the proposed tower fits within the countywide regulatory approach in regard to tower height, type, and location. Thus, by applying the restrictions of the A-1 zoning district to the type and height of the tower, and by applying the significant setbacks, buffering of the tower base/campound area, and other tower criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission addressed the effects of the proposed tower on surrounding properties. Due to the extremely low traffic generating characteristics of the proposed, unmanned tower, traffic circulation is not an issue. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Comtission also did not fail in regard to the effects of the project an traffic circulation. In regazd to health, safety, and welfare issues, the Deputy County Attorney advised the Planning and Zoning Commission that federal regulations restrict the county from regulating personal communications facilities on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions (see attachment #2). Such issues are regulated by the federal government (Federal Communications Commission) rather than local governments. In regard to the issue of electromagnetic fields from cellular phone antennas and human health, Nextel Communications has provided staff with a S4 page document (updated September 14, 2000} which is now on file with the Boazd office for reviewneference. December 12, 204Q �� BKl16PG421 (4) Did the Planning and Zoning Commission fail to evaluate the application with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and LDRs of Indian River County? — Appeal Letter Response.• The appeal letter indicates that the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision failed to apply LDR section 971.44(1) and that the project is a "blatant attempt to circumvent" the county LDRs by proposing a tower height that falls just below an allowable height threshold. The appeal letter states that the presence of a rural neighborhood and large daycare center (Maitland Farms) were factors not adequately considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission in its decision to approve the application. — Staff's Response: The fact that the proposed tower height just slightly falls below an allowable height threshold demonstrates compliance with the LDRs rather than circumvention of county regulations. In regard to the 971.44(1) criteria, staffs report to the Planning and Zoning Commission (see attachment #3) demonstrates satisfaction of these criteria. Under the administrative permit regulations of section 971.04, the county may place reasonable conditions on the project to mitigate negative impacts. Such conditions can include buffering or lighting conditions. Although reasonable conditions may be attached to an approval, 971.04 does not allow the county to deny an administrative permit application that meets all applicable specific LDR requirements for the proposed use [e.g. 971.44(1)]. Because the subject application meets all of the applicable LDR requirements specific to the proposed commercial monopole telecommunication tower, the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to approve the application should be upheld. However, if the county demonstrates that the specific criteria -are inadequate for this particular site, then the Board has the authority, under its consideration of this appeal, to add reasonable conditions to the project approval to ensure compatibility (e.g. shielding of any required lighting, tower color, increased buffering for special screening effects, or tower use assurances). Staffs analysis is that the Planning and Zoning Commission decision was correct based upon a logical and straight forward application of the LDRs. t �►�►� ►�• �► Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Find that the Planing and Zoning Commission did not fail in regard to any of the 4 appeal review criteria, and 2. Uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to grant administrative permit use approval for the proposed tower. .0 1. Letter of Appeal 2. Draft Minutes of the November 9, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 3. Staff's Project Report to the Planning and Zoning Commission 4. LDRs Regarding Appeals 5. Tower Regulations [911.06 Table and 971.44(1)] 6. Administrative Permit Conditions and Safeguards [971.04] December 12, 2000 92 BKIIf�PG��22 c �� In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiries, Director Boling advised that the proposed tower would not be within the urban service area and would be east of I.9S. He pointed out and described the other towers now in the county. Vice Chairman Ginn questioned Director Baling further as to the existing number, current locations, and applications for towers since December 1996. Vice Chairman Stanbridge questioned Director Baling an the distance ofthe p µoposed tower in relation to I-95 and Maitland Farms Preschool. Commissioner Macht inquired if, in rejecting the idea of co -locating, Nextel had furnished an engineer's study of radiation patterns, and Director Baling advised that the applicant is not required to do that in this tower -type review application. Staff did ask the justification far locating the tower in this area and basically there are no other towers �r taller buildings upon which to ca -locate. He stated that their engineers were present to ��espond to this concern. Commissioner Macht specified that, absent a radiation study, geograph�� has a secondary effect on the effect of radiation and without a radiation pattern, they cannot prove to us that they must have that site. Vice Chairman Ginn thought they could co -locate on the BellSouth tower site at the Life for Youth Ranch, west of Pointe West, and Director Boling left it to their engineers to respond to why they felt they could not locate that far away for the type of coverage they need. Chairman Adorns opened the floor to the public and asked the speakers nc�t to be repetitive and speak pertinent to the subject. Sandy Kahle, 6020 5`" Street SW, pointed out this is the first opportunity to see the standards established in 1996 by the County and the Telecommunications Act in actio n when December 12, 2(}OQ a tower is proposed in a rural residential area. She believed the Commission would be on firm standing if they denied the tower based on 971.441 F.S. She advised that there are many cases where the courts have upheld the local decisions as long as the decisions are non- discriminatory between companies and do not totally deny them access. She advised of additional backup materials which included copies of a petition, photographs with t:1e tower drawn in, and copies of newspaper articles. She advised their appeal includes failure of the PZC to consider adequately the effects of the proposed tower upon surrounding property based on aesthetics, declining property values, and quality of life and health. She believed the proposed site was inappropriate based on the surrounding residences and 170 children in a nearby preschool. She enumerated the additional church development planned for the area. Telecommunications companies may claim that there is no evidence of heath woncerns from towers, but research seems to indicate that there is no definitive evidence at :his time because there have not been enough proper studies. She cited and read excerpts from two studies (Report by Dr. John E. Molder, October 1999 and NBC News British [The Expert Group] packet of safety concerns) and was prepared to give copies to the Board. Her conclusion from the two studies, which came out after the FCC study, was that there is not enough information to rule out the need to protect children from an environment which might be impacted by telecommunication waves. She felt these studies deserved some attention. She called their attention to petitions signed by 109 families of children who attend Maitland Farm Preschool who are very concerned about the proposed tower structure. She predicted the tower would have a negative aesthetic effect on their rural neighborhood. She pointed out that the tower is just one foot shy of requiring a special exception hearing. She believed that Nextel failed to respond adequately to many questions and issues 1 hat were appropriately raised by the Planning &Zoning Commission's members ani staff's correspondence. She cited 971.441 and 902.074(c), and read that simply fulfilling the December 12, 2000 BK � 16 PG 4C4 minimal LDRs is not all that is required for approval. She felt that she and other neighbors should have been allowed to speak during the PZC's deliberations. She raised the is sue that although Mr. Fajardo ofNextel had responded to questions at the PZC, he is not an e.lgineer. She also asserted that the question of capacity and coverage issues relating to the meed for a particular height at a particular location were not addressed by a qualified individual on behalf of the county. Nextel had indicated that they "need it because they need it" and details and other alternatives were not given consideration. She felt Oslo Road woLld have been a more appropriate location. Property owners there have advised that they v��ere not contacted about locating a tower on their property, but some of them have indicated a willingness to do so. She mentioned two other nearby tower sites and questioned wily those towers could not be incorporated in a coverage grid. She also questioned why they ca>uld not utilize the bell towers at two nearby churches. Landscaping at the base of the p, oposed tower will do nothing to mask the height of the tower. She wondered why several of the questions raised at the PZC were not adequately addressed and commented that a mcanopole of 149' had to meet only four requirements where 154' or more had to meet 17. Sh e asked whether there was an overall 14 -year grid plan far the telecommunication companies' expansion of service or if it was to bepatch-worked. She wished to know exactly what area this tower was designed to cover and where was the beam of greatest intensir�, She questioned whether the cellular industry is working on technology that will decrease the need for towers and asked who will be financially responsible far removing obsolete towers. She felt the Board of County Commissioners had spent a lot of effort putting the requirements in place, but she thought that after S years they have discovered that there are same serious holes in the requirements which might allow unsightly towers in inappropriate areas where the Board never intended them to be. She asked the Board to grant the appeal and declare a moratorium on further towers until the requirements can be readdressed. During that December 12, 200Q 95 ��i � � � �� � � �J 0 moratorium she asked that planning staff reconsider the myth that tall towers are necessary to give adequate coverage. She felt there are other options that will meet the needs of all concerned, but will not be discovered until sought. She specified that more time ;should be given to locating antennae on rooftops, trees, church steeples and bell towers, flag boles, and lighting for schools and stadiums as has been done in California. Susan Cabb, 5920 St" Street SW, pointed out her home on the aerial photograph. She understood health hazards could not be addressed but questioned how an authority could say to a parent not to worry, when there have been no extensive studies. Her reasoning in not giving her children prepared baby foods was validated because additives, present Lt the time which were thought harmless, have since been removed. We also now know tha: smoking can be hazardous to our health and that TV violence contributes to the violence in our society. She appealed to the Board to answer why health concerns could not be raised in this matter as the studies have just begun and have been the subject of major news broadcasts. She urged the Board to err on the side of caution by not allowing anything in her backyard which they would not want in their own. Michele Agenes, 6190 S`" Street SW, stated she and her husband had made a home in Florida with her husband to raise hogs in Ft. Pierce, having come from Washington, DC, 20 years ago. Their honeymoon home was located next to an electric substation. The bank wisely refused to lend them money and now the house is vacant and deemed unhabitable. After spending 8 years in Ft. Pierce, witnessing the decline which resulted from slipshod zoning they moved to a beautiful place on S" Street SW. Now they are faced witMhis tower which she felt was very invasive aesthetically. She was opposed to having a tower constructed in her neighborhood because it would degrade the values in the neig hborhood. Glenn Legwen, 5900 St' Street SW, advised that he is in the plant nursery business but competition from the nearby Home Depot had caused him to consider putting in a pig December 12, 2000 RK 1 16 farm on his property He had not done this because he felt it was mappropria �e to the neighborhood. He knew of three other locations where Nextel might have located their tower without a neighborhood's concern. He thought the Board should not allow this tower to be installed. Susan Temple, 1042 Near Ocean Drive, advised that she was present an behalfofthe parents, teachers, and children who attend Maitland Farm Preschool to voice her concern about the proposed Nextel tower. She advised of the key role that environment plays in the children's learning experience because more than 50% of the children's time was spent outside for nature walks, feeding animals, and finding fish in the pond. She felt the construction of the tower would go against the mission of the school. She submi ed that until enough data can be collected proving cellular towers are safe, the last thing n eded is a health risk to the Maitland Farm community and the children. She believed if tre tower is built, it would be intrusive, a possible liability, and a potential health hazard to the children. She asked the Commissioners to consider how they would feel if the children were theirs. She felt there must be another acceptable location where the tower would not affect so many lives. The future is not cell phones and computers, it is our children. Ken Hendricks, 6220 15` Street SW, has two children who att end Maitland Farms. He thought that the Board could see the cohesiveness of the neighborhood and what they do when the pastoral setting is threatened. He questioned the appropriateness of the ordinance that permits such a structure to be built and whether enough ground work was done when the ordinance was enacted. He cited AT&T Wireless vs City of Virginia Beach where the 4" Circuit of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the telecommunication provision stating that "the state's regulation of wireless communications service shall not prohibit or have an effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service" applies only to blanket prohibitions in general bans or policies, not to individual zoning decisions. a7 Blt 1 l 6 PC 4� 7 He read further and interpreted that communities can regulate and discriminate on a reasonable basis to encourage comrnuniiy values and encourage the interests of t he zoning requirements. He failed to see the need for this tower because Nextel has the best service in this community. He saw no evidence that this additional tower would enhance their service. He questioned Nextel's ability to sublease church property thus becoming a commercial venture on (tax -relief} church property. He deemed this an inappropriate use of the property to the detriment of the neighborhood. Allan Gabriel, attorney for Nextel, 2455 E. Sunrise Boulevard, Ft. L,�uderdale, Florida, requested the Board deny the appeal. He felt that the PZC was the finder +�f fact and had made the determination that Nextel met the requirements of the code as it a gists. The questions that were raised were answered satisfactorily and they approved the site. He referred to the Federal Telecommunications Act which established various requi--ements; it says that local governments are pre-empted from relating to or addressing he lth issues. Those concerns ares eculative and are dealt with b the FCC. As lon as Nexte� com lies P Y g p , which it does, then the equipment is deemed to be safe. He referred to Sec. 971..44 of the Code which sets out specific site locations in the community. Nextel has followed the code to the letter, has not asked for waivers, and has received approval from the PZC. The issues raised by members of the audience might be addressed in an amendment, but he asked that the appeal be denied. He then responded to questions and concerns on height, lid Ming (will not light unless FAA requires), and setback compliance. In response to Vice Chairman Ginn concerning an alternative to this tower site, this site has been determined to be a required need because of capacity issues and users are demanding additional capacity lE�vels in the service. He advised that several owners had denied Nextel the use of their grope rty. No tall structures exist in this area where they could locate this tower. Larry Fajardo, an RF (radio frequency) engineer for Nextel, came forward to December 12, 2000 QJ{ � � � �� �2� 98 respond to questions from the Commissioners concerning tower heights, locations, distances, reasons for constructing this proposed tower, range of transmission, and co -location policy and practices. He advised that there are more options on co -locating by having; shorter antennas such as this proposed tower. They are looking at bringing the heights down to rooftop level in the future. Vice Chairman Ginn decreed there was a definite need to make changes in the County's regulations. Messrs. Gabriel and Fajardo continued responding to the Commissioners as ':a future industry planning and needs. Mr. Fajardo responded to Commissioner Macht's questioning about benc.ing and suppressing the signals and explained his reasoning. Clark Lazar, a degreed electrical engineer from Florida State University, addressed Commissioner Macht's questions advising that the type of technology to which the Commissioner referred is possible in two-way radio but not in cellular technology; the equipment is not designed to do transmitter steering or to redirect a signal in the fast ion that is done in UHF and two-way radio. Mr. Gabriel again asked that the Board uphold the PZC decision. William Abbott, 6075 SW 1" Street, advised that the proposed tower will Le about 200 feet from where he plans to build a home for a family member on the additional fi ve acres he recently purchased. He felt that property will be worthless if the tower is )wilt. Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, advised he owns stock in Nextel. He referred to testimony from prior meetings, advised that he owns 100 acres nearby and has neve r heard from Nextel wanting to use his property. He thought that Nextel could certainly find a different site to locate this tower. Carl Brobst, 5880 1S` Street SW, advised that the new view from his front December 12, 2000 porch would be the tower. He did not want to see his property value denigrate and wan ted to see the community remain -as it has been. Ellen Wodke, 6325 15` Street SW, supported her neighbors and felt it was 1)ad to put this tower so close to so many children because we do not know the long-term effects. Brad Springer, 310 62"d out SW, was opposed to the tower's proposed location. Mr. Gabriel advised that the tower must be located withi Mn the area identified by the RF engineer. He also stated that different property owners were contacted, but t sere is no obligation to contact every property owner in the area. They found a ready, willing, and able property owner and that is how they ended up with the location. He asked the Board to recognize that Nextel has complied with the code and that they deny the appeal. Mrs. Kahle urged the Board to tell Nextel to go back and think of another way. She thought there were solutions that would be satisfactory to everyone. She under>tood that Nextel was not obligated to ask others, but there are other possibilities and she thought they could find a good solution if they had to go back to the drawing board. There being no further speakers, Chairman Adams closed the public hear: ng. Vice Chairman Ginn felt the 1997 regulations have not put the County in f:-ont of the process because the County really has no plans. Back then it was proposed by a ; onsultant (Kreines and Kreines, Inc.) that the County have them design a wireless plan. Just because there are no substantiated health risks does not mean there are none, but we cannot invoke that as a reason to deny a tower site. She pointed out that the County does not have an engineering consultant to assist but leaves planning up to the applicant. She urged the Board to consider another moratorium to revisit the regulations. She thought a plan Meas needed because of the proliferation of cell phone usage for beneficial reasons She had a motion in mind but wished to hear from other Commissioners. December 12, 2000 100 BKfi�PG�30 Commissioner Stanbridge agreed that the ordinance needed to be revisited and reevaluated. Our areas are changing and our agricultural area is changing as well. She was concerned about site plans that fail to be completed and then administrative uses take aver as in this instance. She also felt that no matter where the tower goes and no matter what the size, neighbors should be notified. She was very concerned about this; the Board does not know about these situations until people come forward. Conunissioner Tippin quipped that the County does not need an expert because we alreadW7 have Commissioner Macht who knows all there is to know about megaher-zes and airwaves and hat air and who has tried to help him understand all of this. Commissioner Tippin stated it was hard to be objective when it comes to children and offered a motion to grant the appeal. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge to grant the appeal. Commissioner Macht disclosed that he hada 3-I/2 year oid granddaughter who attends school at Maitland Farms. He felt that the level of radiation is not a problem, but the Board could not find anything in the PZC's decision-making flawed. However, with regard to the criteria upon which the Board needed to base its decision, he suggested that questions (1), (3), and (4) were most appropriate. He thought that there was a lack of information and lack of knowledge by the PZC to ask the right questions since there was no resource of expertise to advise them on technical matters. He thought that the applicant had filled to publish and make available a sealed radiation pattern analysis which would answer the question as to why they had to have this particular site. He thought the Board could support the motion on that basis. He also thought that the arguments of the neighbors were very N ompelling; it is an agricultural zone and if Mr. Legwen wanted to put his pig farm hi, there December 12, 244Q 101 BK �1�PG��I would be no rational objection to it because it is agricultural but a 149' tower is not. He thought that neither the Board nor the PZC had a right to foist this tower on the neighborhood. Far these reasons he would support the motion, Chairman Adams recounted the reasons why the Board called for the first moratorium on tower permits. She felt there has been a definite encouragement for co-lo��ating on existing towers. The Board knew that additional sites would have to be granted. SI~.e thought it would be interesting if this application had been for a lacatian on Peter Robinson's property. She has never been a fan of towers, but was always cognizant of the neighbors' feelings and she lives near a tower which is close enough. When night falls, it i�� amazing to see all the lighted towers and they keep coming. She felt for the neighborhood and would support the motion. She based her reasoning on question (3) that the PZC hacl failed to adequately examine the effects. County Attorney Bangel clarified that the motion on the floor was to �:phold the appeal and rule in favor of the appellant and overrule the decision of the PZC based on question (3} and the evidence contained in the entire record. Vice Chairman Ginn thought that the health studies could also be included. Chairman Adams believed that there was evidence to show that the neighborhood would change to a drastic degree and a 149' tower is a drastic degree. She based l ger support on number (3). Vice Chairman Ginn concurred. Attorney Bangel inquired of the mover and seconder whether they concurred with basing their actions on question (3) as set out in the memorandum. Commissioner Tippin and Commissioner Stanbridge agreed to the clarifi�catian. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. December 12, 2000 102 i Community Development Director Robert M. Keating asked about the mcratonum suggestion. MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, to declare a six-month moratorium while revisiting the telecommunication tower ordinance. Under discussion, Chairman Adams asked haw many tower applications were pending, and Director Boling advised he was not aware of any others. There was a question as to haw to proceed with a moratorium, and Deputy County Attorney WiII Collins advised that a moratorium has to be imposed by ordinance which requires advertising. He thought there would be no prohibition against having another moratorium since five years have gone by, the technology is changing, and the past approach may have been well-intentioned but not as effective as we would like. The Board cannot declare a "pending ordinance" because the regulations are not yet known. Commissioner Macht interjected that the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors (NATOA) to which he, Telecommunications Manager Ten Smith and Attorney Bangel belong, will be convening in the reasonably near future to revyliew the new federal guidelines. Director Keating had questions and advised that he thought staff had exhausted and gone beyond their level of expert ise previously and wondered if the Board wished to hire consultants. If so, the RFP process would be necessary and it would take several months just to comply with the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act to get someone on bo4oird. He suggested a minimum 6 -month moratorium. Attorn ey Collins advised that it would not be necessary to make any decisions at this December 12, 2000 time. The ordinance imposing the moratorium would have public input as to hew long would be necessary and appropriate. THE CHAIh;MAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (A proposed ordinance far moratorium will be forthcoming and advertised for a public hearing.} Chairman Adams declared a short recess at approximately 11;14 a.m Adams reconvened the meeting at 11:24 a.m. Chairman 9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO EXPAND THE t�RBAN SERVICE AREA - CLONTZ PROPERTY Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed in detail a Memorandum of December 6, 2000 using a Power Paint® presentation, both of which are duplicated below: TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator DE T ENT HEADj%//CJf//�Oi'NC��j/U//f�jRRENC//E//__ Obert M. Keating, AICiP; C'gmmunity Development Director THROUGH: Saran Rohani, AICP; Chief, LlI Ong -Range Planning `-� �j FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning ,� DATE December 6, 2000 RE: Discussion of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Clontz Property It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of r'ounty Commissioners at its regular meeting of December i2, 2000. On October 9, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners held a special workshop meFting to discuss expansion of the county's urban service area. The urban service area expansion issue arose December 12, 2000 �� � � � �� � � � 104 a 3 x i _, at a previous meeting when the Board considered a comprehensive plan amendment to expand the urban service azea and change the land use designation for a parcel owned by Gerald Clontz. At the workshop meeting, several questions arose regarding the location of utility lines and flood prone areas. As a result, the Board instructed staff to provide that information at a future meeting. This staff report contains the information requested by the Baazd. Also at the October 9`" meeting, Mr. Clontz's attorney, Michael O'Haire, presented a proposal to the Board for creating a "transitional" area far land meeting certain criteria. Recognizing that such a proposal needed technical analysis, the Board instructed staff to review, analyze, and "clean-up" the proposal; and report back to the Board. This staff report discusses Mr. O'Haire's proposal and several other alternatives. Attachment 7, at the end of this staff report, is a matrix summarizing the alternatives. At this time, the Boazd is to detet�rtine whether or not the county should initiate a comprehensive plan amendment during the January comprehensive plan amendment application submittal window. If the Board decides to initiate a plan amendment, the Board must provide staff with general direction regarding the characteristics of the amendment. BACKGROUND On Juiy i I, 2000, the Board of County Commissioners considered Mr. Clontz's request to amend the comprehensive plan future land use map designation of his property from AG -I, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unitl5 acres), to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 {up to 8 unitsiacre); and to expand the urban service area to include his property. Although the Board denied the request by a 5 to 0 vote, the Board indicated a desire to "find some relief for Mr. Clontz." The Board also acknowledged that, because the circumstances affecting the Clontz property were similar to the circumstances affecting many other properties in the county, action taken on the Clontz property would have countywide implications. For those reasons, the Board instructed staff to continue to study the issue and present alternatives to the Board. Those alternatives were presented to the Board and discussed at the October 9, 2000, workshop meeting mentioned above. At the October 9`� workshop, staff presented several land use and urban service area alternatives. In addition to staff s alternatives, Mr. O'Haire presented a proposal to the Board. Attachment I is the specific proposal presented by Mr. O'Haire. That proposal gives relief to Mr. Clontz by increasing the number of residential units that could be built on his property. Specifically, the proposal is to allow land currently designated AG -1, Agricultural -1 {up to 1 unit/5 acres), to be developed at a density of up to I unit/acre or, if developed as a Planned Development (PD), up to 3 unitsiacre, provided the following criteria are met: I) The property must abut the urban service area; 2) The property must abut acommercial/industrial node; 3) The property must front on an arterial road; 4) Utilities -water and sewer -must be available at the properly boundary; and 5) The property must be at Least 20 acres THE CLONTZ PROPERTY Depicted in Figure 1 below, Mr. Clontz's property is located at the southwest comer of the intersection of the Main Canal and 58`� Avenue (Kings Highway}. Two parcels, one � 12? acres in size and the other tl$.b acres in size, comprise the sits which contains a citrus grove and a residence. Because both the Main Canal and 58`h Avenue are urban service area boundaries in that area of the county, the site abuts the urban service area on two sides. December 12, 2400 105 � • ii t � • � 0002 `ZT-�aqu•aaaQ •ease �eq� ut sano.t� stuita annae sno,taumu aq1 aniasa.td ox ansap aql sen+ ioiae3 iaq�o aqZ ' (66I u� „aauegduxoa at„ puno3 ssnr ue�d anisuagaidmoa aq� uaq.+r eaze aatn.tas uegm atp uto� anuand �,gS3o Isanr ease aur apnjaxa o> nlunoa aui paauan�u► jegi stolae3 onri 3o auo sear ease auoid poa� ieq,I, 'ease auold paa� a uT s{ pg 2Ig}o tgnos `anuan�t ,�g5 �uo�e Bare axpua acfii `umot{s sy •sea.ts auoid pooh pue ease aarn.tas uegm atp snrot;s b ivau�astty •�S yaaz�s ,Sj o1 pg �S uzo� puaixa sautl ianras `anuany �,gs �uo(y •utais�ts ialsnr su se anisualxa se you st tua�s�ts .tanras s,�C�unoa aqd, •sautl .tannas �utisixa pus ease aatntas usgtn aql swags £ �uatugaeud •peon ojsp o1 OI S 2iJ uxoq pualxa sauci ialenr `anuand y,gs auoro 'sals aatrttas uegm ayl uiq�inr suo►stn�pgns agx3o ire Sou inq asoui of pualxa sau�j ialenr `Z luauniae�id uc paiotdap sy Si��� 3AIO2Id QOO'I3 at�it� S�NI'I A,LI'II.LR 30 I�IOI.Lt'JOZ •�ssodoad sa�s��in isin� s pus `�esodoid a�ueq� oN a `jssodoid sant jsuo►�isue.tl annetual[e ue `jesodoid eatd jeuotltsuei�, s,aneH,p 'xy� $uipniaui 'santxeuxa�je ,saauo►sstu>uto� ri�uno�3o pieog agi�o scs�C4eue u� • pue `.�utlaaut `ppp� `� sagoiap at{1 1e uoileuuo3ui sct�1 10,E paxse pieog at{y •sacs aatn.tas uegln at{1 oX uocis{as �tat;� pus `seals auoid pooh pus saute �Cxritln3o uotleaa� aq;3o uatssnasip3auq d • :suotiaas onri �uTnral�o,� agk�o s1s{suoa sis�{teue at;Z Sl`aA 1v Ali' �. � 9211 STIl ,,,,, BMt{l i .• L� = n _ '�� -• ..—•3 :acv t+ � t � S •.• wm g :.n � a•. • _.---s _ _ _ taa_ss inti � •,p � .._ - . �� �� r �Ve7 UIeW j --- _ - � 1 - — — ._ � 1 '�_:_'� ._ �_ — � -- ' __Else ---��- ._._. �,. sa1�1 �uipunoung pus rstsadaid zluoj� �o uoust��saQ asn push pus uotleoo� : j a.zn�t3� z 1 ALTERNATIVES This section discusses the following four Board of County Commissioners' alternatives. u • .. ... .... :...of Count Cnrnrnirsioners the Ortoher ' wnrkrhop meeting proposal .wly focused to provide relief only for• 'Haire's clients. • An alternative Transitional Ar a�nronocal s proposal attempts to provide relief to owners of agriculturally designated tracts of land located in fast growing areas, without creating incompatibilities. • A Rural Villages iLR°C�l -This proposal is an innovative option to preserve agricultural/rural areas. • A No Chang�nronosal _This proposal involves maintaining the current urban service area boundary until more study indicates a need to expand. Each of these alternatives accomplishes different objectives --some focused on one narrow issue, some focused on broad policy issues. At previous Board meetings, several objectives have been mentioned, including the following: • providing relief for Clontz; • providing relief for similarly situated owners of small tracts of agriculturally designated land; • preserving active agricultural operations; • preserving open space and "rural" character; • limiting conflicts and incompatibilities; • using existing roads more efficiently; • using existing water and sewer lines more efficiently; • using public services, such as police and fire protection, more efficiently; and • directing development away from flood prone areas. When considering the alternatives, it is important to first determine objectives. One consideration is that, as long as the county has an urban service area boundary, there will be property owners who wish to move it. In other words, expanding the urban service area boundary at this time will not end disputes about its location. Alternative 1: Mr. O'Haire's Transitional Area Proposal The proposal presented by Mr. O'Haire is brief and vague. In fact, it is not clear that the proposal will even provide relief for Mr. Clontz. While calling for a minimum of 20 acres, the proposal does not specify whether that refers to parcel size, district size, or some other criteria such as ownership boundaries. Clearly, when considered as individual parcels, neither parcel comprising the Clontz site meets the 20 acre minimum size criterion. The entire site, however, could meet the 20 acre minimum size criterion if the parcels were combined into one parcel. There are also more substantive issues related to Mr. O'Haire's proposal. Most importan t among those issues is that the proposal is nan•owly structured to include property owned by Mr. O'Haire's clients and exclude nearly all other property. This type of "piece meal" plan amendment does not address the larger problem of small agriculturally designated tracts located at the edge of a fast growing suburban area. In fact, because the county must treat similar parcels similarly, Mr. O'Haire's proposal would likely generate a "domino effect" of additional land use amendment requests. Although Mr. O'Haire's proposal establishes narrow criteria to differentiate his clients' property from other similarly situated property, those criteria are arbitrary and not substantive. December 12, 2000 107 BK 1 16 PG X37 The criterion that sets a minimum size, for example, does not benefit the owners of sm�.11er tracts that are least suitable for agricultural use and, therefore, most in need of relief. To the contrary, the proposal benefits only owners of large tracts ofland--those least in need of relief. The criterion that requires that a parcel be located adjacent to a commercial/industrial no 3e further illustrates that the proposal is structured to provide relief only to Mr. O'Haire's clients. In fact, it is more difficult to farm, and more incompatibilities occur, where agricultural uses are near residential uses than where agricultural uses are near commerciaUindustrial uses. Noise, odor and spray drift have a greater negative impact on residences than on commerciaUindustrial lane l that may generate similar impacts and may operate at more compatible hours. For that reason, providing relief to the owners of property near residential areas is more logical. Another concern is the absence of provisions, such as required buffers, to reduce potential incompatibilities caused by moving the urban service area boundary. The final concern relates to the proposed allowed density. Although Mr. O'Haire's proposal indicates that a density of one unit/acre is sufficient to provide relief for Mr. Clontz, the proposal contains a provision allowing a density bonus of up to three units/acre for Planned Developments (PDs). The proposal, however, contains no PD standards or criteria; therefore, such a PD could be developed exactly like a regular subdivision. For that reason, the purpose of including the PD provision is not clear. As structured, the proposal limits non -PD development to a maximum density of one unit/dcre. Past experience, however, indicates that development at one unit acre or less is not feasible, especially when water and sewer connections are involved. In fact, where a one uniUacre designation currently exists in the county, there has been no development other than farmhouses, since the plan was adopted. For those reasons, allowing densities of up to three units, rather than one unit, per acre without a PD requirement is logical. ■ Affected Areas Based on existing parcel size and configuration conditions, as well as existing water and s ewer line placement, staff has determined that this alternative currently could be applied to up to 150 acres. Those 150 acres, shown on Attachment 5, include the Clontz site. This assumes that the two Clontz parcels will be combined to meet the 20 acre minimum size requirement. There are also two other parcels that currently meet all of the proposal's criteria. One of those parcels is f80 acres in size and is located at the northeast comer of 82nd Avenue and 5`'' S� reef, SW (Rebel Road). Extending a half a mile north of Sd' Street, SW and a quarter mile east of 82"` Avenue, that parcel is owned by Beuttell Development, Inc. In January, 2000, Beuttell Development, represented by Mr. O'Haire, applied for a comprehensive plan future land use designation map amendment to redesignate its property to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 unitsiac'e). That request was withdrawn after the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend denial. The other parcel that meets the proposal's criteria is f40 acres in size and is located at the northeast corner of 13`h Street, SW (Kelly Road) and 74`h Avenue (Range Line Road). ■ Summary of Alternative 1 Mr. O'Haire's proposal, as structured, provides relief almost exclusively to his clients (M�r. Clontz and Mr. Beuttell). While other properties may be more difficult to farm, and other propert, ✓owners may have a greater need for relief, they would not qualify for such relief under the proposal' s narrow December 12, 2000 108 BK ! 1 � gG � 3 8 criteria. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that the proposal would start a 'domino effect" by encouraging the owners of similarly situated land to apply for comprehensive plan amendments. Alternative 2: Staf#'S Transitional Area Proposal As drafted, this proposal would add significantly more land to the urban service area than Altemaaive 1. That fact, however, is balanced by the recognition that if the Clontz property is redesignated, then eventually entire corridors along roads that serve as urban service area boundaries will be redesignated. Rather than spending several years constantly processing plan amendment requ:sts from each of those property owners, Alternative 2 proposes one large plan amendment. Additionally, this proposal is structured to achieve the following four objectives: • Provide relief far Mr. Clontz; • Provide relief for owners of agriculturally designated land located adjacent to fast growing areas; • Limit the conversion of agricultural/rural land to urban land; and • Limit incompatibilities. To those ends, this proposal incorporates Mr. O'Haire's idea of a new land use designation, but v;ith significant revisions. This alternative proposes the creation of a new T, Transitional Resideniial, land use designation. The T designation would apply only to land that meets all of the following criteria: • the site is currently outside the USA; • the site is within a quarter mile of an arterial road that currently serves as an urban service area boundary, and contains both water and sewer lines (these characteristics indicate t zat the site is in a fast growing area with urban services currently available); • the site is located south of SR 60 and east of I-95 (this fast growing area has been the focus of previous meetings). The proposal includes expanding the urban service area to include T designated land. Prope:t} meeting the T criteria would be redesignated and the urban service area would be expanded ihrau gh a county initiated land use amendment. After the land use amendment becomes effective, T designated land would be eligible to be rezoned to only one zoning district: a new TRAN 3, Transitional Residential, zoning district. At the land owner's discretion, T designated land may remain zoned A4, or be rezoned to TRAN-3. Except for certain regulations discussed in this staff report, the new TRAN-3 zoning district would mirror the existing RS -3 zoning district. The maximum density within the T land use designation would be three units/acre, generally the same density designation as nearby land already within the urban service area. That is an urb:uz density, and is appropriate for land within the urban service area. The proposal includes the following three provisions to mitigate and reduce potential impacts betvveen residential and agricultural uses: • Residential projects on T designated land must provide a 300 foot wide (or up to 25% cif project area width, whichever is less}, Type A buffer where the project abuts, or is across right-o&way from, an agricultural land use designation. The Type A buffer is the county's densest vegetative buffer. This setback and buffer will somewhat mitigate agricultural impacts such as noise, odor, and spray drift. • Caribbean Fruit Fly hast plants will be prohibited on T designated land. • Buyers of platted lots in residential projects on T designated land must be notified of the Florida Right to Fatm Act, and that active agricultural operations occur nearby. December 121 2000 1 Q9 BK 1 16 E'G 4 3 � These measures will likely decrease, but not eliminate, incompatibilities. In fact, placing suburbar, type residential development near agricultural uses and large residential lots may actually generate incarnpatibilities. ■ Affected Areas Based on existing water and sewer line placement, staff has determined that this alternative currentl°a applies to approximately 652 acres, including the Clontz site. Those acres are shown on Attachment 6 and are located in the following three groups: • 172 acres Iacated on the west side of 5$`'' Avenue, between the Main Canal and $`" Street. • 400 acres located on the east side of 82"d Avenue, between 16`'' Street and �'� Street, SW; an i • $0 acres located on the east side of 74'" Avenue, between 9`� Street, SW and 13`� Street, SVS'. Additional land could be added as more water and sewer lines are constructed. Alternative 3: Rural Villages This is an innovative approach that is being discussed and may be implemented in several counties in Florida. This alternative is similar in many ways to two concepts already found in t} -e comprehensive plan. Those concepts are Traditional Neighborhood .Design (TND} projects and Ne^v Town projects. Pointe West, cutrently under construction near 16`h Street and 74`h Avenue, is apt example of a TND project. TNDs are intended to be pedestrian friendly, mixed use communities. TNDs, however, require that a least a portion of the project area be Iacated within the urban service azea. In contrast, New Towns are generally much target and must be located entirely outside tl,e urban service azea. As with Alternative 2, this alternative involves the creation of a new land use designation and a ne w zoning district. As proposed, projects approved as Rural Villages would be located entirely autsiale the urban service area with a minimum separation distance from the urban service area. Rural Villages would have to meet certain requirements, including the following: • the project must contain a minimum of 504 acres: • $0% of the project area must be open space (greenbelt); • development must be compact and contiguous (clustered); • project streets must be designed to accommodate and promote pedestrian and bicycle trips, as well as automobiles; • the project must contain a mix of residential, retail, office, and institutional uses; • the residential density must be between 1 and 6 unitsiacre. This type of development can preserve agriculture, open space. and natural habitat. The clusteri ng and open space requirements can create a greenbelt, lower initial infrastructure costs, and facilitate the efficient delivery of public services. Perhaps more importantly, this type of development patt�tm can preserve the rural character of the area and promote community identity. This type of development, however, can be difficult to implement. The Rural Villages concept is likely to require significant land consolidation as well as the transfer and purchase of a great deaf of development rights. For those reasons, patience and cooperation among multiple land owners would be required. Alternative 4: Na Change This alternative involves keeping the urban service area boundaries in their present location, and not changing any land use designations at this time. This alternative is based on the following premis es: December 12, 2000 {� � � � �� �d �# a 110 f t • The current land use designation of the Clontz property and other similarly situated properties allows several viable uses. Those uses include, but are not limited to, agricultural uses, institutional uses, and residential uses. For that reason, there is no need to provide relief. • Analysis of growth projections and vacant land within the urban service area indicate that there is more than enough vacant residentially designated land within the urban service area to accommodate growth beyond 2020. For that reason, there is no need to add more residential land to the urban service area. • The use of public road and canal rights-of-way as urban service area boundaries has several advantages including reducing incompatibilities by separating agricultural and residential uses. • Maintaining the current land use designation patterns and urban service area boundaries preserves agricultural land and the rural character of land outside the urban service area. • In 2005, as part of the state required evaluation and appraisal process, the county will begin examining its entire comprehensive plan including population projections and vacant land absorption rates. That is the most appropriate time to reexamine adding land to the urban service area. This alternative has previously been rejected by the Board, primarily because it does not provide relief for Mr. Clontz, Essentially, Alternatives 1 and 2 propose an extension of the existing suburban development pattern. That pattern, often characterized as suburban sprawl, inefficiently uses land and other resources because it results in extremely low density, single use developments which are remote from work, shopping and recreation opportunities, are not interconnected, and are not pedestrian friendly. Because land which is currently outside of the urban service area currently has a maximum density of only ane unit per five acres, the county has the opportunity to ensure that future growth in that area occurs in a non -sprawl manner. This can be done by allowing increased density in that area only if development meets certain non -sprawl design standards. One way of doing that is by enacting the Rural Village alternative or some other similar land use option. Now is the time to consider the future land use pattern of the area that is currently outside the urban service area. Ifthe existing urban service area is expanded and that land is redesignated to one of the existing land use categories or a comparable category , property owners will acquire certain property rights to develop their properly at a higher density and in a conventional sprawl pattern. Once such a land use change is made, the Bert Hams Property Rights Act limits the county's opportunity to impose additional restrictions. Regardless of those factors, it is important to note that there is no single perfect land use pattern that implements atl comprehensive plan policies; eliminates all incompatibilities; efficiently uses land, infrastructure, and public services; provides "relief' to Clontz and other similarly situated property owners; and preserves agricultural resources, natural habitat, and open space. In fact, several land use scenarios may achieve some or all of those goals. Regardless of what land use pattern the Board chooses, however, land use disputes will not be eliminated. Moving land use designation boundary lines may reduce incompatibilities, but it will not eliminate them. With that in mind, several alternatives have been presented. Attachment 7, Summary of Alternatives, describes each alternative and summarizes the advantages and disadvantages associated with each alternative. December 12, 20 BI{{I�PG44i if the Board decides to create a new Transitional land use designation (Alternative 1 or Alternative 2), there appears to be consensus that the such land should be located along arterial roads that serve as urban service area boundaries and contain both water and sewer lines within the road right-of- way. The Board, however, is not limited to the alternatives presented. If the Board decides to create a Transitional land use designation, it can choose whether or not to use the criteria used in Alternative 1, Alternative 2, some combination of those alternatives, or some other criteria. If the Board chooses to create a new land use designation, then the Board must make a decision regarding each of the following variables: • Ln�atiQn -Should the new land use designation be limited to land south of SR 60? This is the fast growing area that previously has been the primary focus of discussion. • Density -What should be the maximum density permitted within the new land use designation? Although both one unit/acre and three units/acre have been proposed, past experience indicates that one unit/acre is not feasible to develop. • )?� -How far from the arterial road should the new land use designation extend? Generally, utilities are considered available to properties within a quarter mile of a line. • Abutting cignation -Should the new land use designation be required to abut C/I designated land? The need for a Transitional land use designation is greater for farms that abut residences than for farms that abut C/I uses. • Buffer Width - Should a buffer be required where the new land use designation abuts agriculturally designated land, and if so, what type and now wide? A wide, dense buffer is beneficial to mitigate potential agricultural/residential incompatibilities. • ('arihbean Fruit Fly Host Plants -Should these be prohibited within the new land use designation? These plants are currently prohibited in new subdivisions that are adjacent to citrus groves, both inside and outside the urban service area. • Notification Requirements -Within the new land use designation, should developers be required to notify lotbuyers about surrounding uses and the Florida Right to Farm Act? The county has a similar requirement for new development near airports. This may reduce incompatibilities. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners give direction to staff regarding the initiation of a comprehensive plan amendment during the January 2001 plan amendment window. 1. Mr. O'Haire's Proposal for a Transitional Area 2. Water Lines and the Urban Service Area 3. Sewer Lines and the Urban Service Area 4. Flood Prone Areas and the Urban Service Area 5. Alternative 1 Affected Areas 6. Alternative 2 Affected Areas 7. Summary of Alternatives December 12, 2000 BK 116 PG 442 112 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Alternatives for Clontz and Other Property Owners BCC Task • Decide whether or not to initiate a CPA • Determine general characteristics BCC Action in July • Denied LUDA 5 to 0 • "Relief' for Mr. Clontz • Affects other sites Ir r• 111 Introduction • October 9, 20!)Q BCC workshop — re: Clontx and Urban Service Area Expansion • Questions raised — location of potable water lines — location of sanitary sewer lines — location of flood prone areas — relationship to urban service area • Proposal — Mr. O'Haire proposed naw land use designation — BCC asked staff to review { Background { • Clontz apppplies for LUDA in •Expand USA January 20� AG -1 (1:5) to Itis -1 (8:1) S W o 30.8 acres � 12.2 & 18.61 • f Main Canal & 58th Av. • ..� A, �-1 „� ,,,� : � r � - � L-1 Indian River County HEx�istinq Watermains UrMn •wb• Mw 113 gK I I �i PG 4 4 3 Indian River County Existing Sewer System N� Objectives • Relief for Mr. Clontz • Relief for owners of similar parcels • Preserve agriculture • Preserve open space &rural character • Limit conflict &incompatibilities • Discourage urban sprawl • Efficient use of public infrastructure &services • Direct development away from flood prone areas Alternative 1: O'Haire Proposal December 12, 2000 114 BK ! 1 � PG � 4 4 «... Flood Prone Areas a Alt. 1: O'Haire's Proposaal • Expand USA &allow 1:1 if: — site abuts USA — site abuts C/I — site fronts an arterial rd. — utilities (both water &sewer) extend t�� site — site is a minimum of 30 acres • Density bonus to 3:1 for PD's Alternative 1 Issues • Relief for large, not small tracts • Relief for land near C/I, not residential • Structured to benefit only Mr. O'Haire's clients • No maximum size • No objective associated w/PD densi,y bonus • Compatibility with agriculture • Domino effect • 150 acres affected Alt. 2: Staff Proposal • Significant enhancement of Mr. Ci'Haire's Proposal • County initiated CPA • Expand USA • New land use designation if. — land is within a quarter mile of an arterial rd. — water & sewer are available — land is south of SR 60 & east of I-95 • Up to 3:1 Alternative 2: Transitional Residential Designation Alt. 3: Rural Villages • Innovative • Several Florida counties are considering - Sarasota - Collier - Palm Beach • Similar to TND (Pointe West) & New Town December 12, 2000 115 Alternative 2: Mitigating Prop inions • Required Buffer — the lesser of 300 R. or 25% of project width — Type A • Prohibit Caribbean Fruit Fly host plarvts • Notification to buyers of platted lots - nearby active agricultural operations — Florida Right to Farm Act Alternative 2 Issues • May reduce, but not eliminate incompatibilities • Treats similar land similarly • 892 acres affected Alternative 3: Criteria • Entirely outside USA • Separated from USA • 500 acres min. size • 80% open space (greenbelt) • Development must be compact & contiguous (clustered) • Pedestrian & bicycle friendly streets • Mixed uses • 1 to 6 units/acre BKI16P��4� Alternative 3: Rural Villages Alt. 4: No Change • Viable uses currently allowed • No need for more residential land • Right -of --way is a good boundary • EAR begins in 2005 • No relief for Mr. Clontz or others Conclusion • No perfect land use patt ern • County currently has power to control type of development • Moving USA boundary won't eliminate incompatibilities December 12, 2000 116 Alternative 3 Issues • Preserves agriculture, open space, & habitat • Preserves rural character • Promotes community identity • Lowers initial infrastructure costs • Promotes efficient delivery of public services • Difficult to implement • Requires land consolidation • Requires cooperation among multiple land owners Variables (alts. 1 & 2) • Location •Abutting designation • Density • Buffer width • Depth • Notification requirements • Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants Recommendation • Give staff direction regarding the initiation of a comprehensive plan amendment G Director Keating also used color -coded maps to show existing water mains, sewer systems and flood prone areas. He also used color -coded maps showing Alternative 1: the YHaire Proposal (far Clontz) and Alternative 2: Transitional Residential Designation and reviewed Alternative 3: Rural Villages and Alternative 4: No change. (A set of the colored maps have been placed in the backup for this item in the office of the Clerk to the Board.) In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry, Director Keating advised ifthe Board's decision was Alternative 3, it would be necessary to extend water and sewer lines into the subject area. Vice Chairman Ginn recalled that the direction has been to not build out beyond the urban service area since we are trying to encourage development within the urban service Director Keating responded that he thought there was no`t a prohibition t�� extend water and sewer lines through a green belt area. Vice Chairman Ginn had not seen that information under Alternative 3 and suggested that it be in there. Director Keating agreed that was a good point. Chairman Adams opened the floor for discussion. Michael O'Haire, attorney with offices on Cardinal Drive in Vero Beach, was present once again on behalf of Gerald Clontz to provide him with some relief in using his property. He advised that his "modest proposal" was not done randomly or arbitrarily and proceeded to state his position and reasoning. He feared that if Alternative 2 is presented to the Department of Community Affairs, it will not be approved; that was why he came up with his plan. He believed a limited scale would not result in an immediate revocation reaction. He pointed out there is a wastewater treatment plant at 82nd Avenue. He suggested that if a Comp Plan amendment is done, the Board should transfer the plant out of the urban December 12, 2U00 117 g� I I f� PG 4 4 7 service area and into a public designation as they have done with the Landfill so they can point out to the DCA that a net reduction in the urban service area and density have been achieved. The rural village idea would create capital expenditures for utilities seri ice lines running past properties that cannot use the service to reach distant properties that can use it. This was his reason far including that the property must have water and sewer �vailable at the property boundary. He asked, why not use the infrastructure when it is alreahy there? He recommended 20 acres because he did not want to see a broad, repugnant -to -DCA, plan amendment go to Tallahassee. Far the same reason he suggested the property mus abut the urban service area so as not to leapfrog as would happen with rural villages, a vely trendy concept, in the course of development. He thought it would be difficult to demonstrate the economic viability of such a situation. Mr. Clontz has no interest in the rural village concept and no change is not a reasonable option. He refuted the point that commercia ! uses are more compatible adjacent to agriculture than residential. He had suggested the PI,) concept to provide a density bonus of three units from one unit per acre for clustering. Vt�ith a PD, a developer could afford the buffers in exchange for the increased density. H� was not wedded to the PD, three units per acre as across the road would be satisfactory; they will accept the buffering and other provisions. He requested the Board direct staff to prepare the plan amendment, go with 3-unitslacre if they wished or, perhaps, increase the minimum size to 30 or 44 acres or reduce it to 10 acres. He thought a reduction would create problems in the scope ofthe amendment, and an increase would not help 1VIr. Clontz. He compared these ideas to his previous concept for the Disney Resort and stood ready to respond to questions. Vice Chairman Ginn commented that if the site abuts acommercial/ind�.�strial use there were not too many people who would want to live next to an industrial or even a commercial area. Mr. 4'Haire agreed but thought if the county is ever going to have affordable housing December 12, 2000 ' BKlI�PG��8 1�$ _ � that is probably where it will be. George Beutell, 500016`" Street, whose property is near 82"d Avenue, was astonished at what staff had come up with after spending hours in a workshop. He believed the memorandum to be filled with inaccuracies, misstatements, and faulty conclusi«ins. He further complained that staff did not attempt to focus on solutions as the Bc and had instructed. He believed it to be an attempt to get around Michael O'Haire's good su ggestion for relief for our property. Staff has attempted to preserve agricultural operations but he stressed that viable agricultural operations could not be continued without great ri;�k to the owners. Having agricultural property next to an active commercial property makes :;�o sense either. Open space will be preserved with Mr. O'Haire's suggestions and relief will be provided to property owners by enabling them to develop their properties into re:�idential neighborhoods. This will result in the use of nearby existing roadways, water ar. d sewer lines more efficiently. Public safety will be more efficient as well. The environment in flood prone areas will not be compromised through the use of sewers. Mr. O'Haire's proposal is brief; it is not vague, but site specific. He also contended that there would not be a domino effect because it is site specific to the proximity of infrastructure. He continued to argue against staff's objections and pointed out additional reasons for the Board to favor Mr. O'Haire's proposal. (Alternative 1) Peter Spike, 13300 Okeechobee Road, Ft. Pierce, appeared on behalf of Elsie Crow whose property is the one immediately to the south of Clontz. She lives in Wichita, Kansas, and could not be present. If the Clontz property is developed she will be surrounded by developed property. She has met with Director Keating and supports staff's recommendation 100%. She does not want to have to develop her property. He explained the .•00 foot buffer recommended by staff is tied to export of citrus (Caribbean fruit fly host plants). Ms. Crow intends to continue farming, but it will become difficult if her property is surrounded December 12, 2000 _ 119 BK I I S PG 4 4 9 by development. John Dean, architect, 21 I b 27`" Avenue, has been working with several clients in these areas to try to make their land productive. He thought the previous speaker may have misunderstood because staff has made no recommendation just offered some alternatives. He believed there were four considerations before the Board. He reasoned that Alternatives 3 and 4 should be put aside at this time. He was concerned for property owners and thought the criteria presented by Mr. O'Haire was pretty solid and met the localized prolr�lem. He liked Alternative 2 because it was broader and more far reaching, but there is a time requirement in the DCA ruling about which he was unsure. He questioned a 344 -foot buffer as vague, and suggested if the Board moves forward with Alternative 2 that the criteria be reexamined. He thought the separation was good, but there may be a creative way to accomplish it to everyone's benefit. He thought both Alternatives 1 and 2 would -Mork, but non-use was not good for anyone. He felt detail an the criteria needs to be sharpened. Dactar Vincent, who lives across 58t" Avenue, thought that something needed to be done to help the property owners. His position was for the lowest possible densit,� in order to minimize traffic on 16t" Street which is already sufficient. Renee Renzi, 340 Waverly Place, speaking on behalf of the board of the Civic Association of Indian River County, encouraged the Commission to send this matter back to the Planning &Zoning Commission before they vote on any alternative. Vice Chairman Ginn agreed that was a splendid idea. Pat Brown, 1744 21S` Street, favored Alternative 4, which she justified b�� offering a look at the larger picture in trying to encourage infill. She argued that if the Bo�.rd allows development into this area now, they are defeating their purpose by letting the urb�l n service area spread out further, resulting in the County having to provide service to a larger area to the same number of citizens. She believed it was necessary to hold off expanding the urban December 12, 2000 ��{ � � � �� � J� � 124 service area a little longer to allow for more infill. She felt that Alternative I was not equitable. If there is a problem, then all those people who are in the same situation should be helped; that would result in a much larger area to be developed and seriously impact the amount of land able to be developed in the county. She apologized to staff, but could not quite see a rural village yet. She recommended they choose Alternative 4. Peter Robinson, 3I5 Greytwig, is with Laurel Builders and owns some property � under discussion and some not under discussion. He can look at situations both as a landowner and as a developer. He thought Mr. O'Haire has a very valid poitI on his alternative which is wanted by his client. He thought the Board should allow it to go to DCA. He opined that Alternative 2 was not a total solution because the only way a property owner can receive value for their land is to find a developer who wants to develop St}0 acres. One of the problems now with the urban service area is that there are a lot of area � that do not have sewer, but do have water. The Board needs to look at how to start same real urban development. A house on an acre and a half within the urban service area creates urban sprawl. Because of the lengthy process in development, the development now under consideration will not happen for 3 or 4 years into the future. This is an opportunity to figure out a real plan for it. He used the map to argue against the 340' buffer. He suggested the Board would have to specify under Alternative 2 that there be water and sewer service and predicted there would not be many rural villages if that is required, because the economics do not work. On top of that, a road is required. Those necessities will prohibit a proli Feration of spot development outside the urban service area. He saw this as a ten-year process. People must be given the opportunity to plan for the future use of their property. He suggested they approve Alternative I, direct staff to have new workshops with landowners who will be affected and try to figure out what needs to be done. One meeting will not salve the long-term view. He recalled when the land use map was originally sent up tD DCA December 12, 2QOQ 121 8K I ! F PG 4 51 (1989), all this area was part of the plan but the State said it could not be developed. The State based their decision on maps which showed all this was citrus land; th .ngs have changed. He warned that by doing nothing, the non-profit organizations will move in, feast on the property, take it off the tax rolls, and then the County will have done a nice job of putting in infrastructure for the non -profits and he was sure they would appreciate it. In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry as to why this had not been presented to the PZC, Director Keating advised that staff had been directed at the workshop to look at a specific alternative, analyze it and bring it back with some suggestions. Chairman Adams disagreed with Vice Chairman Ginn's desire to send it bak to PZC, because it has been back twice before the Board, and this is the third time. She felt the Board would be giving up their responsibility to try to find a solution if they sen(k it back to committee. She felt there were two proposals before them; she did not agree withlno change and felt rural villages did not answer the problem at hand. She felt staff had taken on a lot more than they were asked to do. She favored making a decision today and suggested Mr. )'Haire's plan be sent to DCA in January. If there are other problems, then the Bard needs to address them. i Vice Chairman Ginn thought it had never been before the FZC. George Hamner, Jr., 995 Sandfly Lane, a member of the PZC, advised that Alternative 1 has not been before the committee, but the members are all aware of it. He offered some observations and specified that he owns no properly in the area. He thought the rural villages Alternative was an attempt to offer a long-term cure for the properties in the "holding" zone; the Board should not be rushed to decide on those. That concept should be sent to the PZC. He agreed with Peter Robinson that the county needs a lona; term pian - and opined that reasonable development could occur in that "holding" zone, A long-term plan would give the landowners an opport unity to plan and perhaps group together far December 12, 2000 concise housing development. He agreed that Mr. Clontz and Mr. Beutell need same relief and that Mr. O'Haire had come up with a solution for Mr. Clontz, but the problem for the other landowners will not go away. Chairman Adams recommended the Board move forward since the issue before them, Alternative 1, had been pending for about six months. Vice Chairman Ginn favored Alternative 2 and wanted the Board to send it to the PZC for their opinion. Director Keating pointed out that no time would be lost if either Alternati� es 1 or 2 were sent to the PZC. Chairman Adams reiterated that she thought Alternative 1 should be sent for. a Comp Plan amendment. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Stanbridge, to send Alternative 1 to the DCA as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. In making the motion, Commissioner Tippin concurred with Chairman Adams' reasoning. In seconding, Commissioner Stanbridge agreed that the Board has been moving the issue forward. She was not so sure Mr. O'Haire's proposal would get DCA appro�✓al since it was site specific. Mr. O'Haire indicated from the audience his willingness to take that chana�. Commissioner Macht cautioned that if approved by DCA, the Board has begun the domino effect and it is grist for the attorney's mills. He feared lawsuit after lawsui t since if it is done for one, it will have to be done for others. Mr. Spike inquired ifthe Board approves forwarding Alternative 1 during the January December 12, 2000 123 BK 116 PG 453 �� window whether it would preclude also pursuing a Comp Plan Amendment for Alternative 2 during the same period of time. Chairman Adams responded that Director Keating would not want to do both, and it was obvious that he was not especially in or of sending Alternative 1. Director Keating thought it would be difficult to send two amendments, one of which incorporates the other one. Vice Chairman Ginn reiterated her desire to have PZC flesh Alternatives 1 ald 2 out a little bit to see what they recommend. In response to questioning, Director Keating advised that the PZG meeting is January 11 `", and there would still be time to bring it back to the Board before the January window ,lases. Discussion ensued. Mr, O'Haire suggested that ifAlternative 2 is ready by the end of January #o let that go and he could Live with it; if it is not ready for the January window, then Altera native 1 should go. Vice Chairman Ginn was unwilling to approve #ha#unless i#has gone before the PZC because this is a very serious change. Chairman Adams countered that she thought staff had done exactly what the $oard had asked them to do. Commissioner Macht agreed, but staff came back with a report that raises many questions and many possibilities that the Board has not had time to consider or develop for the generality of citizens. The Board had heard from developers today. They have legitimate concerns but this is very far reaching. Chairman Adams thought the Board needed to address the Clontz property concern because they had been looking at the ag-urban interface for four years December 12, 2000 - PW She felt they r. eeded to move forward to solve this issue; they cannot solve them all at one time. The Board was certain the tower issue was over, but it has again come back. Commissioner Stanbridge felt the school on N5 Avenue had opened up the whole Discussion ensued about sending Alternative I through the Comp Plan arr endmem process so it can be forwarded to DCA during the January window. It was mentioned that during that process there would be two public hearings and it would also go to P2,C. Chairman Adorns explained that in the Comp Plan amendment pro�:ess, the amendment would be subject to two public hearings and a review by the PZC and the "January window" means it would be transmitted to DCA sometime in April or May. Alternative 1 could be put through this process and would be subject to amendment, but putting both Alternative I and 2 through the process was not possible, it had to be 1 or 2. With that understanding, Vice Chairman Ginn agreed that she could stil-part the motion. The motion was restated by Chairman Adams that Mr. O'Haire's Alternati��e 1 will be sent through the Comp Plan amendment process in January. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. 10. GUN RANGE - STAFFING AND BUDGET AMENDMENT 043 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 6, 2000: December 12, 20{}0 - BU:DGET TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird DATE: December 6, 2000 SUBJECT: Gun Range —Staffing and Budget Indian River County will soon be opening the newly constructed gun range. This is a specialty business and a new venture for Indian River County. Currently staff has been negotiating a contract with Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission for a concession contract to operate the Indian River County Gun Range which was constructed through a 51,040,018 grant. Staff has not obtained final approval on the contract, but due to the time constraints we felt it was imperative that staff move forward simultaneously in obtaining approval on the operative details of the gun range. Staff has attempted to develop the proposed hours of operation, fees, budget, and staffing plan . This information has been hard to find, however, we have been fortunate to have the assistance of Holden Kriss, the Range Master from Markham Target Range. Preliminarily, we have developed a rough enterprise budget for the first year. We feel thVW gun range will not break even far at least two to three years. Staff has attempted to keep the budget as low as possible, keeping in mind we will need to have enough employees to keep the gun range safe. Presently we are recomntending four (4) full time employees and four (4) part- time employees to staff the range for approximately forty-two (42) hours of operation each week. In the contract with the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission, the gun range must be open at least five days a week. Once the range has operated for a period of time, then historical information on revenues and expenditures will be available. At that time it may be necessary to revisit the operating budget for the range. Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the following: 1. attached staffing level 2. attached Proposed Fees 3. attached Proposed Revenue and Expense Budget 4. attached Budget Amendment December 12, 2000 �z� nu I Proposed Fees Admission (Rifle & Pistal Ranges) Adult* $6.50 per person / max 3 hours Juniors (17 & under)* - $4.50 per person J max 3 hours Adult * $6.50 per person J max I %2 hours for 200 ft. Range Junior * $6.50 per person 1 max 1 '/2 hours for 200 ft Range - (Shotgun} 5- stand sporting clays * - $6.25 per round (25) Sporting Clays Course * - $34.00 per 100 targets Non•Profit Sporting Clay Tournament * - $26.00 per 100 targets (Archery) Adults - $4.00 per person / max 2 hours Juniors (17 & under) - $2.50 per person / max 2 hours Archery Course - $6.00 per person — once thru Juniors (17 & under) - $4.00 per person — once thru Rentals (per availability) Rifle &Pistol Ranges Law Enforcement Agencies $175.00 per 4 hours —without lights $250,00 per 8 hours —without lights $200.00 per 4 hours — with lights $150.00 per 4 hours —without lights $224.00 per 8 hours —without lights $170.00 per 4 hours — with lights Annual Contract (12 or more)$125.00 per 4 hours — without lights $200.00 per 8 hours — without lights $145.00 per 4 hours — with lights 5 -Stand Rental $30A0 per hour &targets * Tournament fees will be negotiated through the Range Master * lead remediation chazges will be charged in addition to the rate. December 12, 2000 lz7 BKli�PG�s57 TARGET RANGE REVENUES Far Fiscal Year 2000/01 Range Fees $ 75,000 Concession Revenues $ 35,294 Total Operating Revenues $ 110,294 Optional Sales Tax $ 97,013 lnterfund Transfer from Genera! Fund $ 58,565 interfund Transfer from M.S.T.tJ. $ 58,565 Total Revenues $ 324,437 Note: Assumes opening date of February 1, 2001 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHOOTING RANGE 5#offing Chart Full-time Positions: 1 Rangemaster 40 hours per week $20 per hour 2 Range Attendants 40 hours per week $8.50 per hour 1 Accounting Clerk 40 hours per week $8.50 per hour 4 Tota! Full Time Positions Part-time Positions: 4 Range Attendants December 12, 2000 s, � • ' i r i 25 hours per week I28 $7.50 per hour TARGET RANGE OPERATING BUDGET For Fiscal Year 2000/01 Revenues: Range Fees $ 75,000 Concession Revenues $ 35,294 Total Operating Revenues $ 110,294 Optional Sales Tax $ 97,013 Interfund Transfer from General Fund $ 589565 Interfund Transfer from M.S.T.U. $ 58,565 Total Revenues S 324,437 Expenditures: Employee Salaries $ 91,540 Benefits $ 34,879 Total Salaries & Benefits $ 1269419 Operating Expenses $ 70,730 Additional Construction & Equipment $ 89,550 Startup Costs $ 149438 Enventory Stocking $ 23,300 Total Expenditures $ 3249437 Note: Assumes opening date afFebruary 1, 2001 December 12, 2000 TARGET RANGE STARTUP COSTS For Fiscal Year 2000/01 Additional Contruction &Equipment: Lights $ 15,000 Baffles & Construction Change Order $ 35,000 Skeet Trap Machines $ 25,000 Furniture & Office Equipment $ 61550 Consulting Services $ 39000 Contingency $ 51000 Subtotal Construction & Equipment $ 899550 Startup Costs: Fax Machine $ 350 Answering Machine $ 125 2 Blowers @ $225 each $ 450 2 Weedeaters @ $225 each $ 450 2 Mowers @ $500 each $ 1,000 40'x 12' Metal Storage Shed $ 51650 1 Utility Cart @ $4,500 $ 4,500 Refrigerator $ 500 Beeper $ 100 Plus 10% Contingency $ 19313 Subtotal - Startup Costs $ 14,438 Inventory: Cardboard Backs ($0.48 each) $ 41800 Paper Targets ( $0.05 & $0.22 each) $ 41400 Factory Ammunition - Reloads $ 6,000 Clay Targets (1500 cases (a $5.40 each) $ 89100 Subtotal - Inventory $ 23,300 Total Start up Costs $ 127,288 Note: Assumes opening date of February 1, 2001 December 12, 2000 BK -i 1 TARGET RANGE OPERATING COSTS For Fiscal Year 2000/01 Sta�nQ: 011.12 Full-time Positions 1 Range Master @ $20/hr. 40 hrs. $ 28,080 2 Range Attendants Q $8.50/hr. $ 23,868 1 Accounting Clerk 0 $8.50/hr. $ 11,934 4 Total Full-time $ 63,882 011.13 Part-time Positions 4 Range Attendants @ $7.50/hr. $ 269325 011.14 Overtime $ 1,333 Total Salaries $ 91,540 012.11 Social Security $ 59676 012.12 Retirement Contribution $ 8,376 012.13 Health insurance $ 13,600 Life insurance $ 298 012.14 Worker's Compensation $ 5,602 012.17 Medicare Matchinq $ 11327 Total Benefits $ 349879 Total Salaries & Benefits $ 126,419 Operating Expenses: 033.19 Other Professional Services $ 10500 033.21 External Auditors $ 500 033.49 Other Contractual Services $ 500 034.02 Travel $ 1,500 034.11 Telephone $ 1 v20 034.21 Postage $ 500 034.31 Electrical Service $ 61667 034.32 Water & Sewer $ 480 034.33 Garbage & Solid Waste $ 1,600 034.59 Other Insurance - Liability $ 2,400 034.61 Maintenance • Buildings $ 1,500 034.63 Maintenance - Office Equip. $ 10000 034.69 Maintenance" Other Equip. $ 1,500 034.72 Outside Printing $ 10500 034.82 Other Promotional Exp. $ 11000 034.97 Licenses & Permits $ 1,500 035.11 Office Supplies $ 21400 035.12/13 Computer Software/Hardware $ 11000 035.21 Fuel & Lubricants $ 500 035.24 Uniforms & Clothing $ 750 035.26 Expendable Tools $ 300 035.42 Dues & Memberships $ 500 035.43 Tuition & Registration $ 400 035.63 Inventory - COGS {targets, ammo, etc.} $ 30,000 035.68 Credit Card Fees $ 1,200 036.61 Depreciation $ 81333 044.71 Communication Equip. Maint. $ 500 Subtotal - Operating Expenses $ 709730 Total Operating Costs $ 1979 Note: Assumes openrrrg dafe of February 1, 2001 December 12, 2000 149 WMENIUMN MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Cammissioner Stanbridge, to approve staff's recommendation. Under discussion, in response to Commissioner Macht's inquiry, Administrator Chandler advised that funding will be coming from the MSTU, the general fund, as well as range fees. It is a combination of the three the first year. In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry, Chairman Adams advised that under the agreement with the State, the County will operate this gun range. This has been the premise since its inception. Most ofthe capital funding has come from the State's G',ame and Fish Commission. The agreement far the County to operate it is nearly completed. It is a hunter education gun range. Cammissioner Macht inquired if the funding would come from Recreation, and Assistant Administrator Baird advised that it will be set up as an enterprise fund. It v�ill most likely not break even the f rst two or three years, but after that, it is hoped that it will break even and carry itself. It is a new venture for the County and once it gets established (estimated to take ane or two years) and is self-supporting, it is anticipated that it will be funded entirely by the enterprise fund. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously in accordance with staff's recommendation as presented in the memorandum with respect to 1) staffing level, 2) proposed fees, 3) proposed revenue and expense budget, and 4) budget amendment 003. Vice Chairman Ginn inquired whether any public safety courses would be held there. December 12, 2000 132 Chairman Adams responded in the affirmative and added that other programs will be added for safety information in the schools. Assistant Administrator Baird added that in accordance with the lease, hunter and gun safety classes will be held. Chairman Adams stated the goal is to make it the premier gun range in the state. Entry Fund/Department/ Number Account Name I Account Number Increase Decrease i I. REVENUES TARGET RANGE/ Fund Transfers In 412-000-381-020.00 $1179130 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Range Fees & Concession Revenues 412-000-343-067.00 $1109294 $0 I GUN RANGE CONST./ Transfers In 1312-000-381-020.00 I $97,013 I $0 (EXPENSES I GENERAL FUND/ Transfers Out 1001-199-581-099.21 ' $589565 $0 I GENERAL FUND/ Contingencies 1001-199-581-099.91 I $0 $58,565 IMUNICIPAL SERVICES TAXING UNIT/ Fund Transfers Out 1004-199-581-099.21 I $58,565 $0 ISERVICESMUNICIPAL Ue eNIT/ Refor Congen es 1004-199-581-099.91 I $0 $589565 IGUN RANGE CONST./ Other I I Professional Services 312-108-575-033.19 $3,000 $0 GUN RANGE CONST./ Office I Equipment 1312-108-575-066.41 I $69550 I $0 GUN RANGE CONST./ Buildings + 312-108-575-066.29 $5.650 I $0 GUN RANGE CONST) Construction 312-108-575-066.51 $56,313 I $0 GUN RANGE CONST./ Machinery 1312-108-575-066.39 $259500 I $0 IOPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Fund Transfers Out 1315.199-581-099.21 $97,013 I $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Reserve for Contingencies 1315-199-581-099.91 I $0 $979013 TARGET RANGE/ Regular Salaries 1412-108-575-011.12 $63.882 I TARGET RANGE/ Other Salaries 412-108-575-011.13 $26,325 I TARGET RANGE/ Overtime 412-108-575-011.14 I $1,333 TARGET RANGE/ Social Security 412-108-575-012.11 I $5,676 I TARGET RANGE/ Retirement 1412-108-575-012.12 I $8,376 I TARGET RANGE/ Insurance 412-108-575-012.13 I $13,898 TARGET I Compensation Workers 1412-108-575-012.14 $59602 I TARGET MaRANGE/ Medicare tchi9 1412-108-575-012.17 I $1,327 I December 12, 2000 133 BK 116PG 4 6 3 Entry Fund/Department/ Number Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. EXPENSES (CONTINUED) TARGET RANGE/ Other Prof. Svcs. 412-108-575-033.19 $1,500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ External Auditors 412-108-575-033.21 $500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Other Contractual 412-108-575-033.49 $500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Travel 1412-108-575-034.02 $1,500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Telephone 412-108-575-034.11 $1,200 $0 I TARGET RANGE/ Postage 412-108-575-034.21 $500 $0 I TARGET RANGE/ Electrical Service 412-108-575-034.31 $6,667 $0 f TARGET RANGE/ Water &Sewer 412-108-575-034.32 $480 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Garbage 412-108-575-034.33 $1,600 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Liability Insurance � 412-108-575-034.59 $2,400 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Building Maint. 412-108-575-034.61 $1,500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Office Maint. 412-108-575-034.63 � $1,000 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Other Maint. 412-108-575-034.69 � $1,500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Outside Printing 412-108-575-034.72 $1,500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Other Promotional Expense 412-108-575-034.82 $1,000 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Licenses/Permits 412-108-575-034.97 $1,500 � $0 I TARGET RANGE/ Office Supplies 412-108-575-035.11 $2,400 $0 ITARGET RANGE/ Computer Hardware 412-108-575-035.13 $1,000 $0 I TARGET RANGE/ Fuel 8� Lubricants 412-108-575-035.21 $500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Uniforms 412-108-575-035.24 $750 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Expendable Tools 412-108-575-035.26 $300 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Other Operating 412-108-575-035.29 $1,475 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Dues 412-108-575-035.42 $500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Registration 412-108-575-035.43 $400 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Resale Items 412-108-575-035.63 $53,300 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Credit Card Fees 412-108-575-035.68 $1,200 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Depreciation 412-108-575-036.61 $8,333 $0 - TARGET RANGE/ Comm. Equip. 412-108-575-044.71 $500 $0 TARGET RANGE/ Other Equipment 412-108-575-066.39 $5,500 $0 December 12, 2000 134 B� 1 I-� P� � 6 4 y 0 0 11.B.1. FY 2000J2001 EMS COUNTY AWARDS GRANT. PURCHASE OF CAPITAL AND OPERATING EQUIPMENT WITH NON-MATCHING EMS GRANT FUNDS. AND GRANT RESOLUTION MOVED TO EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT AGENDA. (I4.A.) 11.B.2. RENEWAL OF CLASS B EMS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR INDIAN RIVER MEMQRIAL HOSPITAL MEDICAL TRANSPORT SERVICE TO PROVIDE NON- EMERGENCY INTERFACILITY ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT TRANSPORT SERVICES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of November 30, 2040: TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH; James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Douglas M. Wright, Director t� Deparanent of Emergency Services DATE: November 30, 2000 SUBJECT: Approval of Renewal of Class B EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Indian River Memorial Hospital Medical Transport Service to provide Non -Emergency Interfacility Advanced Life Support Transport Services On December 15, 1998, the Indian River Counry Board of County Commissioners approved a Class B EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Indian River Memorial Hospital Medical Transport Service. The certificate was necessary in order to comply with rules of the Florida Department of Health and County Code far the Indian River Memorial Hospital to provide an EMS service limited to iaterfacility advaaced life suttoort and naa-emer�encv transuort. The certificate was far a period of two (2) years pursuant to the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, specifically Chapter 304. The existing certificate will expire an December I5, 2000, and the renewal process should be accomplished by this time. If approved, a new certificate will be issued with an expiration date of December 15.2002. The Indian River County Code provides for routine renewal of the EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on application by the certificate holder. This can be accomplished without a public hearing if the Board has no reason to believe that the public health. safety, and welfare require it. December 12, 2000 l i s BK I I �i PG 4� 5 m application has been received from the Indian River Memorial Hospital requesting renewal of the certificate. The EMS Director and Medical Director have reviewed the application and EMS protocol with the EMS staff and certifies no reasons are known or perceived that would require a public hearing pursuant to the established ordinance. This provider, as with all others, will continue to be subject to the authority ofthe EMS Director and the Medical Director for compliance with state statutes, administrative rules, and the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully recommends that the Board of County Carnmissioners approve and renew the Class B Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Indian River Memorial Hospital Medical Transport Service to be effective for a period of two (2) years. Per prior authorization, the Class B Certificates limits services to interfacility advanced life support and non emergency transport services. ATTACIiMENTS: Referenced application {Protocols on file at EMS Office) ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Tippin temporarily absent} approved and renewed the Class B Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity far the Indian River Memorial Hospital Medical Transport Service to be effective for a period of two (2) years limiting services to interfacility advanced life support and non- emergency transport services, as recommended in the memorandum. ORIGINAL APPLICATION IS ON FILE TN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARL7 COPY OF CERTIFICATE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD i r 111 BIS L1 1A 11.C. STORM SHUTTERS FOR OLD FELLSMERE SCHOOL BUILDING - CLEARSHIELD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 6, 2040: DATE: December 6, 200p TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director r �' �.. , SUBJECT: Storm Shutters for Oid Ftllsmert School Building BACKGROUND: With the County's assumption of the Fellsmere School Grant and the lease of the building through the interlocal agreement with the City of Fellsmere, the County needs to proceed with sealing the building from the natural elements. Besides the roof, one of the areas where the weather is penetrating the building is through windows where vandals have thrown rocks through the individual panes. The number of broken panes continues to grow and will likely continue until such time as action is taken to prevent such damage. Placing clear type storm shutters would stop the continued vandalism and increase the long-term safety of the building and its contents from potential storm related activities. Presently, there is only one vendor for the clear hurricane shutters. That vendor is ClcarShietd of Indian River County, Inc. This is the same vendor we utilized for the placement of the clear shutters on the County Administration Building. The gresidcnt of the company has offered the same price on the shutters for the old school building as was charged for the installation of the shutters here. That price with a 15%discount is 57.65 per square foot. For the number of windo�ti•s an the Fellsmere School House, the price would be $42,331 including IiR rental and additional ladders for the multiple floors. Should the County seek to obtain sealed bids for these shutters. it would take 4� to 60 more days at the earliest before a bid could be awarded and work commenced. By that time, much more damage could be dare to the windows. Because ClearShield is the only provider within this area, it is not anticipated chat there would be any other bidders nor a mare competitive Brice. The only outcome would be a time delay and more broken windows. Mr. Rav Ground, President of ClearShield of Indian River Cauntti•, has assured me that he can get in and get the work done before the end of the calendar year. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the preceding comments, staff recommends that the Board waive the normal bidding procedures and authorize ClearShield of Indian River County to proceed as a sale source provider far an amount not to exceed $42.331. December 12, 2UOU 1 �' BK � i � PG 4 � i In response to Vice Chairman Ginn's inquiry as to the permanence ofthese shutters; Commissioner Stanbridge advised that the shutters can be removed but will be left in place during the construction of the building to protect against vandalism. The funding c Mme from the Save our Schools program. ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Tippin absent} waived the normal bidding procedures and authorized ClearShield of Indian River County to proceed as a sole source provider for an amount not -to - exceed $42,331, as recommended in the memorandum. 12.G. SEBASTIAN CANOE LAUNCH, FLORIDA DEPART]A�IENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GRANT EXTENSION AMENDMENTS -PROJECT 9819 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 4, 2000: TO: James Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: 3ames W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Direct AND Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., F.E., County Enginee FROM: Robert S. Skok, Civil Engineer X55 SUBJECT: Sebastian Canoe Launch, FDEP Grant Extension -IRC Project #9819 DATE: December 4, 2000 f1FC('RTPTT(1N.ANl��ITT(ZN$ The Engineering Division currently has a project to construct a canoe launch along the Sebastian River. Partial funding for the project is a $105,000.00 grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The grant was executed in July 1998 and expires January 1, 2001. Attached are two original amendments to extend the construction completion date until July 1, 2001. December 12, 24Q0 138 Q� � ! � t� � �r � f? The grant was originally obtained by the City of Sebastian. The original site the city looked at w:s not chosen due to it being in a residential neighborhood and council did not approve the Location. The city turned the project over to the county. County staff had to start from scratch to find a Iocation. Since that time, county staff" has located a site, identified wetiands area, researched environmental impacts, designed construction plans, and made permit application with the stat: agencies. The project still needs to obtain a FEMA Permit, which a consulting firm is processing. Engineering Division stafianticipates aspring construction start date. Construction should not take more than b0 calendar days. Time will then be necessary to complete the projects fina I reimbursement paperwork and submit to FDEP. Stafirecommends the board approve the attached amendments and authorize the chairman to execute the same. Two Amendments ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-4, Commissioner Tippin absent) approved the amendments and authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as recommended in the memorandum. COPY OF AMENDMENT 1 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERIC TO THE BOARD 13.A.1. CHAIRMAN ADAMS - APPOINTMENT TQ FILL VACANT. AT LARGE P(JSITIIJN UN THE PLANNING AND Z4;vING CpMMISSIQN The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 6, 2444 and submitted re;>umes: December 12, 2000 �� ,� � To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: December 6, 2444 Subject: APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANT AT LARGE POSITION ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING (P & Z) COMMISSION From: Fran B. Adams Chairman The following Indian River County citizens have submitted their resumes for consideration for the At Large vacancy on the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Gregory J. Burke. Architect, P.A. • Norris W. "Jack" Flach • Anthony Gervasio* • George W. Gross, P.E. • Leroy Hiers • Arthur G. Jewett • Lynne A. Larkin, Attorney •Rosume to be received grior to December 12, 2440 meeting Chairman Adams advised that Monty Falls resigned a seat that has been traditionally filled by an architect or engineer to provide that expertise. Based on that, she recomlaiended George Gross, a physical engineer, to fill that seat. Commissioner Stanbridge thought another woman was needed, but understood the need for the engineering expertise. Mr, Gross is retired and not hampered by work schedules. Vice Chairman Ginn liked Anthony Gervasia, because he has shown a willingness to work hard on the Code Enforcement Board and she was aware there is a lot of work, especially reading, on the PZC. Commissioner Macht concurred with Chairman Adams' recommendation that the background is needed as was painted out in their earlier discussion on communication towers. Mr. Gro ss is the only one who fits the category. December 12, 2000 BK I-1 c ON MOTION by Commissioner Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously appointed George Gross to fill the At -Large position an the Planning and Zoning Commission. 13.A.2. REOUEST OF VERNON REASONS FOR GARBAGE PICKUP IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS Chairman Adams spoke briefly about this request and asked if this matter could be sent to the Utilities Advisory Committee far their review and recommendation, As Chairman ofthe UAC, Vice Chairman Ginn agreed to accept the request on behalf of the committee. 13.A.3. POLICY ON USE OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MEETING ROOMS BY NON -COUNTY GROUPS Chairman Adams advised that twice her committees have been kept from scheduling meetings because non -County groups had already reserved meeting rooms in the Administration Building. She was concerned because there are so few meeting rooms to work with in the building and the Commissioners' offices cannot accommodate many people. She felt a policy needed to be established. She understood the reason these groups were meeting in the building was to comply with the Sunshine Law, but they do not have to meet in this building to comply. If outside groups want to meet here, they have to understand that they could be ousted with five minutes' notice if the room is needed for staff or other county meetings. Vice Chairman Ginn agreed the County had to come first and as the Space Needs Committee has been looking at the building, there is just no room to really allow anyone else to use our facilities. !• �� 111 141 ��{ � � � P� Commissioner Tippin thought the committee in question has been forced to meet in the sunshine because they receive grant funds, and Chairman Adams reiterated that it does not mean that the committee needs to meet in this building. After a brief discussion, Chairman Adams summarized the CONSENSUS that the policy will now be that if anon- County committee is meeting in the bung, they must understand that they can be ousted at a moment's notice if staff, the administration, or a Commissioner needs the room. Administrator Chandler advised that his office would make it abundantly clear when the other groups call to reserve a room that they can be ousted. County Attorney Bangel commented that if it is a sunshine board, they would have leave a notice as to where they will resume their meeting which might be a problem far them. Vice Chairman Ginn thought they could be moved to the Commission Chambers if it is available. 13.D. COMMISSIONER STANBRIDGE -CLARIFICATION OF NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ENTITLED "MANDATORY GARBAGE PICKUP RECOMMENDED FOR COUNTY" The Board reviewed a Memorandum of December 11, 2000: To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: December 11 2040 Subject: MANDATORY GARBAGE PICKUP RECOMMENDED FOR COUNTY -PRESS JOURNAL ARTICLE From: Ruth M. Stanbri dge Commissioner I would like to discuss the attached article that appeared in the Press JournaliL recently. In the short time since this was published, I have received many comments against the County taking this action. December 12, 2000 142 BK H 6 PG 4 7 2 1 1 1 ' ' 1 ' I ' , ' ' � i � 1 ' I ■Stanley Keely, of WCG Inc. in Maitland, presented the results of the master plan to the Indian River County Utilities Advisory Committee on Thursday. By MICHAEL KAISER Press Journal Statl Writer Indian River County should implement mandatory garbage co'i- lection and close down the trash transfer stations, according to a re- cently completed Solid Waste Master Plan. The county and its residents would save money if everyone were required to have curbside garbage pickup, consultant Stanley Keely said. Keely, of WCG Inc. in Mait- land, presented the results of the master plan to the Utilities Advi- sory Committee on Thursday. "I know that is tremendously controversial." Keely said. "The major thing it does is allow the shiltdown of the collection centers. They are very expensive to oper- ate." Keely said the current network of transfer stations cost $80 to $90 a ton to operate. Collection fees would also drop because garbage haulers would have more custom- ers and would no longer have to do their own billing, Keely said. About a decade ago, the county utilities staff proposed mandatory garbage collection, but a citizen outcry defeated it. The county eventually did adopt curb- side recycling of newspaper, plas- tics and glass. Under the current system, all property owners pay a landfill as- sessment of $76 per year to pay for garbage, disposal. For wllection, residents either haul thew own gar- bage to one of five transfer sta- tions or pay a hauler to pick it up at the curb. In the unincorporated area of the county, voluntary curb side collection costs $148 per year, Keely said. For residents who pay for col- lection, such a system is more ex- pensive than in neighboring coun- ties, Keely said. While residents in Indian River pay a total of $224 for collection and disposal, resi- dents in St. Lucie County pay $156 and Brevard County $152. "You can see you're out of whack here. That's kind of dra- matically different," he said. "I certainly think they're going to see some savings on the collection side." The system can also be ineq- uitable because residents who pay for collection are also paving for the maintenance and operation of the transfer stations, Utilities Di- rector Don Hubbs said. "If you're doing voluntary col- lection at the curb, you're also paying for the free (transfer sta- tion) access that you're not using," he said. Keely said the cost reduction is difficult to quantify until the col- lection contracts are renegotiated or put out to bid, but residents could expCct a reduction of at least 10 percent. That's the reduction that residents saw in St. Lucie County, which recently instituted mandatory pickup, he said. Most members of the utilities committee were supportive of mandatory collection, at least in the more heavily populated areas of the county. "Countywide collection is the way we're going to have to go; it's just a matter of time," member Frank Oberbeck said. "Another problem is (illegal) dumping throughout the county by people who are too Lary to go to the transfer station. Mandatory collec- tion would reduce that." Commissioner Stanbridge advised she had received numerous phone calls after this matter had been reported twice in the Press Journal. She called on Utility Services Director Donald R. Hubbs to clarify. Utility Services Director Donald R. Hubbs explained that a Master Plan is in the works and called the newspaper article "premature". Mandatory collection is just orae ofthe many issues that the Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) is discussing. The initiati�✓es will have to come before the Board of County Commissioners first and will be approached one - December 12, 2000 143 8K1i�PG473 by -ane in their order of priority. There is no major initiative on the horizon. Vice Chairman Ginn assured the Board that the County is nowhere near mandatory garbage collection but it is in the long range plan. The UAC meets at 2 PM on the first Thursday of each month and the public is welcome. Commissioner Stanbridge suggested the Press Journal's reporter note that information for publication so the public is informed. Chairman Adams commented that she would have liked to have known about this issue because she felt Tike she was "ambushed" since she did not know anything about it. Commissioner Stanbridge interjected that because she and Chairman Adams r+present rural areas, they have been the Board members who have received the mast phone calls objecting to the idea. Vice Chairman Ginn explained that the draft of the Master Plan had just been received; the objectives in it were seen by the UAC for the first time. It will nor, come before the Board until the UAC makes its recommendation. She advised that it waa a sore point and evoked a lot of discussion at the UAC meeting, but emphasized that no decisions Ir were made. She felt that in the long run, it is probably the best thing for the County and, if 3 approved, would have to be phased in. t Chairman Adams was concerned that in the long -run it may be the best thing for the County, but it would not be the best thing for the citizens because they will be picking up those costs that the County is now paying. Vice Chairman Ginn thought it was a good thing that this had come to the Beard. 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT No meeting originally scheduled, but was necessary in order to consider a matter that was originally listed as I I.B.l. on the Board of County Commissioners agenda. The Chairman announced that following the meeting, the Commissioners would sit December 12, 2000 144 81{ 1 16 PG 474 as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those minutes sire being prepared separately. 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that following the Emergency Services District meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste :Disposal District. Those minutes are being prepared separately. 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD None. At the conclusion of the meeting, Chairman Adams wished a "happy birthday" to Vice Chairman Ginn. There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 1:07 p.m. ATTEST: �� Jeffrey�arton, Clerk > �c� � i�� Minutes approved ��� �c�D/ December 12, 2000 Fran B. Adams, Chairman 145 6K 116 PG 4 7 �i I