HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2002•
eq
ry
MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 2002 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
•
COUNTY COMVIMISSIONERS
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman
Fran B. Adams
Caroline D. Ginn
Kenneth R. Macht
District 2
District 4
District 1
District 5
District 3
James E Chandler, County Administrator
Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney
Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. 1.
2.
3.
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
BACKUP
PAGES
Comm. Caroline D. Ginn
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA /
EMERGENCY ITEMS
ADDITIONS: None.
DEFERRED: 5. Invitation to 6'11 Annual Inter -Tribal Vero Beach Pow -Wow
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
Invitation to 6th Annual Inter-Tnbal Vero Beach Pow -Wow
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
None
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, January, 2002
Bre 1.1
xit
CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated January 31, 2002)
BACKUP
PAGES
Blanket Authorization for Commissioners to Attend
Assigned Committee Meetings Out of County
(memorandum dated February 4, 2002)
Election of Keith Hedin to Council of Public Officials
(memorandum dated February 4, 2002)
Re-election of Environmental Control Hearing Board
Channian and Vice Chaiiuian
(memorandum dated January 31, 2002)
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Lot 11, Block 23, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 5A
(memorandum dated January 31, 2002)
Resolution for Assistance Under FIND Waterways
Assistance Program for Jungle Trail Shoreline Stabilization
(memorandum dated February 4, 2002)
Re-election of MPO CAC Chain uan and Vice Chaiinian
(memorandum dated February 5, 2002)
Appointment of Kathryn Wilson to PLAB
(memorandum dated January 31, 2002)
Authorization to Advertise for Public Hearing for:
Florida Building Code and Windload Zones/Windspeed Map
(memorandum dated February 6, 2002)
Consideration of Housing Rehabilitation Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consultant Selection
Committee Recommendation
(memorandum dated February 4, 2002)
M -R Homes, Ltd., Request for Final Plat Approval for a
Subdivision to be Known as Seasons PD (Planned Deve-
lopment)
(memorandum dated January 22, 2002)
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 005
(memorandum dated February 6, 2002)
2i£
,4X
•
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):
HCD Properties, LLC Request for Release of a Portion
of an Easement at 1715 37`h Place in W E Geoffrey Sub-
division (Palm Points Plaza)
(memorandum dated February 6, 2002)
O. North County Regional Park, Pool Construction
Weller Pool Constructors, Inc., Change Order No. 1
(memorandum dated February 5, 2002)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
MODIFYING APPEAL REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAN-
DARDIZING APPEAL TIMEFRAMES, AMENDING THE
FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 902 ADMINISTRATIVE
MECHANISMS; CHAPTER 914, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
APPROVAL PROCEDURES; CHAPTER 913 SUBDIVISIONS
AND PLATS• AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CON-
FLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE
Request to Amend Sections 902.07, 914.06(6), 914.13,
913.07(4)(G), and 902.12(4)(d) & (e) of the Land Develop-
ment Regulations to Modify Review Criteria and Standardize
Timeframes for Appeals of Planning and Zoning Commission
and/or Staff Decisions (Legislative)
(memorandum dated February 4, 2002)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Request from Shelly Ferger to Discuss Animal
Control Situation
(letter dated February 4, 2002)
2. Request from Brian T. Heady to Discuss
Various Issues
(letter dated February 5, 2002)
BACKUP
PAGES
68-76
77-82
83-103
104
105
t
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS
1 Scheduled for Public Hearing on February 19, 2002:
a. Grand Harbor's, LTD request for an abandon-
ment of a 6' x 660' portion of Via Marbella
Boulevard right-of-way within Grand Harbor
(Legislative)
b. Channing Corporation's request to modify
certain approved conceptual PD Plan setbacks
for a portion of the Old Orchid PD project.
The development is located at the northeast
corner of Jungle Trail and C.R. 510 (Legislative)
2. Scheduled for Public Hearing on March 5, 2002:
a. Central Grove Corp. and Seminole Venture, Inc's.
to rezone two adjacent parcels containing a total of
32.8 acres. Both parcels are currently
zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit / 5
acres). The request is to rezone the northern
parcel to RS -6, Single -Family Residential Dis-
trict (up to 6 units/acre), and to rezone the
southern parcel to RM -6, Multiple -Family Resi
dential District (up to 6 units/acre). The northern
parcel is 20 acres in size and is located a quarter
mile north of 26th Street, on the west side of 66th
Avenue. The southern parcel is 12.8 acres in
size and is located at the northwest comer of 26th
Street and 66th Avenue (Quasi -Judicial)
b. Dennis and Olska Forbes' request to rezone 34.33
acres from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre), to RM -8, Multiple
Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre).
The subject property is located 700 east of US 1,
on the south side of 45th Street (Quasi -Judicial)
3. Scheduled for Public Hearing on March 12, 2002:
Knight Enterprises' request to rezone 1.26 acres from A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to IL, Light
Industrial. The subject property is located 717 feet north
of 9th Street SW (Oslo Road) and approximately half a
mile west of 74th Ave. (Quasi -Judicial)
(memorandum dated January 28, 2002) 106-107
BACKUP
PAGES
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
BACKUP
PAGES
Emergency Services
Acceptance of Emergency Management Performance
Grant Funding and Approval of Expenditures
(memorandum dated January 29, 2002)
108-135
General Services
L eisure Services
None
O ffice of Management and Budget
None
P ersonnel
None
P ublic Works
Joint County / School District Fleet Maintenance Com-
plex — Construction Delivery Methods
(memorandum dated February 4, 2002)
136-137
Utilities
1. Sebastian Water Expansion Phases II -D & II -E
Resolution IV — Final Assessment
(memorandum dated February 1, 2002)
138-178
South County Water Treatment Plant — Additional
Well Rehabilitation Work, Authorization No. 15
Change Order No. 1
(memorandum dated January 30, 2002)
Human Services
None
179-206
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
arpf
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge
Updates
B. Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
C. Commissioner Fran 13. Adams
D. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
E. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
None
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes — meeting of 1/8/02
2. Request for Change Order to Recycled Newspring
Transfer and Storage Enclosure and Miscellaneous
Metal Buildings Repairs Contract, Bid #4025
(memorandum dated February 5, 2002)
C. Environmental Control Board
None
BACKUP
PAGES
207-209
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.
Meeting broadcast same as above on AT & T Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.
Bit
0
•
INDEX TO MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2002
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS - INVITATION TO 6TH
ANNUAL INTER -TRIBAL VERO BEACH POW -WOW 2
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2
7 CONSENT AGENDA 2
7.A. Report 2
7.B. Approval of Warrants 2
7.C. Blanket Authorization for Commissioners to Attend Assigned Committee
Meetings Out of County 9
7.D. Council of Public Officials - Keith Hedin Appointed by Indian River
Mosquito Control District 10
7 E Environmental Control Hearing Board - Ratification of Re-election of Alan
Polackwich as Chairman and Steve Snoberger as Vice Chairman 10
7.F. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver - Lot 11, Block 23,
Vero Lake Estates Unit 5A - MGB Construction, Inc 11
7.G. Resolution No. 2002-010 for Assistance Under FIND (Florida Inland
Navigation District) Waterways Assistance Program for Jungle Trail
Shoreline Stabilization 13
7.H. Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Committee (MPO
CAC) - Reelection of Juhane Young as Chairman and Robert Johnson as
Vice -Chairman 16
7.I. Public Library Advisory Board - Appointment of Kathryn Wilson (Seat
vacated by Jean Versteeg) 16
1
BAR �=
1
•
7.J. Public Hearings Scheduled for March 5, 2002 to Adopt the Florida
Building Code and Windload Zones/Windspeed Map for Indian River
County - Advertisements Authorized 17
7.K. Housing Rehabilitation Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Consultant Selection Committee's Ranking of Responders to RFP -
Negotiation with Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc. (First Ranked) Authorized
18
7 L M -R Homes Ltd. - Final Plat Approval for a Subdivision to be Known as
Seasons PD (Planned Development) - Contract for Construction of
Required Improvements - (Seasons at Orchid) 20
7.M. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 005 22
7.N. Resolution No. 2002-011 - HCD Properties, LLC - Release of a Portion of
an Easement at 1715 37th Place in W. E Geoffrey Subdivision (Palm
Pointe Plaza) (18th Avenue Right -of -Way) 25
7.0. North County Regional Park - Pool Construction Weller Pool
Constructors, Inc. - Change Order No. 1 29
9.A. PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004 MODIFYING APPEAL
REVIEW CRITERIA AND STANDARDIZING APPEAL TIMEFRAMES
(Legislative)
30
9 B 1 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM SHELLY FERGER TO
DISCUSS ANIMAL CONTROL SITUATION 44
9 B 2 PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM BRIAN T HEADY TO
DISCUSS VARIOUS ISSUES 48
9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
FEBRUARY 19, 2002 49
A. Grand Harbor, LTD - Request for Abandonment of a 6' x 660'
Portion of Via Marbella Boulevard Right -of -Way Within Grand Harbor
(Legislative) 49
B. Channing Corporation - Request to Modify Certain Approved
Conceptual PD Plan Setbacks for a Portion of the Old Orchid PD Project
(Development Located at the NE Corner of Jungle Trail and CR -510)
(Legislative) 49
2
DV
nt
[0
•
9.C.2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
MARCH 5, 2002 49
A. Central Grove Corp. and Seminole Venture, Inc. - Request to
Rezone Two Adjacent Parcels Containing 20 + 12.8 Acres for a Total of
32.8 Acres (Quasi -Judicial) 49
B Dennis and Olska Forbes - Request to Rezone 3433 Acres to RM -8
(Located E and S of US#1 and 45th Street) 49
9.C.3. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON
MARCH 12, 2002 49
Knight Enterprises - Request to Rezone 1.26 Acres to IL (Located N of
Oslo Road and W of 74th Avenue) (Quasi -Judicial) 49
11 B ACCEPTANCE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
GRANT FUNDING AND APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES - BID #4043 -
DON REID FORD, INC. (2002 FORD WINDSTAR VAN) 51
11.G. JOINT COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT FLEET MAINTENANCE COMPLEX -
PROJECT NO. 9820 - RFQ FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK
AUTHORIZED
53
11.H.1. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-012 - SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION
PHASES II -D & II -E (RESOLUTION IV) - FINAL ASSESSMENT 55
11.H.2. SOUTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT - ADDITIONAL
WELL REHABILITATION WORK - AUTHORIZATION NO. 15 - CHANGE
ORDER NO. 1 - CAMP DRESSER & McKEE, INC. (CDM) 59
13.A. CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES 62
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 62
14 B SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 62
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 62
•
3
BK !
n n
1 .I
February 12, 2002
The Board of County Commissioners oflndian River County, Florida, met in Regular
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, February 12, 2002. Present were John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Commissioners
Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also present were James E
Chandler, County Administrator; Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely,
Deputy Clerk. Chairman Ruth Stanbridge was absent on County business.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman Tippin called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. He advised that
Chairman Stanbridge was absent because she was in Tallahassee on County business.
2. INVOCATION
Rev. Henry Burson delivered the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioner Ginn led the Pledge to the Flag.
4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY
ITEMS
Vice Chairman Tippin announced that Item 5 was deferred to the next meeting.
February 12, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) deferred Item 5 to their next meeting.
5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS - INVITATION TO
6TH ANNUAL INTER -TRIBAL VERO BEACH POW -WOW
This item deferred to next week's meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Ginn requested that Item 7.0. be separated for discussion.
7.A. Report
The following report was received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the
Report of Convictions, December 2001
7.B. Approval of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 31, 2002:
February 12, 2002
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: January 31, 2002
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County
Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the
time period of January 25, 2001 to January 31, 2002.
Attachment:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) approved the list of warrants issued by the
Clerk to the Board for the period January 25-31, 2002, as
requested in the memorandum.
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK
DATE
CHECK
AMOUNT
O 021574
O 021575
O 278635
O 279082
O 279094
O 285794
O 311719
O 311853
O 311865
O 311925
O 311941
O 312374
O 312866
O 312918
O 313680
O 314799
O 315230
O 315254
O 315435
O 315450
O 315858
O 315891
O 316002
JOSEPH SOUVERANCE AND
THE GUARDIAN
SANDY PINES LTD
PRIDE, MARGARINE
PERUGINI CONSTRUCTION
STANSEL, TROY
ALCALDE, RENATO MD
GONZALEZ, PATRICK MD
HICKMAN, GUY MD
MAGANA, IGNACIO M D
MALLAMS, JOHN H, PHD
KAPLAN, KAREN DC
BLACKBURN, THOMAS
SKUBIC, FRANK
MEDICAID UNISYS
BAKER, IDA
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
FLORIDA EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
VEGA, ANGELO
ATLANTIC GULF COMMUNITIES
LETTS, BRIAN
OCALA HILTON
WORLD BOOK EDUCATIONAL PRODUCT
2002-01-25
2002-01-29
2000-03-02
2000-03-09
2000-03-09
2000-07-06
2001-10-25
2001-10-25
2001-10-25
2001-10-25
2001-10-25
2001-10-31
2001-11-08
2001-11-08
2001-11-29
2001-12-20
2001-12-27
2001-12-27
2001-12-27
2002-01-03
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2002-01-10
2,500.00
9,678.96
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
February 12, 2002
CHECK
NUMBER
O 316509
O 317013
O 317030
O 317031
O 317032
0317033
O 317034
O 317035
O 317036
0317037
O 317038
O 317039
O 317040
O 317041
0317042
O 317043
0317044
O 317045
O 317046
O 317047
O 317048
O 317049
O 317050
O 317051
0317052
0317053
O 317054
O 317055
O 317056
O 317057
O 317058
O 317059
O 317060
O 317061
0317062
O 317063
O 317064
O 317065
O 317066
O 317067
O 317068
O 317069
O 317070
O 317071
O 317072
O 317073
O 317074
O 317075
O 317076
O 317077
O 317078
O 317079
O 317080
0317081
O 317082
O 317083
O 317084
O 317085
NAME
ALPIZAR, VILLE, TORRES &
STUART HOUSING AUTHORITY
ABC-CLIO INC
ACE PLUMBING, INC
ADRON FENCE COMPANY
AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH,
ABS PUMPS, INC
ADDISON OIL CO
ATET
AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC
ABS
A T & T
ANCOR CORE INC.
ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIPMENT
ABC PRINTING CO
ARBOR TRACE DEVELOPMENT, INC
ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC
ARMY/NAVY OUTDOORS
ALLIED TRAILER SALES-& RENTALS
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
BARNETT BAIL BONDS
BAKER & TAYLOR INC
BRODART CO
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
BAKER & TAYLOR BOOKS
BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P A
BRADFORD, MADGE A
BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION
BROWN, JASON
BOATC
BANGEL, PAUL G
BAUCHMAN, BERTA B H
BAKER, IDA
BELLSOUTH
CABOT LODGE
CAMERON & BARKLEY CO
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
CANON
CENTRAL FLORIDA PRIMA
CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA
CLIFF BERRY,INC
CALL ONE, INC
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN
COLUMBIA PROPANE
CITGO PETROLEUM CORP
CENTRAL FLORIDA HAND CENTER
DOUGLAS, CHARLES
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
D ICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC
D IRECTOR, KENNETH L MD PA
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
DOW, HOWELL, GILMORE,
February 12, 2002
4
CHECK
DATE
2002-01-24
2002-01-24
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
CHECK
AMOUNT
. 00 VOID
. 00 VOID
740.00
108.00
1,990.00
1,525.66
1,230.87
1,162.34
3.36
640.72
121.33
101.16
64.00
67.54
524.68
2,159.96
90.00
197.00
150.00
9,576.57
213,108.83
2,113.75
1,997.00
2,016.73
1,673.40
21.25
78.49
464.25
250.00
806.78
45.50
425.61
79.38
220.00
66.86
40.00
30.67
249.16
220.00
135.14
11.25
2,703.15
52.00
25.00
98.82
170.00
46.49
313.50
10,906.70
11.16
3,383.14
52.00
199.28
29.58
65.65
154.00
134.88
1,741.10
L 50 u
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 317086
0317087
O 317088
0317089
O 317090
O 317091
O 317092
O 317093
0317094
NAME
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
FEDEX
E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC
EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES
ERHARDT, SUSIE
EDLUND & DRITENBAS
EXPEDITER INC, THE
ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC
0317095 ENGINEERING NEWS -RECORD
0317096 FEDEX
O 317097 FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION
O 317098 FISHER SCIENTIFIC
O 317099 FLORIDA ALCOHOL AND DRUG
O 317100 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
0317101 FLORIDA RURAL WATER
O 317102 FLORIDA TODAY
O 317103 FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT
O 317104 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY
O 317105 FWPCO A
O 317106 FLOW -TECHNOLOGY
O 317107 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
O 317108 FATHER & SON CARPET, INC
O 317109 FLORIDA VETERINARY LEAGUE
O 317110 FLORIDA CLASSICS LIBRARY
O 317111 FLORIDA DATABASE SYSTEMS, INC
O 317112
O 317113
O 317114
O 317115
O 317116
O 317117
O 317118
FACTICON, INC
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT
FLORIDA CLINICAL PRACTICE
FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH
FALANA, DANA F
FIRSTLAB
FLORIDA PAIN MANAGEMENT ASSOC
O 317119 FLORIDA HIGHWAY PATROL
O 317120 FIDELITY NATIONAL
O 317121 FREE SPIRIT PUBLISHING
O 317122 FLOYD, IRA MD
O 317123 FIRST LAB
O 317124 F A C PUBLICATIONS
O 317125 GALE GROUP, THE
O 317126 GENERAL GMC, TRUCK
O 317127 GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
O 317128 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC
O 317129 GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
O 317130
O 317131
O 317132
O 317133
O 317134
O 317135
O 317136
O 317137
O 317138
O 317139
O 317140
O 317141
O 317142
GREENE, ROBERT E
GIFFORD COMMUNITY CENTER
GRAINGER PARTS
GREEN & METCALF, PA
GANIO, CARL DPM
GEISLER-STEINER, MARCIA J
GREGORY HARRIS, PHD, CVE
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES
HERITAGE BOOKS, INC
HUDSON PUMP & EQUIPMENT
HACH COMPANY
H C WARNER, INC
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
February 12, 2002
5
CHECK
DATE
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
CHECK
AMOUNT
375.35
50.00
29.21
178.00
116.00
357.25
2,157.13
49.80
5,916.67
77.00
264.63
55.80
176.04
19.45
31,381.79
50.00
533.80
7,715.78
100.00
600.00
271.39
35.00
161.50
45.00
92.60
4,700.00
675.00
316,062.82
37.00
36.28
15.00
36.50
37.00
25.00
32.67
17.96
37.00
155.00
33.50
1,125.80
59.67
358.25
419.89
30.96
1,976.56
5,403.37
177.33
1,163.93
33.30
154.00
360.60
484.30
45.60
34.11
353.40
9,334.20
63,368.05
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 317143
O 317144
O 317145
O 317146
O 317147
O 317148
O 317149
O 317150
O 317151
O 317152
O 317153
O 317154
O 317155
O 317156
O 317157
O 317158
O 317159
O 317160
O 317161
O 317162
O 317163
O 317164
O 317165
O 317166
O 317167
0317168
O 317169
O 317170
O 317171
O 317172
O 317173
O 317174
O 317175
O 317176
O 317177
O 317178
O 317179
O 317180
O 317181
O 317182
O 317183
O 317184
O 317185
O 317186
O 317187
O 317188
O 317189
O 317190
O 317191
O 317192
O 317193
O 317194
O 317195
O 317196
O 317197
O 317198
O 317199
O 317200
O 317201
O 317202
NAME
HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
HILL MANUFACTURING
HYDROPRO, INC
HUSSAMY, OMAR MD
HEALTHSOUTH TREASURE COAST
HAMPTON INN
HEALTHSOUTH HOLDINGS
HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
HALE HAND CENTER, THE
HEMMERS, ANNE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC
INDIAN RIVER BLUEPRINT CO INC
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
INDIAN RIVER TITLE CORP
INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC
IMI -NET, INC
INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO, INC
INTERMEDIA COMMUNICATIONS
INJOY VIDEOS
INDIAN RIVER HAND REHAB INC
INDIAN RIVER WALK-IN CARE
JACOBS ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
CARLSON, JOYCE M JOHNSTON
J A SEXAUER INC
JOHNSON CONTROLS INC
JONES, CHARLIE
JOY INSIGNIA INC
K MART
KEATING, ROBERT M
KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC
KOMARINETZ, ROBERT
KELLY TRACTOR CO
KURTZ, ERIC C MD
KOUNS, DARLENE
KAPLAN, KAREN DC
KRUGER, INC
KELLY, JULIE ANN
KIRBY VETERINARY HOSPITAL
KELLEY, CLAY
LEAHY INCORPORATED
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.
L B SMITH, INC
L IGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
LOWE'S COMPANIES,INC
LOWE'S
LUNA, JUVENAL
LANCY, OLIVEANN, PA
LEHNING, JOAN
MARSHALL CAVENDISH CORP
MATHENY, RONALD E
INDIAN RIVER COMMUNITY COLLEGE
MIKES GARAGE
MILNER INC
MACHT, KENNETH
February 12, 2002
CHECK
DATE
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
CHECK
AMOUNT
5,070.00
130.27
967.64
1,064.00
3,652.07
236.00
52.80
74.82
93.85
9.50
62,082.16
25.00
1,758.30
212.98
881.07
608.00
297.50
64.39
1,803.69
329.17
900.00
225.93
44.69
47.95
288.90
53.00
248.27
209.80
307.88
708.50
2,132.23
3,820.56
394.66
97.71
6,601.86
142.60
313.73
1,107.00
66.95
45.00
4,726.88
281.25
64.00
112.56
2,427.60
1,229.81
1,863.83
61.00
1,617.44
564.15
547.36
164.50
450.00
18.16
487.55
4.10
19,100.16
140.00
538.17
36.74
6
BA 1
1
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 317203
O 317204
0317205
0317206
0317207
O 317208
0317209
O 317210
O 317211
O 317212
O 317213
0317214
O 317215
O 317216
O 317217
O 317218
O 317219
O 317220
O 317221
O 317222
O 317223
O 317224
0317225
O 317226
O 317227
O 317228
0317229
O 317230
O 317231
O 317232
O 317233
O 317234
O 317235
O 317236
O 317237
O 317238
O 317239
O 317240
O 317241
O 317242
O 317243
O 317244
O 317245
O 317246
O 317247
O 317248
O 317249
O 317250
O 317251
O 317252
O 317253
O 317254
O 317255
O 317256
O 317257
NAME
MATRX MEDICAL INC
MORNINGSTAR, INC
MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE
MARC INDUSTRIES
MAYR, SHARON
MIKES GARAGE & WRECKER SERVICE
MASTERSON, MARION
MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC
MURPHY, DEBBIE
MARTIN, CRISTI
MORTON SALT
MELBOURNE INTERNAL MEDICINE
MCGRIFF, APRIL
MULTICOM INC
MUNNINGS, WANDA
MR ELECTRIC
MILKWEED EDITIONS
NOLTE, DAVID C
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC
N ICOSIA, ROGER J DO
NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE
NATIONSRENT
OFFICE PRODUCTS &
OMNIGRAPHICS, INC
OXFORD UNIVERSITY
OSCEOLA PHARMACY
O ' NEAL, JAMES
OREGON DMV
ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO
ON ITS WAY
PARKS RENTAL INC
POSTMASTER
P ETTY CASH
PETRILLA, FRED Jr PHD
PORT CONSOLIDATED
POSTMASTER
PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC
PMI IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC
PALM BEACH REPORTING SERVICE
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION
PRESS JOURNAL
P ERSONNEL PLUS INC
PUBLIX PHARMACY
PROSPER, JANET C
PRYOR, ELIGHA SR
P ICKERING, REBECCA LMT
PARALEE COMPANY INC
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
RODDENBERRY, W E, P A
RED VALVE COMPANY
RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
RIVERSIDE THEATRE INC
RECORDED BOOKS, LLC
R & G SOD FARMS
SERVICE
PRESS
February 12, 2002
7
CHECK
DATE
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,738.00
495.00
727.66
1,502.10
179.22
116.00
138.00
65.00
154.00
101.50
1,259.23
35.15
185.40
3,280.00
52.00
2,653.55
24.58
210,665.92
2.35
1,500.00
250.00
131.50
489.99
51.84
295.08
15.00
15.00
3.00
4,545.00
88.40
123.90
272.00
5.00
500.00
22,624.27
136.00
206.00
260.08
403.50
22.83
133.35
570.00
154.90
45.50
500.00
216.00
375.00
90.00
225.00
539.00
687.87
33,308.18
2,733.50
244.30
135.00
I D,
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 317258
O 317259
O 317260
O 317261
O 317262
O 317263
O 317264
O 317265
O 317266
O 317267
O 317268
O 317269
O 317270
O 317271
O 317272
O 317273
O 317274
O 317275
O 317276
O 317277
0317278
O 317279
O 317280
O 317281
O 317282
O 317283
O 317284
O 317285
O 317286
O 317287
O 317288
O 317289
O 317290
O 317291
O 317292
O 317293
O 317294
O 317295
O 317296
O 317297
O 317298
O 317299
O 317300
O 317301
O 317302
O 317303
O 317304
0317305
O 317306
O 317307
O 317308
O 317309
O 317310
O 317311
O 317312
O 317313
O 317314
O 317315
O 317316
NAME
RELIABLE POLY JOHN SERVICES
RAG SHOP INC
RYAN, KEVIN P
REXEL CONSOLIDATED
REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING
RASMUSSEN, KARA
ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET
RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES BREVARD
SAFETY KLEEN
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
SEXUAL ASSAULT ASSISTANCE
REXEL SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
S T LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE
S CHOLARLY RESOURCES, INC
SALEM PRESS, INC
SELIG INDUSTRIES
STEVENS BROTHERS FUNERAL HOME
STUART HOUSING AUTHORITY
SOUTHERN/ALARM PARTNERS
STAGE & SCREEN
SEBASTIAN EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS
SOUTHERN COMPUTER SUPPLIES INC
SOUTHERN EMBROIDERY WORKS
SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT
SCHUMANN PRINTING
SAFETY MEETING OUTLINES INC
SUN CONTAINER INC
SEYMOUR, LINDA
STEPHENS, LARRY
SHELL CREDIT CARD CENTER
SLOAN, RODNEY
STONE SOUP BOOKS
SEQUOIA VOTING SYSTEMS
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
SMITH, TERRY L
THERMOGAS COMPANY
TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL
TROPIC PEST CONTROL SERV, INC
T K SMITH CONTRACTING
THERIEN, RICHARD C
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
TESTAMERICA INC
UNITED IRRIGATION OF IRC, INC
URGENT CARE WEST
UNIVERSITY MED SVCS ASSOC INC
VERO
VERO
VERO
VERO
VERO
BEACH, CITY OF
BEACH, CITY OF
LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
ORTHOPAEDICS
BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT
VERO BEARING & BOLT
WALL STREET JOURNAL
WAL-MART PHARMACY INC
WAL-MART PHARMACY INC
WILLHOFF, PATSY
WATER SAFETY PRODUCTS
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR
WEISS RATINGS, INC
February 12, 2002
8
CHECK
DATE
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
nu
DA
CHECK
AMOUNT
118.68
119.79
15.00
1,475.91
236.10
108.15
116.88
310.00
142.62
137.52
4,964..16
277.32
100.45
10,891.11.
150.10
424.20
34.68
800.00
393.67
145.00
50.43
29.00
515.32
416.90
75.00
189.69
65.75
1,147.00
87.50
154.00
36.58
5.00
52.00
19,186.90
1,500.00
75.80
165.58
77.24
762.00
400.00
307.00
10.00
12,614.00
1,500.00
195.00
37.00
988.72
9,462.50
61.60
318.00
50.00
36.12
175.00
858.85
303.52
104.00
104.10
536.50
392.95
•
CHECK
NUMBER
O 317317
O 317318
O 317319
O 317320
NAME
WATERVIEW PRESS INC
W W GRAINGER INC
WASHBURN, DANIEL JOE JR
WIDNER, BRADLEY J
CHECK
DATE
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
2002-01-31
CHECK
AMOUNT
45.15
927.13
164.79
64.37
1,236,451.56
7.C. Blanket Authorization for Commissioners to Attend Assigned
Committee Meetings Out of County
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 4, 2002:
To:
Date:
Subject:
From:
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
February 4, 2002
BLANKET AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMISSIONERS TO
ATTEND ASSIGNED COMMITTEE MEETINGS OUT OF COUNTY
Kimberly E. Massung
Executive Aide to the Commission
Description of Condition
It is a requirement by the County auditor to include the date the Board approved out of county
travel on the travel advance and voucher forms when submitting reimbursement from the Board
of County Commissioners for travel.
Presently all Commissioners sit on committees where out of county travel is required for
assigned committee meetings (i.e. Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council meets in Stuart
once a month). For the purpose of complying with the auditor's requirement of having an
approval date on the travel voucher and advance forms, I would like approval to use today's date
when submitting reimbursement requests for the Board members out of county assigned
committee meeting travel.
Recommendation
Approval be granted for out of county travel for all current and any future assigned committee
meetings Board members are required to attend.
February 12, 2002
9
B'(
•
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) granted out -of -county travel for all current
and any future assigned committee meetings Board members are
required to attend, as recommended in the memorandum.
7.D. Council of Public Officials - Keith Hedin Appointed by Indian
River Mosquito Control District
The Board reviewed a memorandum of February 4, 2002:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Vickie Phillips
DATE February 4, 2002
SUBJECT: Election of Keith Hedin to Council of Public Officials (COPO)
Enclosed is a letter from the Indian River Mosquito Control District dated
January 14, 2002 appointing Keith Hedin as COPO's representative for 2002.
No board action is required.
INFORMATION ONLY NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN
7.E. Environmental Control Hearing Board - Ratification of Re-
election of Alan Polackwich as Chairman and Steve Snoberger as
Vice Chairman
The Board reviewed a memorandum of January 31, 2002:
February 12, 2002
10
9
•
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Vickie Phillips, Environmental Control Hearing Board
Secretary
DATE January 31, 2002
SUBJECT: Reelection of Environmental Control Hearing Board Chairman
and Vice Chairman
This is to notify the Board that at the Environmental Control Hearing Board
meeting of November 15, 2001, the Board voted (5-0) to ratify the reelection of
Alan Polackwich as Chairman and Steve Snoberger as Vice Chairman of the
Environmental Control Hearing Board for the year 2002.
No board action is required.
INFORMATION ONLY. NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN
7.F. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver - Lot 11,
Block 23, Vero Lake Estates, Unit 5A - MGB Construction, Inc .
The Board reviewed a memorandum of January 31, 2001:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P E
Public Works Directo
A_ND
Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., P E
County Engineer
0/
FROM: David B. Cox, P.E., Civil E gineeC
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for Lot 11, Block 23,
Vero Lake Estates Unit SA
REFERENCE: Project No. 2002010043-29778
DATE: January 31, 2002
SUBJECT:
February 12, 2002
11
CONSENT AGENDA
< <'
•
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
MGB Construction, Inc. has submitted a building permit application for a single-family residence on
the subject property. The site is located in an AE special flood hazard zone, base flood elevation
23.0 ft. N.G.V D. In the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated January 28, 2002, a
waiver of the cut and fill requirements is requested. The lot area is 1.06 acres. The volume of the
100 -year floodplain displaced by the proposed grading plan is estimated to be 1,1 14 cubic yards.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
the waiver request has been reviewed by staff and appears to meet the criteria of Section
930.07(2)(d)4. of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance for lots located in the
Vero Lake Estates Municipal Services Taxing Unit.
Alternative No. 1
Grant the cut and fill balance waiver based on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the cut and fill waiver. Require an on site retention area be provided to compensate for the
proposed floodplain displacement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from Ronald G. Keller, P.E., dated January 28, 2002.
2. Calculations for cut and fill
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) granted the cut and fill balance waiver based
on the criteria of Section 930.07(2)(d)4, as recommended in the
memorandum. (Alternative No. 1)
February 12, 2002
12
58
•
7.G. Resolution No. 2002-010 for Assistance Under FIND (Florida
Inland Navigation District) Waterways Assistance Programor
.f
Jungle Trail Shoreline Stabilization
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 4, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.C
/, ,,/ CONSENT AGENDA
Public Works Directors--
FROM: Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D.
_
Environmental Analyst
SUBJECT: Resolution for Assistance Under FIND Waterways Assistance
Program for Jungle Trail Shoreline Stabilization
DATE: February 4, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County Public Works Department has prepared the attached grant
application for the Florida Inland Navigation District's (FIND)
Waterways Assistance Program to stabilize the shoreline along
Jungle Trail. This is a Phase II grant application for
construction. The Phase I funding for design and permitting was
awarded by FIND in the FY 1999-2000 grant cycle and design work is
underway. The grant application requires a resolution from the
Board requesting the funding assistance. The estimated cost for
project construction is $142,800. FIND may grant up to $71,400,
with the balance required from the County in matching funds.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached resolution
requesting assistance from FIND in funding the Phase II project.
Funding will be from the Local Option Sales Tax, Contingencies.
ATTACHMENT
Resolution
Grant Application
February 12, 2002
13
B1( 1 2. r
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) adopted Resolution No. 2002-010 for
assistance under the Florida Inland Navigation District (FIND)
Waterways Assistance Program.
RESOLUTION - 2002-010
ATTACHMENT E-6
RESOLUTION FOR ASSISTANCE
UNDER THE FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
WATERWAYS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY is interested in carrying out the
(Name of Agency)
following described project for the enjoyment of the citizenry of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
and the State of Florida:
Project TitleJUNGLE TRAIL SHORELINE STABILIZATION - PHASE II
Total Estimated Cost $ 142,0000
Brief Description of Project:
THIS PROJECT IS TO PROTECT AND STABILIZE THE SHORELINE WEST OF JUNGLE TRIAL, PROTECTING THE
ROADWAY AND EXISTING MANGROVE VEGETATION FROM EROSION BY CONSTRUCTING A PERMANENT
BREAKWATER ALONG THE AFFECTED SHORELINE. THE PROJECT DESIGN INCLUDES PLANTINGS OF SALTMARSH
GRASS TO STABILIZE SEDIMENTS IN AREAS WHERE MANGROVES HAVE BEEN WASHED OUT.
AND, Florida Inland Navigation District financial assistance is required for the program
mentioned above,
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
that the project desefibed above be authorized,
(Name of Agency)
AND, be it further resolved that said INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(Name of Agency)
make application to the Florida Inland Navigation District in the amount of 50
actual cost of the project in behalf of said INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(Name of A
AND, be it further resolved by the INDIAN RIVER COUNTyency)
that it certifies to the following.
1. That it will accept the terms and conditions set forth in FIND Rule 66B-2
F.A.C. and which will be a part of the Project Agreement for any assistance awarded under
the attached proposal.
February 12, 2002
(Name of Agency)
% ofthe
14
0I
L
2. That it is in complete accord with the attached proposal and that it will carry out
the Program in the manner described in the proposal and any plans and specifications attached
thereto unless prior approval for any change has been received from the District.
3. That it has the ability and intention to finance its share of the cost of the project
and that the project will be operated and maintained at the expense of said INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY for public use,
(Name of Agency)
4. That it will not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color or
national origin in the use of any property or facility acquired or developed pursuant to this
proposal, and shall comply with the terms and intent of the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, P. L. 88-352 (1964) and design and construct all facilities to comply fully with statutes
relating to accessibility by handicapped persons as well as other federal, state and local
laws, rules and requirements.
5. That it will maintain adequate financial records on the proposed project to
substantiate claims for reimbursement.
6. That it will make available to FIND if requested, a post -audit of expenses
incurred on the project prior to, or in conjunction with, request for the final 10% of the
funding agreed to by FIND.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly and
legally adopted by the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS at a legal meeting
(� rheld on this 12th day of February
JEFFREY K. BAR O
CLERK TO THE BOARD
Title
20 0
•
Attest
February 12, 2002
hn W. Tippin Signat re
Vice Chairman
Title
BCC Approved: 02/12/2002
Indian River County
Approved
Date
Administration
��
,1 G
Budget
Z
l
Co. Attorney
a j /O)
/
Risk Management
Department
CP
41
7t/
Division
15
Vi
1)I inn
1
7.H. Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory
Committee (MPO CAC) - Reelection of Juliane Young as Chairman
and Robert Johnson as Vice -Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 5, 2002:
TO: Board of County Commissioners_
FROM: Vickie Phillips, Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens
Advisory Committee (MPO CAC) Secretary
•
DATE February 5, 2002
SUBJECT: Reelection of MPO CAC Chairman and Vice Chairman
This is to notify the Board that at the MPO CAC meeting of February 5, 2002,
the Committee voted (10-0) to ratify the reelection of Juliane Young as
Chairman and Robert Johnson as Vice -Chairman of the MPO CAC for the year
2002.
No board action is required.
INFORMATION ONLY NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN.
7. I. Public Library Advisory Board -Appointment of Kathryn Wilson
(Seat vacated by Jean Versteeg)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 31, 2002:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Vickie Phillips, Public Library Advisory Board (PLAB)
Secretary
January 31, 2002
Appointment of Kathryn Wilson to PLAB
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
February 12, 2002
16
v
Lon
PG
•
Enclosed is a resume submitted by Kathryn Wilson. Ms. Wilson is
Commissioner Macht's appointee
serve as an at Targe member to fill they acantcpo�sit on prevrary iously herd and an
Versteeg. y held by Jean
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) noted Commissioner Macht's appointment
of Kathryn Wilson to the PLAB.
7.J. Public Hearin's Scheduled , or March 5 2002 to Ado
Florida Buildin • Code and Windload Zones/Winds eed
M�
Indian River Coun - Advertisements Authori ed
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 6, 2002:
TO: The Board of County Commissioners
FROM: , William G. Collins II — Deputy County Attorney
DATE: February 6, 2002
SUBJECT: Authorization to Advertise for Public Hearing for:
• Florida Building Code
• Windload Zones/Windspeed Map
On behalf of the Building Department I am requesting authorization to advertise
two ordinances for public hearing:
1. Amendments to Chapter 401 of the Indian River County Code to adopt the
statewide Flonda Building Code.
2. An ordinance adopting windload zones and windspeed map for Indian
River County.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize advertisement of a public hearing for the two above ordinances for
March 5, 2002.
February 12, 2002
17
1
t the
•
Or
•
L�
Dr
1 0
0 u
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) approved advertising two ordinances for
public hearing on March 5, 2002: 1) Amendments to Chapter 41
of the Indian River County Code to adopt the Honda Building
Code, and 2) an ordinance adopting windload zones and
windspeed map for Indian River County, as recommended in
the memorandum.
7.K. Housin • Rehabilitation Communi
Develo
ment Block Grant
CDBG - Consultant Selection Committee's Rankin o Res onders
to RFP - Ne otiation with Fred Fox Entergy rises Inc. First Ranked
A uth ori ed
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 4, 2002:
•
•
•
TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator
►N HEAD
CONCURRENCE:
—iota d
•
obert M. eating,
•
1
MITI ity Development Director
THROUGHL• Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning s
FROM: Randy Deshazo; Economic Development Planner
DATE: February 4, 2002
SUBJECT: CONSII )ERATION OF HOUSING REHABILITATION COMMUI�ZTY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CONSULTANT SELECTION
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the information herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 12, 2002
February 12, 2002
18
•
BACKGROUND
On October 23, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners, at an advertised public hearing, directed
staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for consultants to prepare a Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) application in the Housing Rehabilitation category and administer the grant,
if awarded.
On February 1, 2002, a selection committee, comprised of Robert M. Keating, Community
Development Director, Jason E. Brown Budget Manager, Office of Management and Budget and
Andrew Bowler, Executive Director, Indian River Habitat for Humanity, met and reviewed the four
proposals submitted by CDBG grant writing consultant fiinis
ANALYSIS
Based on each fir m's written proposal and interviews, the consultant selection committee ranked the
four consulting firms separately for each service being requested (application preparation services
and grant administration services) by the county. The four consulting finers were ranked as follows:
Final Ranking
Application Preparation Services
Administration Services
1
Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc.
1
Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc.
3
Jordan & Associates
Summit Professional Services, Inc.
3
Jordan & Associates
Summit Professional Services, Inc.
4
CRA Consulting,Inc.
4
CRA Consulting,Inc.
For the CDBG program, the consultant will prepare the application at no charge to the county if
he/she is selected to administer the grant. In the Housing Rehabilitation CDBG grant category, the
consultant will get up to 15% of the grant funds for administering the project if the application
receives funding. If the project does not get funded, there will be no cost to the county for the
consultant having prepared the application.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the consultant selection
prioritization list and authorize staff to begin contract negotiations starting with the number one
ranked firm.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) approved the consultant selection
committee's prioritization list and authorized staff to begin
contract negotiations starting with the number one ranked firm
(Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc.), as recommended in the
memorandum.
February 12, 2002
19
Py
•
7.L. M -R Homes Ltd. - Final Plat A royal or a Subdivision to be
Known as Seasons PD Planned Develo
1 1
Construction o Re
ment - Contract or
•
1
uired Im
1
rovements - Seasons at Orchid
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 22, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP
TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro ert M. eating, • C13
Community Development Dir ctor
THROUGH: Stan Boling, CP
Planning Director
FROM: Mark Zans M1//
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: January 22, 2002
SUBJECT: M -R Homes, Ltd., Request for Final Plat Approval for a Subdivision to
be Known as Seasons PD (Planned Development).
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 12, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Seasons PD is a 100 lot single-family subdivision planned development (P D) of a 37 20 acre
parcel that is located on the southeast corner of County Road 510 (Wabasso Road) and Jungle
Trail. The property is zoned RM -6 (residential multi -family, up to 6 unit/acre) and is to be
developed at a density of 2.69 units per acre. On September 12, 2000, the Board of County
Commissioners granted P D plan approval for the project. to accordance with the Board's
approval, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary PD plan / plat approval for
the subdivision. The applicant is requesting final plat approval for Seasons P.D. and is bonding
out as part of the final plat approval process. The owner, M -R Homes Ltd, through its agent,
Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted the
following:
February 12, 2002
20
1
•
•
1. A final plat in substantial conformance with the approved preliminary PD plan/ plat.
2. A Certified Engineer's Cost estimate for remaining improvements.
3. A Contract for Construction for the remaining required subdivision improvements.
4. A security arrangement guaranteeing the contract for construction.
ANALYSIS:
Most of the required subdivision improvements have been constructed. Consistent with county
regulations, the developer proposes to "bond -out' for construction of the remaining required
improvements ( asphalt, sidewalk, landscaping) and proceed with final plat approval. The format
of the financial secunty has been approved by the County Attorney's Office, and unit cost
estimates for construction items have been approved by Public Works, Utility Services, and
Planning The developer also has submitted a copy of the Contract for Construction of Required
Improvements. The contract, which is on a standard form approved by the County Attorneys
Office, will be executed by the developer. All subdivision improvements are privately dedicated
with the exception of the utility system, which is separately warranted through the Department of
Utility Services. Therefore, no subdivision warranty and maintenance agreement is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
final plat approval for the Seasons PD, authonze the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Construction and any security documents, and accept the security.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Application
2. Location Map
3. Plat Graphic
4. Contract for Construction (Draft)
5. Security Arrangement
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) granted final plat approval for the Seasons
PD, authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for
Construction and any security documents, and authorized
acceptance of the security, as recommended in the
memorandum.
February 12, 2002
21
rif
1.67
COPY OF AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN TI IE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
7.M. Miscellaneous Bud
et Amendment 005
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 6, 2002:
To: Members of the Board of County Commissioners
Through:
From.
Date:
Joseph A. Baird
Assistant County Administrator
Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
February 6, 2002
1
Subject: Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 005
Description and Conditions
The attached budget amendment appropriates funding necessary for the following:
1. The Florida Department of Labor has invoiced the County for unemployment compensation
claims in various departments. The attached entry appropriates funding for these charges.
2 The Budget Office underestimated sick incentive for various departments. The attached entry
appropriates funding.
3. In fiscal year 2000/2001, the Board of Commissioners approved a software licensing
agreement for computer systems in County departments. The attached entry rolls funds
forward to the current year for software and provides funding for certain hardware needed for
the County network.
4. On February 5, 2002, the Board of Commissioners approved funding for extending a fiber
optic connection to the Gifford Youth Activities Center and the Gifford Aquatic Center. The
attached entry appropriates funding.
5. On September 4, 2001, the Board of Commissioners approved contracts for County Officers.
The attached entry appropriates funding for these contracts.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment.
February 12, 2002
22
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) approved Budget Amendment 005, as
recommended in the memorandum.
Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From. Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
Entry Fund/ Depai fnent/
Number Account Name
1. Expenses
Budget Amendment: 005
Date: February 12, 2002
General Fund/ Main Library/
Unemployment Compensation
General Fund/ Purchasing/
Unemployment Compensation
General Fund/ Buildings &
Grounds/ Unemployment
General Fund/ Reserve for
Contingencies
Transportation Fund/
Engineering/ Unemployment
Transportation Fund/ Reserve for
Contingencies
Account Number Increase
Decrease
001-109-571-012 15 I $753
$0
001-216-513-012.15 I $2,245
$0
001-220-519-012.15 $1,408 $0
001-199-581-099.91 $0 I $4,406
111-244-541-012.15 $3,360 $0
111-199-581-099.91 I $0 I $3,360
2. Expenses
General Fund/ Emergency
Management/ Sick Incentive
General Fund/ Reserve for
Contingencies
Municipal Service Taxing Unit/
Recreation/ Sick Incentive
Municipal Service Taxing Unit/
Reserve for Contingencies
001-208-525-011.15 I $483 I $0
001-199-581-099.91 $0 I $483
004-108-572-011.15 I $371 I $0
004-199-581-099.91 I $0 I $371
3. j Expenses
General Fund/ Computer
Services/ Computer Software
General Fund/ Computer
Services/ Computer Hardware
General Fund/ Computer
Services/ EDP Equipment
General Fund/ Reserve for
Contingencies
001-241-513-035.12 I $30,000 I $0
001-241-513-035.13 I $35,000 I $0
001-241-513-066.47 $3,850 $0
001-199-581-099.91 I $0 I $68,850
February 12, 2002
23
•
To: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
From: Jason E. Brown
Budget Manager
Budget Amendment: 005
Date: February 12, 2002
Entry
Number
Account Number
Expenses
Decrease
Optional Sales Tax/ Telecomm./
Fiber O.tics
Optional Sales Tax/ Reserve for
Contm•encies
315-220-519-066.45
$11,996
315-199-581-099.91
Expenses
General Fund/ Board of
Commissioners/ Salaries
General Fund/ Board of
Commissioners/ Social Secunt
General Fund/ Board of
Commissioners/ Retirement
General Fund/ Board of
Commissioners/ Worker's Com..
General Fund/ Board of
Commissioners/ Insurance
IGeneral Fund/ Board of
Commissioners/ Medicare
General Fund/ County Attorney/
Salaries
General Fund/ County Attorney/
Social Secun
General Fund/ County Attorney/
Retirement
General Fund/ County Attorney/
Workers Com..
General Fund/ County Attorney/
Insurance
General Fund/ County Attorney/
Medicare
IGeneral Fund/ County
Administrator/ Salaries
General Fund/ County
Administrator/ Social Securit
General Fund/ County
Administrator/ Retirement
General Fund/ County
Administrator/ Worker's Com..
General Fund/ County
Administrator/ Insurance
General Fund/ County
Administrator/ Medicare
General Fund/ Reserve for
Contin.encies
001-101-511-011.12
001-101-511-012.11
001-101-511-012 12
001-101-511-012.14
001-101-511-012 13
001-101-511-012.17
001-102-514-011.12
001-102-514 012.11
001-102-514 012 12
001-102-514 012 14
001-102-514-012.13
001-102-514-012.17
001-201-512-011.12
001-201-512-012 11
001-201-512-012.12
001-201-512-012 14
001-201-512-012.13
001-201-512-012.17
001-199-581-099.91
February 12, 2002
•
7.N. Resolution No. 2002-011 HCD Pro
Portion
erties LLC - Release o a
an Easement at 1715 37th Place in W. E. Geo
Subdivision Palm Pointe Pla a 18th Avenue Ri
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 6, 2002:
ht -o -W
•
TO: Jaynes E. Chandler
County Administrator
MFNT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
•
. t_
•.ert M. Keating, • CP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois', AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
Sr Code Enforcement
. 41 I.
FROM:
DATE:
Kelly Zedek
Code Enforcement Officer
2/6/02
RE HCD Properties, LLC Request for Release of a Portion of an Easement at 1715
37th Place in W.E. Geoffrey Subdivision (Palm Pointe Plaza)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 12, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by William McCain, P E , on behalf of HCD Properties, LLC,
owner of a parcel at 1715 37th Place, for release of a 15 foot -wide portion of a 40 foot -wide
drainage and utility easement The subject easement exists over an abandoned portion of 18th
Avenue right-of-way; the easement was retained by the County when it abandoned the right-of-way
in 1999 (per County Resolution 99-119).
The purpose of the easement release request is for the construction of Palm Pointe Plaza, an urgent
care facility. On October 25, 2001, the County Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) approved
the urgent care facility site plan, contingent upon the County approving the requested release of
easement (see attached map).
ALTERNATIVES ANT) ANALYSIS
The request has been reviewed by Bell South Communications; Florida Power Sc. Light Corporation;
T.C.I. Cable Corporation; the Indian River County Utilities Department; the County Road & Bridge
and Engineering Divisions; and the County surveyor. None of the utility providers or 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 utilities being
supplied to the subject properties or to other properties.
February 12, 2002
25
I3 I
i� `.r
re
•
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through adoption of the attached resolution, release the drainage
and utility easement, as more particularly described in said resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed County Resolution Abandoning Easement
2. Map depicting easement proposed for release
3. County Resolution 99-119
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) adopted Resolution No. 2002-011 releasing
a portion of an Easement retained over an abandoned portion of
18th Avenue right-of-way in W. E Geoffrey Subdivision.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - 011
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELEASING
A PORTION OF AN EASEMENT RETAINED OVER AN ABANDONED
PORTION OF 1STH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN W.E. GEOFFREY
SUBDIVISION
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an interest in a drainage and utility easement retained
on an abandoned road right-of-way in W E Geoffrey 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:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State
of Florida, whose :nailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to
HCD PROPERTIES LLC
3790 7TH TERRACE, STE 202
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
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 east fifteen feet of the forty foot wide drainage and utility easement retained over an
abandoned portion of 18th Avenue right-of-way as depicted on the plat of W E. Geoffrey
Subdivision, PBS 2-32, in accordance with the right-of-way abandonment per County Resolution
99-119, recorded in OR. Book 1303, Page 2784, Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
February 12, 2002
•
i.
26
•
F �s
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht
by Commissioner4dams , and adopted on the 12th day of
Februar 2002, by the following vote:
Commissioner Ruth M. Stanbridge
Commissioner John W. Tippin
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Absent
Axe _
Ave
Axe_
Ave
,seconded
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 1 2th day of
, 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIA, R COUNTY, FLOI3JDA
By 41111.IIr///ip.
Joh{ W. tppin Vice C airman
Attested BS/ I
Deputy Clerk
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 12th day of Febr nary_
2002, by JOHN W. TIPPfPN , as Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County Florida rind bypATRICIA. "PJ" JONES
Deputy Clerk for JEFFREY K.
BARTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, who are
personally known to me.
NOTARY PUBLIC
Printed Nan
Commission No.:
Commission Expiration:
Kimberly E Massung
= • w r MYCOMMISSION * CC855436 EXPIRES
'Caw. :,,i
�P,f,tti BONDED THRtluy 15, 2003
n!eY FMN IR9HNN1Cf, INC
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
William G. Collins II
Deputy County Attoiney
February 12, 2002
PROPOSED 15' WIDE
EASEMENT RELEASE
EXISTING 8• PVC SEWER
MATCH EDGE OF PAVEMENT
ONST. 20 L.F. 17 CMP
NST.
CONST. TYPE C INLET
GRATE ELEV. = 24.60
INV. ELEV. = 22.80
2.4' LAN
PROPOSED 5' EASEM
20' ABANDONED
RICHT OF WAY
OF 18TH AVENUE
AS RECORDED W
OFFICAL RECORD
BOOK 1303.
PAGE 2784.
TYPE INLET
GRAT = 26.60
A INV,
CONST. SHALLOW SWALE
OVER PIPE. GRADE TO
DRAIN TO INLETS.
TOP }LSF
BANK
CONST. 168 L.F.
141x23' ERCP
CA
MED
20' P
TO BE ELOCAT
6PALM.
R5.5 TO BE REL ED
TYPE
GRATE
INV. =
CONST. TYPE C`NLET
GRATE ELEV. 24.H0
INV.
ELEV.I22.80
80
CONST-Ini F 08'-[iCp y4
1.. .•.. 15EX1cT:PIPE
tuC
S ' UC INI
CIN
February 12, 2002
7.0. North Coun Re : Tonal Park - Pool Construction -
Weller Pool
Constructors Inc. - Chan ' e Order No. 1
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 5, 2002:
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, Jr., County Engine
SUBJECT: North County Regional Park, Pool Constriction - IRC Project 49926
WELLER POOL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
DATE: February 5, 2002
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
At the November 20, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board approved the award
of North County Regional Park, Pool Construction to Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. in the amount
of $2,061,967.00
Included in that contract, Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. was to purchase all equipment. At this time,
we are proposing in this Change Order No. 1, that Indian River County purchase some equipment
directly, thereby reducing this contract amount by $406,175.76. This direct purchase process will
save the 7% sales tax on this equipment (an overall savings of $26 572.24).
Also, we recommend changing the two Stantrol System 4 Automatic Chemical Controllers to
Stantrol System 5 Automatic Chemical Controllers for in increase in contract amount of $1,182.00.
This would make the controllers at Gifford Youth Activity Center Pool Complex and North County
Park Pool Complex compatible. Also the Stantrol System 5 has many advantages over the System 4
as indicated on the attached letter from CES dated January 14, 2002.
The total change in the contract amount will be a decrease of $404,993.76.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the board approve Change Order No. 1 to reduce the contract price by
$404,993.76.
ATTACHMENTS
Change Order No. 1
Letter from CES dated January 14, 2002
Letter from Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. dated January 11, 2002
February 12, 2002
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) approved Change Order No. 1 to reduce the
contract price with Weller Pool Constructors, Inc., by
$404,993.76, as recommended in the memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
9.A. PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004 MODIYING
APPEAL REVIEW CRITERIA AND STANDARDIZING AP
TIMEFRAMES Le I islative PEAL
PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of February 4, 2002:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
arl
• o.ert M. Keating, P
Community Development
6 r
FROM: Stan Boling/J C
�, AI
CP
Planning Director
1
rector
DATE: February 4, 2002
SUBJECT: Request to Amend Sections 902.07, 914.06(6), 914.13, 913.07(4)(G), and
902 12(4)(d) & (e) of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) to Modify
Review Criteria and Standardize Timeframes for Appeals of Planning and
Zoning Commission and/or Staff Decisions
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its meeting of February 12, 2002.
February 12, 2002
30
7 0
+3
thAr
B ACKGROUND:
tl:
B ased upon the county's experience during the Last few years of processing appeals of staff and/or
Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) decisions, the County Attorneys Office and the
Community Development Department have concluded that the current appeal requirements as
reflected in the existing land development regulations (LDRs) are inadequate . In staffs opinion,
changes are needed to more closely reflect changes in case law that have evolved since the existing
appeal requirements were drafted, years ago.
To address this issue, Community Development and Attorney's Office staff have jointly drafted
proposed changes to the existing review criteria and timeframes applicable to appeals. The proposed
amendment was reviewed by the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) at its July 28
2001 meeting. At that meeting, the PSAC voted 7-0 to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the proposed changes (see attachment #1). Subsequently, the proposed
amendment was considered by the PZC at its December 13, 2001 meeting at a public hearing That
hearing was continued to the January 24, 2002 PZC meeting to allow for continued discussion (see
attachment #2). Subsequent to the December 13, 2001 meeting, staff revised the proposed
amendment to include some suggestions and address some concerns expressed at the December 13'°
meeting. At its January 24, 2002 meeting, the PZC considered the revised proposal and voted 6-0
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopt the revised proposal (see
attachment #3). That same ordinance amendment proposal is now to be considered by the Board,
and the Board is to adopt, adopt with modification, or deny the amendment.
ANALYSIS:
• Need for Change
The current appeals requirements were drafted and last reviewed more than 10 years ago, prior to
the 1991 Jennings v. Dade County court case. The decision in that case, along with subsequent case
law, has changed the "ground rules" for the way most local governmentdecisions are made
regarding development applications and related requests, including appeals. The principal change
involves the treatment of appeals as "quasi-judicial" matters. Such matters are now required to be
reviewed in teams of how existing laws and regulations are to be properly applied to a given
development application or request. Thus, quasi-judicial review of appeals must focus on
deteiniining whether or not existing laws and regulations have been properly complied with by a
given application/request.
In contrast to quasi-judicial matters, certain types of land use decisions are "legislative" in nature.
Applications and requests that pertain to establishing new policy, law, or regulations are considered
legislative. Thus LDR amendments (such as the one now proposed) are legislative matters because
such amendments establish rules. Likewise, applications for land use amendments, some rezonings,
and planned developments are considered legislative because such items involve establishing rules
that apply generally to future development of all properties. Local governments have broader
discretion when considering legislative matters because such matters involve the making of rules or
polices or regulations. When considering appeals, however, the county's discretion is not broad.
Although appeals of decisions are now considered quasi-judicial, certain current LDR appeal
requirements do not reflect the quasi-judicial nature of appeals. Simply put, some of the current
review criteria applicable to appeals are too broad and must be changed to appropriately guide the
county's appeals decisions. Therefore, staff is proposing changes that will focus the appeal decision
on a deteimination of whether or not the subject application/request complies with the existing
regulations. In addition, the proposed changes will standardize appeal timeframes for all types of
application/requests.
February 12, 2002
31
EI:( j 2 G 5 7 7
•
• Proposed Changes
Five sections of the LDRs are proposed to be changed. These sections relate to appeals in general
(section 902.07), appeals involving site plans (section 914.06(6) and section 914.13), appeals
involving preliminary plats (section 913.07(4)(G)), and appeals of PZC decisions to deny rezoning
applications One proposed change involves the use of a standard timeframe for submission of
appeals. The change proposed would create a standard "21 days" timeframe to replace and
standardize the variety of existing general appeal and development application appeal timeframes
which currently include "15 day", "30 day', and ` 10 working day' timeframes. No change is
proposed to the existing 45 day timeframe allowed for appeals or rLL aecisions to aeny rezoning
applications. Those types of appeals are regulated in LDR section 902.12(4) and should have the
longer timeframe (45 days) which is consistent with other rezoning timeframes.
Another section of proposed changes relates to the appeal review criteria of LDR section 902.07(4).
Such criteria are used by the body that is reviewing an appeal (the PZC and Board) and forms the
basis for the appeal decision. The proposed changes will result in review criteria that focus on
determining whether or not existing regulations have been properly applied to a given
application/request and whether or not the application/request complies with those regulations. The
appeal review criteria of LDR section 902 07(4) contain the four types of findings that the reviewing
body (PZC or Board) is to make in regard to the decision being appealed. The main problem with
the existing appeal review criteria is item 902 07(4)(c) [see pg. 3 of attachment #4]. That item, as
currently written, improperly provides broad "legislative' discretion to a "quasi-judicial ' matter. In
essence, that item can lead the reviewing body to try to decide what might be a better way to regulate
development in a general area, rather than deciding whether or not existing regulations have been
properly applied to a specific request. Deciding what is best for an area is an important and a high
level decision that is made at the Comprehensive Plan and LDR level. However, such broad policy
decisions cannot be properly applied to a specific application/request made under a given set of
regulations. Therefore, item 4c needs to be changed to narrow the finding criterion to address
whether or not specific LDRs were properly applied to the subject request. Such a change is
proposed in the revised ordinance. Also, the revised wording of 4c now references the fact that there
are specific LDRs that address effects on surrounding properties, traffic circulation, and public
health, safety and welfare.
At its December 13`h meeting, the PZC discussed its role in exercising judgement on matters that it
considers, including general appeals. The proposed appeal review criteria of section 902.07(4) do
leave room for judgement in each of the four types of findings proposed. Such judgements have
been part of appeals heard by the PZC over the last 3 years. Various types of judgements are
appropriate and even required under the proposed criteria. In regard to following proper procedures
(existing and proposed criterion "a") such a criterion was critical in the Pyc fence and
Collins/O'Haire dock appeals. In regard to deteiinining whether or not an applicant had
demonstrated compliance with the LDRs (proposed criterion "c"), such a judgement was central to
the PZC s decision on the O'Haire dock and the 2P Century (communication tower) appeals. The
proposed cnteria also require that the reviewing body judge whether or not the proper use regulations
were applied to a particular decision (proposed criterion "b '), and whether or not a decision was
based upon an error (proposed criterion "d"). Thus, the proposed modifications will require
judgements to be made and will afford opportunities for new infonuation and con-ections, all within
the context of the applicable LDRs.
February 12, 2002
32
v�5
ITA
3e
•
Another proposed change would eliminate a comprehensive plan policy review component of the
general appeals review criteria. Appeals are to be narrowly focused on the application of land
development regulations which are the mechanism for implementing comprehensive plan policies
Therefore, matters under appeal must be reviewed for compliance with the land development
regulations, which are themselves required to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, rather than
for compliance with general policies. The proposed amendment deletes the comprehensive plan
consistency review criterion and replaces it with a new criterion relating to erroneous or incorrect
information. The new criterion would allow for decisions to be overturned on appeal if those
decisions were based upon erroneous or incorrect information. Such a criterion would specifically
allow for a correction of the "facts" or analysis related to compliance with applicable land
development regulations.
Also, section 5 of the proposed ordinance (see pg. 6 of attachment #4) separately addresses appeals
of PZC decisions to deny rezoning requests. Such appeals are currently addressed in a separate
section from general appeals and are not subject to the four findings/review criteria of section
902.07(4). Historically, such zoning appeals have been heard by the Board in the same manner as
the Board hears rezoning requests that are recommended for approval by the PZC. To codify this
historical practice, the proposed amendment specifies that appeals of PZC decisions to deny
rezonings are to be heard by the Board "de novo" (like a new matter).
In summary, the proposed changes to appeal requirements are necessary to comply with quasi-
judicial review requirements. The modifications are supported by staff and the PZC, and will
appropriately narrow the scope of general appeals to focus on whether or not the decision under
appeal was based on the proper application of the appropriate LDRs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed ordinance to modify
LDR appeal requirements.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Excerpt from PSAC Minutes of June 28, 2001 Meeting
2. Minutes from December 13, 2001 PZC Meeting
3. Minutes from January 24, 2002 PZC Meeting
4. Proposed LDR Amendment Ordinance
Director Boling also reviewed the appeal criteria as on page 3 of the proposed
ordinance in the backup for the meeting.
(a) Did the reviewing official or commission fail to follow the appropriate review
procedures s.ecified in the Land develo.ment re•ulations?
(b) Did the reviewing official or commission :
fail to ro.erly _ ._e and dimension recrulations for the res
°•°
a..lv the •� =-
zoning districts
(c) Did the reviewing official or commission fail to
February 12, 2002
e 41. a•
a - -
--' •
4111 •
33
• ::
ell
•: -
•
•
- - •
g 2 i b
ective
•
4
fi
- • i
•
•
• ro
s ecific land develo•ment regulationfic re
] e
address effects on surrounding •ro•ernes traffic circulation
and welfarel
•
•
erlv a 1 the criteria of n a
including those s
••
•
•
••
licable
ulations that
ublic health safety
(d) Did the reviewing official or commission base its decision on erroneous or
incorrect infoiniation as related to an a licable land develo•ment re•ulahon
re uirement? -
•
•
••
• •• --
•e. • :-
• -
• • • - • • • • - �•
•
• -w
• •
Director Boling advised of a correction on the PZC vote concerning this matter; it
was not 6-0 as stated in the memorandum, but was in fact 5-1.
Vice Chairman Tippin asked if the Commissioners had any questions of staff; there
were none.
Vice Chairtnan Tippin opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be
heard in this matter.
Ralph Evans, 1420 Shorelands Drive West, was pleased this ordinance was being
proposed but felt that more needed to be done. To accompany his remarks, he gave the
Commissioners handouts ofFlorida Supreme Court decisions (copies on file with the backup
of the meeting) on Brevard County v Jack R. Snyder and Broward County v GB V
International, Ltd He expounded on sections of each handout to support his comments for
changing how appeals are handled in Indian River County. He suggested the Board should
consider that the Supreme Court of Florida is looking uniform administration of the law.
He outlined the procedures for development here in Indian River County. He submitted
there is a certain burden ofproof which shifts between a landowner and county government.
When corning into an appeal hearing, the staff and the landowner have reached an agreement
and then it comes to a hearing for public comment. In these hearings, one of the Court's
February 12, 2002
34
p r'
z
0
•
ti
yo;
tests is that a decision made in a quasi-judicial proceeding must be based on sub
stantial
competent evidence. He theorized that testimony during the public comment i these
appeals is often not based on evidence but on what people want or do not wantn these
see in their neighborhood. He to have or
also believed there should be a provision for the attorney
representing the landowner to cross-examine each speaker in a quasi-judicial proceedin .
This causes an area of confusion which he felt should be cured. He also queried g
the right to take an appeal, because he felt the wording was confusingwho had
broad. a nd perhaps too
Mr. Evans responded to questions of Commissioner Ginn concerning public input
and Commissioner Macht's comments about his thoughts that the Commissioners we
elected to make decisions and rely on the staffs recommendations. Commissioner ere
ht
also believed that reliance on the recommendations should not preclude the C inners
from hearing testimony and forming their decisions based on such. Commissioner acht
mir Macfht
felt the court was getting into a legislative role where it did not belong.
Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins addressed some of the
r
Evans raised. He had found in defending some of the lawsuits brought against isthesues that
that by looking over the transcripts of the meetings it is possible to fin the County,
by speakers. He also believed the public could bring informationd evidence brought
not considered, yet would effect someone else's property or to a hearing that staff had
P ty their life on that property.
Commissioner Ginn pointed out the decision in one of the Supreme Court cases was
not unanimous and read aloud the opinion of the dissenting judge.
Melissa Webster, 2525 14th Street, Vero Beach, felt some of the decision-making
power of the Board would be taken away. The Commissioners were elected to listen to their
constituents and make decisions. She urged them to continue to accept that responsibility.
p ty.
February 12, 2002
r
t=1
35
1.111 i ti
410
Bill Glynn, 1802 Barefoot Place, reminded the Board that Mr Evans had represented
a developer some time ago and the Commissioners were able to make a decision based upon
input received from citizens who lived nearby. He urged the Board not to give up their
power as a governing body to protect the people from over -development.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and Vice Chairman Tippin
closed the public hearing.
Vice Chairman Tippin recalled that he was on the Planning and Zoning Commission
12 years ago and thanks to our fine staff with their fine minds, the PZC members felt they
had covered every possible scenario; then someone would come forward with a new slant.
He believed Commissioners and staff are only human and cannot think of everything.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) rejected the revisions with the exception of
the timetables and adopted Ordinance No. 2002-004 modifying
appeal review criteria and standardizing appeal timeframes,
amending the following chapters of the Land Development
Regulations (LDRS): Chapter 902, Administrative Mechanisms;
Chapter 914, Site Plan Review and Approval Procedures;
Chapter 913 Subdivisions and Plats; and providing for repeal of
conflicting provisions, codifications, severability and effective
date.
February 12, 2002
36
B"
i`1
•
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MODIFYING
APPEAL REVIEW CRITERIA AND STANDARIZING APPEAL TIMEFRAMES,
AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS (LDRS): CHAPTER 902, ADMINISTRATIVE MECHANISMS;
CHAPTER 914, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND APROVAL PROCEDURES
CHAPTER 913 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLATS AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL
OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS
FOLLOWS:
1. GENERAL APPEAL CRITERIA [902.07]
LDR Section 902.07, Appeals from decisions of the community development director or his
designee, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(1) Purpose and intent. This section is established to provide a mechanism for the hearing
and resolution of appeals of decisions or actions by the community development director
or his designee and for further appeals from decisions and actions from the planning and
zoning commission.
(2) Authorization.
(a) The planning and zoning commission of Indian River County shall be authorized
to:
1. Hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that there is an error in any
order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the community
development director or his designee in the application and enforcement of
the provisions of the land development regulations.
2. Hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that there is an error in the
interpretation or application of a provision(s) of these land development
regulations in relation to a development application. Decisions rendered
by the planning and zoning commission may be appealed to the board of
county commissioners which shall have the power to hear and decide such
appeals.
(b) Upon appeal and in conformance with land development regulations, the planning
and zoning commission in exercising its powers may reverse or affirm wholly or
partly or may modify the order, requirement, decision, interpretation, application
or determination of the community development director or his designee.
Coding: Words in utrib thr ugh are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
February 12, 2002
37
U1‘
1
#a^U.'
•
(3)
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004
(c) Any action reversing the community development director's decision shall require
four (4) affirmative votes of the planning and zoning commission.
Appeal procedures.
(a) The applicant, or any other person(s) whose substantial interests may be affected
during the development review process may initiate an appeal.
(b) Appeals must be filed within fifteen (15) twenty-one (21) days from the date of
notification letter rendering the decision by the respective official. Appeals may
be concurrent with requests for approval of a development application(s).
An appeal must be filed within the specified time limit with the planning division
on a form prescribed by the county. All such appeals shall recite the reasons such
an appeal is being taken. The appeal should identify: the error alleged; the
ordinance allegedly improperly interpreted or the requirement decision or order
allegedly improperly issued; the land development regulations supporting the
applicant's position; and the goals, objectives and/or policies of the
comprehensive plan supporting the applicant's position The appeal shall be
accompanied by a fee to be determined by resolution of the board of county
commissioners. The community development director shall schedule the appeal at
the earliest available meeting of the planning and zoning commission.
(d) Notice of the appeal, in writing, shall be mailed by the planning division to the
owners of all land which abuts the property upon which an appeal is sought, at least
seven (7) days prior to the hearing. The property appraiser's address for said owners
shall be used in sending all such notices. The notice shall contain the name of the
applicant for the appeal, a description of the land sufficient to identify it, a
description of the appeal requested, as well as the date, time and place of the hearing.
(e) All appeals shall be heard at a meeting of the planning and zoning commission.
All interested parties shall have a right to appear before the planning and zoning
commission and address specific concerns directly related to the appeal. Any
person may appear by agent or attorney. All such hearings shall be conducted in
compliance with the rules of procedure for the planning and zoning commission.
The time and place scheduled for hearing shall be given to the applicant in writing
after an appeal application is submitted.
(4) Action by the planning and zoning commission; findings of fact. At the hearing scheduled
for the purpose of considering the appeal, the planning and zoning commission may, in
conformity with the provisions of law and these land development regulations, uphold,
development director or his designee from whom the appeal is taken. In reviewing an
appeal of a decision by the community development director or his designee, the planning
and zoning commission must make findings in the following areas-
Coding:
reasCoding: Words in .,trike through are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
(c)
February 12, 2002
ele
38
117 9 !
ii 9 C.
2
•
a3
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004
•
(a) Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures?
(b) Did the reviewing official or commission fail to properly apply the use or size and
dimension regulations for the respective zoning district(s)?
(c) Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed
development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health,
safety and welfare?
(d) Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the
comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County'?
The decision of the planning and zoning commission shall be final unless further
appealed. Not withstanding findings (a) through (d) above, the planning and zoning commission
may make additional findings of fact.
(5)
Further appeals from actions by the planning and zoning commission. At any time within
thirty (30) twenty-one (21) days following action by the planning and zoning
commission, the applicant the county administration, or any department thereof, or any
other person whose substantial interests may be affected by the proceeding may seek
review of such decision by the board of county commissioners. The decision of the board
of county commissioners shall be final At the hearing scheduled for the purpose of
considering an appeal of the planning and zoning commission s action, the board of
county commissions may, in confoimity with the provisions of law and these land
development regulations, uphold amend, or reverse wholly or partly, the decision by the
planning and zoning commission which is being appealed. Further appeals Appeals of
planning and zoning commission decisions to deny rezoning applications are regulated in
section 902.12. All other types of appeals to the Board of County Commissioners shall be
followed in accordance with the same provisions of appeal procedures to the planning
and zoning commission, section 902.07(3), and the Boird of County Commissioners shall
review the appeals with respect to the findings criteria of section 902.07(4). Any action
by the board of county commissioners reversing a planning and zoning commission
decision shall require three (3) affirmative votes.
(6) Effect offtling an appeal. The filing of an appeal shall terminate all proceedings which
further the action appealed until the appeal is resolved, except when the halting of such
action poses a threat to life or property The planning and zoning commission shall make
this determination. Notwithstanding this provision, proceedings involving review of a
development application may proceed when an appeal of an administrative decision has
been filed and will be considered concurrent with the development application request.
(7)
Transmittal of the record. Staff shall forthwith compile and transmit to the planning and
zoning commission all infoiniation documented which constitutes the record of action
from which the appeal is taken."
Coding: Words in .trikc thr ugh are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
February 12, 2002
3
39
E3`( ! 2 116 0 5
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004
(Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 91-7, § 2, 2-27-91; Ord. No. 93-29, §§ 8A, 8B, 9-7-93)
2. SITE PLAN APPEALS [914.06(6)1
LDR Section 914.06(6) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(6) Planning and zoning commission decision. The planning and zoning commission shall
consider each site plan application scheduled for consideration by the TRC and shall base
its decision on the use, size and dimension regulations for the respective zoning district,
the. site review standards established herein and all other applicable land development
regulations, and comprehensive plan policies. The planning and zoning commission may
impose conditions on-site plan approval which ensure compliance with all applicable land
development regulations and comprehensive plan policies.
(a) All site plan application decisions of the planning and zoning commission for uses
not requiring special exception approval are final unless appealed in accordance
with the provisions of Section 914.13 and 902.07."
3. SITE PLAN APPEALS [914.13)
LDR Section 914.13, appeals of decisions regarding site plans, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Appeals of site plan decisions rendered by the community development director or by
the technical review committee (TRC) may be made in accordance with the provisions of section
902.07, "Appeals from decisions of the community development director or his designee".
Appeals of planning and zoning commission site plan decisions may be filed by:
(1) The applicant;
(2) County administration;
(3) Any aggrieved person or group with an interest that will be affected by the
project.
An appeal of a planning and zoning commission decision on a site plan must be filed with
the community development department within twenty-one (21) ten (10) working days of the
meeting wherein the decision appealed was rendered. Upon receipt of an appeal from the
appellant, the county administrator will place the site plan application and all recommendations
on the agenda of a regularly scheduled meeting of the board of county commissioners for
consideration within thirty (30) days. The board of county commissioners will conduct a de novo
hearing. The procedures of section 902.07 (3) shall apply and the Board of County
Commissioners shall make findings with respect to the critena of section 902.07(4).Any
appellant must receive three (3) affirmative votes from the board of county commissioners to
prevail in the appeal."
Coding: Words in strike through are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
February 12, 2002
40
4
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004
4. PRELIMINARY PLAT APPEALS [913.07(4)(G)]
LDR Section 913.07(4)(G) is hereby amended to read as follows:
"(G) The Board of County Commissioner's consideration of appeals of planning and
zoning commission preliminary plat decisions. An appeal may be filed by:
(1) The applicant;
(2) County administration;
(3)
Any aggrieved person or group with an interest that will be affected by the
project.
An appeal of a decision on a preliminary plat must be filed with the community development
department within twenty-one (21) ten (10) working days of the meeting wherein the decision
appealed was rendered. Upon receipt of an appeal from the applicant, the county administrator will
place the preliminary plat application and all recommendations on the agenda of a regularly
scheduled meeting of the board of county commissioners for consideration within thirty (30) days.
The board of county commissioners will conduct a de novo hearing. The procedures of section
902.07(3) shall apply and the Board of County Commissioners shall make finding with respect to
the criteria of section 902.07(4). Any appellant must receive three (3) affirmative votes from the
board of county commissioners "
5. APPEALS OF PLANNING A_\D ZONING COMMISSION REZONING APPLICATION
DENIALS [902 12(4)(d) & (e)]
LDR Section 902.12(4)(d) and (e) are hereby amended to read as follows:
" (d) Appeals of decisions by the planning and zoning commission to deny a rezoning
application. Any applicant who is aggrieved by a decision of the county planning and zoning
commission regarding denial of a rezoning application may file a written notice of intent to appeal
the county planning and zoning commission decision with the director of the community
development department, the chairman of the county planning and zoning commission, and the
chairman of the board of county commissioners. Such appeal must be filed within fifteen (15)
twenty-one (21) days of the decision of the county planning and zoning commission.
(e) Action by the Board of County Commissioners. Upon receipt of the recommendations
from the county planning and zoning commission, or upon receipt of a written notice of of intent
to appeal, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the proposed change, amendment or
rezoning application and appeal within forty-five (45) days of the submission of said
recommendations or written notice of intent to appeal, at an advertised public hearing as required
by F.S. 125.66. An appeal of a denial of a rezoning application shall be heard de novo.
Coding: Words in .,trikc through are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
February 12, 2002
41
5
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004
6. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special Acts of the legislature applying only to the
unincorporated portion of the Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
7. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word
` Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions.
8. Severability
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining
portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance
without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
9. Effective Date
This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 30th day of January ,
2002, for a public hearing to be held on the 12`h day of February , 2002, at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner Ginn , and
adopted by the following vote:
The ordinance was adopted by a vote of:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Absent
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Gim1 Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Coding: Words in strike through are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
February 12, 2002
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-004
The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 12`h day of
February , 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Attest: J.K. Barton, C
f2 KJL 1
Deputy Clerk
By:
Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman
Filed with the Florida Department of State on the
2002.
Deputy County Attorney
APPROVED AS TO PLANING MATTERS
B1( i f 1 P.:40 ' Cl
Coding: Words in -'-'moi rough are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions.
FILESERVER\PUBLIC\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDIANCE\90207-91406-91413-91307.DOC
9.B.1. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM SHELLY
FERGER TO DISCUSS ANIMAL CONTROL SITUATION
The Board reviewed a letter of February 4, 2002 and a memorandum of February 6,
2002:
Shelly Ferger
P.O. Box 650023
Vero Beach, FL 32965
(561) 567-8969
February 4, 2002
Fran Adams
Caroline Ginn
Kenneth Macht
,/Ruth Stanbridge
John Tippin
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
•
Dear Commissioners,
RECEIVED
FEB - <( 200%
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSION DISTRIBUTION LII T
Commiss oners a eJl AJ c
Administratdr'%u `ia_z /
Attorney /
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev
lllilities
Finance
OMB '/
Emerg. Sery i 4r_ kt;1
Risk Mgt.
Other a2-2 -1
y2eiluitcyi (CA frO
This letter is to apprise each of you of a recent situation, within Indian River County, that I believe has placed our children
at considerable risk.
A Pitt Bull Dog mauled the face of a 6 -year-old child; forty stitches were required to close the wound
It is my understanding is that after a 10 day quarantine period, and upon payment of fees, the dog could be returned to its
owner without restriction. Animal Control Authority advised this action because there is not a recorded history of
previous bites by this dog.
When this determination was made, the victim's Father requested that the Indian River County Attorney review the case.
On January 30, 2002, I spoke with John King of Emergency Management and he informed me that the County Attorney
had made the decision to retum the dog to its owner without restriction because the child was trespassing.
For the past twenty years, I have counseled families with biting dogs. As heart wrenching as it can be, sometimes the
family is weeping because of love for their pet. I feel it is my responsibility when dealing with a dog with damaging
potential and has bitten at this degree of severity, to recommend euthanasia. You know that I love animals especially
dogs. But, statistics prove that when a dog bites with this severity, it will bite again and the attack most likely escalates.
Either our ordinance or its interpretation does not protect a 6 -year-old first grader because he does not understand the laws
of trespassing or an unsuspecting citizen when a dog with a documented attack of this severity is allowed to return to our
neighborhoods, without restrictions.
What I consider to be another dangerous policy of the Animal Control Authority involves their officers not responding to
calls concerning dogs at large past 5:00 p.m Although they are on-call during this time, they do not respond unless the
dog has bitten someone. This policy also has the potential for far-reaching consequences.
February 12, 2002
44
B1/
U 90
•
In your opinions, and in order to rectify the above reference problem, does this ordinance need to be rewritten? Or does it
need a different type of enforcement? Whatever the case, I am prepared to present my findings before the fiill
Commission in an effort to persuade them to take the necessary action to protect our children.
Sincerely yours,
Shelly Ferger
TO: James Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: John King, Director J
Department of Emerc• y ervices
DATE: February 6, 2002
SL-B.TECT: Letter from Ms. Shelly Ferger
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide additional information related to the letter
received by the Board of Counry Commissioners from Ms Shelly Ferger dated February 4,
2002. Her transmittal incorporates several issues. The first is the unfortunate dog bite on a
minor child, which occurred on January 12, 2002. Ms. Ferger called me on the morning of
January 30th and identified herself as a canine trainer and a relative of the child who was bit.
Her immediate question related to Animal Control's decision not to euthanize the dog I
explained to her that the dog was removed from the owner and was in the mandatory 10 -day
quarantine. It was the determination of the Animal Control staff that the dog did not meet the
regulatory requisites for declaration as a dangerous/vicious dog. For these reasons, the dog was
not immediately destroyed. I explained that the dog owner also has certain rights in this matter,
and given certain constraints the owner could pay the fines and get his dog back. However, I
further explained that the Animal Control Officers believed that they had an informal agreement
with the owner that would provide the same end result as she requested On February 4, 2002,
without declaring the dog `dangerous/vicious," the dog was euthanized.
Ms. Ferger's second issue suggests that Florida Statute 767 (Damage by Dogs) and County
Ordinance 302 (Animal Control and Kennel Regulations) do not go far enough to protect those
that are attacked or bitten by a dog The authors of the above regulations recognize the number
of canines in their jurisdiction and have found that the Animal Control authority needs some
discretion in the enforcement of these regulations. These regulations are not breed -specific.
Therefore, they must provide some degree of subjectivity in their enforcement. The Animal
Control Director stated to me that approximately 200 dog bites are reported each year in this
county. Animal bites, in general, are emotional issues among the affected parties, so the law
recognizes the need for a balance between the rights of the victims and the dog owners, without
destroying every dog. Dogs without a recorded bite history are treated dtffeiently in many cases
as compared to the second reported bite.
The last issue to be discussed is the availability of Animal Control Officers after noinial business
hours. The Animal Control office is funded to provide for officers on patrol during business
hours. After hours and on weekends and holidays, an on-call Animal Control Officer will
respond to any reported attack or bite and to all injured animals.
February 12, 2002
45
3
1
•
Shelly Ferger, 25 5'h Street, Vero Beach, spoke as a 35 -year resident and a do
trainer. Her sister's stepson is the 6 -year old child who was severely bitten about the face
by a pit bull. She expressed several concerns regarding dog bites and the Animal Control
Department. She described two incidents to enhance one ofher concerns that there is no one
to contact, thus no enforcement, after 5 pm and on weekends The excuse has been budget
restraints and she believed that traditionally animal control has had a low priority. She felt
there needs to be better control of a dog and particularly if a dog shows a potential to do
harm it should not be returned to its owner as she understood was done in this dog -bite case
In her opinion, the dog should have been put down due to the severity of the injury to Evan.
She also thought better records should be kept by the department. She did not want to see
a "breed ban" as has happened in other counties. She was willing to work with any group
the Board might institute to improve this concern. She urged the Board to look into this
issue.
In response to Vice Chairman Tippin's inquiry, Administrator Chandler advised that
the release of animals is spelled out in the ordinance and the dog in question would have
been released to the owner, but he understood the owner had the dog put down. He
understood there was no previous record in Animal Control on that particular dog.
Commissioner Adams recalled the animal control ordinance was reviewed and
discussed at length in 1997 and perhaps it is time to revisit and improve it. She suggested
the working hours of the animal control officers could be staggered. She believed agd
ogs
can be aggressive and no one wanted to see anybody hurt. She has seen where dogs in packs
have killed cows, not a pretty sight. She felt the Board should be able to set the criteria high.
Vice Chairman Tippin suggested that at budget time the Board should look at
improvements in the Animal Control Division.
Commissioner Macht suggested perhaps an interlocal agreement with the Sheriffs
February 12, 2002
46
iT)
ii a L. i
-J
•
office would be beneficial to aid in enforcement. He requested a copy of the report on dog
bite incidents and felt the Board should give this matter priority.
Commissioner Ginn mentioned that each of the Commissioners had seen a copy of
the letter from Thomas J. Montaldo, M.D. about dogs running loose at the beach. (Copy in
backup in office of Clerk to the Board.) She thought leash law enforcement should be
stepped up. She concurred that an interlocal agreement with the Sheriff would be a good
idea.
Andrew Mustapick, 1010 Morningside Drive, advised that it was his son, Evan,
whose face had been bitten by the pit bull. He advised that he was quite emotional about
this problem and expressed his gratitude to County Attorney Paul Bangel who had been
enormously helpful in communication with Animal Control. He thought the Commissioners
were missing the point; the animal control law does not need to be reviewed, but the animal
control department does need to be reviewed. There are three Animal Control Officers in
this county and the budget of that department has not been increased in 8 years in spite of
the county's growth. He believed the law is being used for protection of the animals from
human's harm, but not for protecting humans from harm by the animals. He was very
unhappy that the department had not kept him informed on the disposition of this case as he
had been promised. He admitted to not being "lily-white" because his dog had gotten loose
a couple of times, once because the battery for his electric fence had died.
County Attorney Bangel pointed out that at the time he met with Mr. Mustapick, he
understood an investigation was underway by Animal Control but recommended that more
be done.
Commissioner Ginn was concerned that if a dog mauls a child that our law does not
provide that the animal be put down.
Susan Yount, 4180 70`" Avenue, Vero Beach, stated that animals are frequently
February 12, 2002
47
J
•
"dropped" out her way. She reported about two dogs she had found two different evenings
to illustrate her issue with the fact that Animal Control will not pick up animals after hours.
The Commissioners felt staff had received some direction in this matter, and
Administrator Chandler advised he would review this issue, report to the Board on our
current regulations, what we have and why, and make recommendations. It will be
necessary to look at tuning on after -hour positions. He recalled quite a bit of detail was
addressed a number of years ago and he thought it had been adequately addressed at that
time.
Commissioner Macht pointed out that the County is spending close to half a million
dollars a year between the Humane Society and Animal Control which is a burden put on
the taxpayers by irresponsible pet owners. He suggested, if his colleagues concur, that the
Board ought to think about somewhat assuaging that cost in fines for people who do not
bother to get a license or who require animal control action. If the fines are now so light that
people ignore then, make them heavy enough so that they are not easily ignored such as has
been done with the tree ordinance. He agreed that one bite was sufficient to require a dog
be put down.
Vice Chairman Tippin thought he heard CONSENSUS and that staff had agreed that
this matter will be studied thoroughly and reported back to the Board.
9.B.2. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM BRIAN T.
HEADY TO DISCUSS VARIOUS ISSUES
Vice Chairman Tippin noted that he thought Mr. Heady was unable to be present.
VICE CHAIRMAN TIPPIN CALLED A SHORT RECESS AT
10:31 A.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT
10:37.
February 12, 2002
48
•
9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON FEBRUARY 19, 2002
A. Grand Harbor, LTD - Request for Abandonment of a 6' x
660' Portion of Via Marbella Boulevard Right -of -Way Within Grand
Harbor (Legislative)
B. Channing Corporation - Request to Modify Certain
Approved Conceptual PD Plan Setbacks for a Portion of the Old
Orchid PD Project (Development Located at the NE Corner of Jungle
Trail and CR -510) (Legislative)
9.C.2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON MARCH 5, 2002
A. Central Grove Corp. and Seminole Venture, Inc. - Request
to Rezone Two Adjacent Parcels Containing 20 + 12.8 Acres for a
Total of 32.8 Acres (Quasi -Judicial)
B. Dennis and Olska Forbes - Request to Rezone 3433 Acres
to RM -8 (Located E and S of US#1 and 45th Street)
9.C.3. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON MARCH 12, 2002
Knight Enterprises - Request to Rezone 1.26 Acres to IL
(Located N of Oslo Road and W of 74th Avenue) (Quasi -Judicial)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 28, 2002:
February 12, 2002
49
•
e1 I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
James E. Chandler; County Administrator
DEP
MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
1
pert M. Ketng, CP; Co munity De elopment Director
Sasan Rohani, MCP; Chief, Long -Range Planning S --71-
January 28, 2002
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE FEBRUARY 19, MARCH 5,
AND MARCH 12, 2002, BOARD MEETINGS
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its
regular meeting of February 12, 2002.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
A. Please be advised that the following public hearings have been scheduled for Board consideration at its
February 19, 2002 meeting.
1. Grand Harbor's, LTD. request for an abandonment of a 6' x 660' portion of Via Marbella Boulevard
right-of-way within Grand Harbor. (Legislative)
2. Channing Corporation's request to modify certain approved conceptual PD Plan setbacks for a
portion of the Old Orchid PD project. The development is located at the northeast comer of Jungle
Trail and C.R. 510. (Legislative)
B. Please be advised that the following public hearings have been scheduled for Board consideration at its
March 5, 2002, meeting.
1. Central Grove Corporation and Seminole Venture, Inc.'s request to rezone two adjacent parcels
containing a total of 32.8 acres Both parcels are currently zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to
1 unit/5 acres). The request is to rezone the northern parcel to RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre), and to rezone the southern parcel to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre). The northern parcel is 20 acres in size and is located a quarter mile
north of 26th Street, on the west side of 66t Avenue. The southern parcel is 12.8 acres in size and
is located at the northwest corner of 26th Street and 66`h Avenue. (Quasi -Judicial)
Dennis and Olska Forbes' request to rezone 34.33 acres from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (up to 6 units/acre), to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential Distnct (up to 8 units/acre) The
subject property is located 700 feet east of US 1, on the south side of 45`h Street. (Quasi -Judicial)
Please be advised that the following public hearing has been scheduled for Board consideration at its
March 12,2002, meeting.
1. Knight Enterprises' request to rezone 1.26 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5
acres) to IL, Light Industrial. The subject property is located 717 feet north of 9`h St SW (Oslo Road)
and approximately half a mile west of 74th Ave. (Quasi -Judicial)
February 12, 2002
50
•
RECOMMENDATION
The above referenced public hearing notice is provided for the Board's information. No action is needed.
County Attorney Paul Bangel read the above title into the record.
11.B. ACCEPTANCE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE GRANT FUNDING AND APPROVAL OF
EXPENDITURES - BID #4043 - DON REID FORD, INC.
(2002 FORD WINDSTAR VAN)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 29, 2002:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: John King, Director
Department of Emergency Se es
FROM: Nathan McCollum, Emergency Management Coordinator
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: January 29, 2002
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Emergency Management Performance Grant Funding and Approval of
Expenditures.
On September 4, 2001, the Board approved the State Funded Sub -grant Agreement (contract number 02CP-
04 10 40 01 031) which provides state and federal disaster preparedness finding. This year, the agreement
included the Emergency Management Preparedness Agreement (EMPA) and the Emergency Management
Performance Grant (EMPG), formally known as the State & Local Agreement. Both of these grants are
awarded annually to every county m Florida in order to enhance the capability of the local Emergency
Management agency.
On August 7, 2001, the Board approved the FY 01/02 Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Agreement
(contract number 02CP-11-10-40-22-023) and deferred expenditures until EMPG approval. The September
4, 2001, approved agreement included funding in the amount of $102,974.00 for salaries and benefits from the
EMPA. It did not include the EMPG funding because the United States Congress had not approved the 2002
budget. We have received notice from the Florida Division ofEmergency Management that the EMPG funding
has been passed by Congress and is now available for county emergency management expenditures. The
funding now available is $31,828.00 from EMPG and $4,259.00 from Hazardous Materials Emergency
Planning Agreement. Total funding available is $36,087.00.
In November 2001, the vehicle used by Emergency Management staff was hit and severely damaged by a
careless driver. The insurance company declared the vehicle a total loss. The county received from the
February 12, 2002
51
r97
•
insurance company of the other vehicle, $3,660.50 as the settlement for our vehicle. These funds are to be
used toward the purchase of a replacement Emergency Management vehicle. Using these funds for the
purchase of a vehicle, total funding available is $39,747.50
The following is a List of items earmarked for this agreement which will further enhance the Emergency
Management Divisions ability to adequately respond to and recover from disaster events:
2002 Ford Windstar Van -Bid #4043 $21,183.00 ($17,522.50 from grant
$3,660.50 from ins. settlement)
Jaguar 700P ProVoice Scan Portable 800MHz Radio $ 1,597.50
Radio Programming, Vehicle Charger, and Installation, etc. $ 837.00
Light bar, Siren, Controller, & Installation $ 1,690.50
Required Emergency Management Conference Travel $ 6,000.00
Lettering For Vehicle & Special Needs Trailer $ 3,039.50
Replacement Laptop Computers For E.O.C. (5) $ 5,000.00
HPLJ 1200 Graphics Printer $ 400.00
Total $39,747.50
Salaries are used as the county match for the EMPG. Therefore, no additional county funds are needed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board accept the funding provided by the Emergency Management Performance Grant
and approve the above listed expenditures to be funded from the Emergency Management Performance Grant,
Hazardous Matenals Emergency Planning Agreement, and damaged vehicle insurance payment. Furthermore,
staff recommends awarding IRC Bid #4043 seven passenger van to Don Reid Ford, Inc., as the sole bidder
meeting the specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
ATTACHMENTS:
Award letter from Department of Community Affairs/Division of Emergency Management.
Bid Packet for IRC Bid #4043 seven passenger van
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) accepted the funding provided by the
Emergency Management Performance Grant and approved the
expenditures as listed in the memorandum to be funded from
February 12, 2002
52
Jr^
•
•
the Emergency Management Performance Grant, Hazardous
Materials Emergency Planning Agreement, and damaged
vehicle insurance payment; awarded Bid #4043 for a 7 -
passenger van to Don Reid Ford, Inc., as the sole bidder
meeting the specifications as set forth in the invitation to bid; as
recommended in the memorandum.
DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
11.G. JOINT COUNTY/SCHOOL DISTRICT FLEET
MAINTENANCE COMPLEX - PROJECT NO. 9820 - RFQ FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK AUTHORIZED
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 4, 2002:
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
c
THROUGH: James W. Davis P.E.
Public Works Director
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.c6(
Capital Projects Manager
FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E.
Project Engineer
SUBJECT:
C,=
1
Joint County/School District
Fleet Maintenance Complex
IRC Project No. 9820
Construction Delivery Methods
DATE: February 4, 2002
D ESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The aesign and
D istrict Fleet
are complete.
g eneral contractor to execute the
Construction Manager at Risk (CMR).
construction documents for the joint County/School
Maintenance Complex located on South Gifford Road
There are two viable methods available
construction,
February 12, 2002
53
to select a
low -bid or
USC i 21 PG`A 9
•
r.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
Our local community of large general contractors seem to prefer the
CMR method and some no longer participate in any low -bid projects.
The City of Vero Beach, the School District and the County are all
currently using CMR contractors and are having success with them:
One of the advantages of this method of contracting is the
opportunity to evaluate and revise the project scope and
specifications to achieve a Guaranteed Maximum Price which is
acceptable to the Owner. This project is somewhat complex in that
it consists of several structures on two sites and requires that
existing operations continue to function throughout the entire
construction period. The project also contains a fueling depot,
which is a fairly unusual and specialized facility. The CMR method
with a negotiated GMP, is a good way to address these issues.
ALTERNATIVE #1
Publish a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) from Construction
Manager at Risk firms, evaluate the responses, "short list" the
respondents, and negotiate a CMR contract with the top-ranked
company.
ALTERNATIVE #2
Advertise for bids, evaluate the submissions, and contract with
lowest responsive/responsible bidder
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends alternative #1. We believe that we will get the
most participation from local contractors and will be best able to
control project costs with a CMR contract.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) authorized staff to publish a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) from Construction Manager at Risk firms,
evaluate the responses, "short list" the respondents, and
negotiate a CMR contract with the top-ranked company, as
recommended in the memorandum. (Alternative #1)
February 12, 2002
54
1
500
•
11.H.1. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-012 - SEBASTIAN WATER
EXPANSION PHASES II -D & II -E (RESOLUTION IV) - FINAL
ASSESSMENT
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 1, 2002:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
P REPARED
AND STAFFED
B Y:
SUBJECT:
FEBRUARY 1, 2002
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
W. ERIKOLSON
DIRECTOR OF UTIL �� RVICES
U
JAMES D. CHAS
MANAGER OF AS
DEPARTMENT OF
1.
NT PROJECTS
LITY SERVICES
SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION PHASES II -D & II -E
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NOS. UW -97 -13 -DS & UW -97 -14 -DS
RESOLUTION IV -FINAL ASSESSMENT
B ACKGROUND
On May 2, 2000, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution III, Number 2000-
055 for the combined Phases II -D & II -E for the preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced project.
Construction of the project has been completed and property owners have been notified that the water lines are
available for connection and connections have begun (See attached copy of minutes -Attachment -1.)
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for an estimated cost of $3,515,740.52, which equated to an estimated cost per
square foot of $0.194416 (rounded). The final assessment,(see Resolution IV and the accompanying assessment
roll), is in the amount of $ 2,807,339.28, which equates to a cost of $0.155773 (rounded) per square foot. The final
assessment is 20.15 % less, than the preliminary assessment; however due to reductions in the original square
footage of property being assessed the final cost per square foot being assessed is 19.88% less than in the original
preliminary assessment. The Non -assessed portion of this projects cost is $253,618.36, which is for a 12 inch
Master Plan Water Main along Fleming & Main Streets. The final assessment roll is on file in the County
Commission Office.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
attached Resolutions IV, which is attached, and authorize the Chairman to execute same.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
I -May 2, 2000 BCC minutes
2 -Summary assessment roll
February 12, 2002
55
•
9 I
0I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) adopted Resolution No. 2002-012 certifying
"as -built" costs for installation of water service to the Sebastian
area, Phases II -D & II -E, in the City of Sebastian, Florida, and
such other construction necessitated by such project; providing
for formal completion date, and date for payment without
penalty and interest.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 012
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT' COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF
WATER SERVICE TO THE SEBASTIAN AREA, PHASES II -D
& II -E, IN THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AND SUCH
OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH
PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE,
AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND
INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that
water improvements for properties located within the area of Phases 11-0 & II -E of the
Sebastian Water Expansion Area in the City of Sebastian, Florida are necessary to promote
the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, the Board held a public hearing at which time
and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to
the propriety and advisability of making such improvements and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2000-055, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the
property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that
resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual "as -built" cost now
that the project has been completed is less than in confirming Resolution No. 2000-055,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 2000-055 is modified as follows: The due date for the referenced project
and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety
days after passage of this resolution.
2 Payments bearing interest at the rate of 4.75% per annum may be made in ten annual
installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date. The due date is the
date of passage of this resolution.
February 12, 2002
56
RESOLUTION NO. 2002- 012
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 2000-055 shall be as
shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand confirmed, and will
remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such
assessments are made until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "Al" attached to Resolution No. 2000-055, were
recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall
remain prima facie evidence of its validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Gi nn , and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner Adams , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge AhsPnt
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 12th
day of February , 2002
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
hn W. Tippin, Vic
irman
Attachment: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
February 12, 2002
Indian River Co,
Approved
Dat
ATM
Admin.
IL_
`
Co. Atty.
ri*--a
iii
Budget
2
-/
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
February 12, 2002
SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION PHASES II -D & E
PARCEL CHANGES : SQUARE FOOTAGE, SPLITS, COMBINATIONS AND NEWLY
CREATED PARCEL I.D.'S AND DELETIONS
ORIGINAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE
PHASE D
PHASE E
COMBINED TOTAL
PHASE D
PARCEL ID
01 31 38 00003 0650 00044.0
01 31 38 00003 0770 00011.0
01 31 38 00003 0770 00007.0
01 31 38 00003 0770 00008.0
01 31 38 00003 0820 00015.0
01 31 38 00003 0820 00016.0
01 31 38 00003 0810 00013.0
PHASE E
PARCEL ID
01 31 38 00002 0090 00011.0
01 31 38 00002 0090 00012.0
01 31 38 00002 0150 00003.0
01 31 38 00002 0150 00004.0
01 31 38 00002 0330 00012.0
01 31 38 00002 0330 00013.0
01 31 38 00002 0330 00014.0
01 31 38 00002 0410 00018.0
01 31 38 00002 0410 00019.0
01 31 38 00003 0610 00004.0
01 31 38 00003 0610 00005.0
01 31 38 00003 0670 00028.0
OWNER
SHIPMAN
BRENNAN
SELLE
FUOCO
BARTON
BARTON
MORRIS
OWNER
GAMA
RONDEAU
FAVRET
FAVRET
EVANS
CUMMINGS
WINDHAUS
SULLIVAN
GIBBONS
CLAPP
DOZIER
WHITE
01 31 38 00003 0670 00029.0 NIERS
01 31 38 00003 0670 00030.0 WHITE
01 31 38 00000 7000 00004.0 CITY SEB
01 31 38 00002 0008 00000.0 CITY SEB
TOTAL
REDUCTION IN SQ FOOTAGE OF
ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL SQ FT
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL SQ FOOTAGE
SEB PHASE II -D & II -E
JANUARY 16, 2002
JDC
6,967,084
11,116,521
18,083,605
ORIGINAL FINAL
SQ FT SQ FT
10,726
12,348
16,553
13,068
13,500
10,800
20,038
10,351
10,890
29,621
-- DELETED
24,300
------- DELETED
16,714
ORIGINAL FINAL
SQ FT SQ FT
22,500
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
11,250
44.867
295,650
61,274
18,083,605
18,022,331
12500
10,000
20,000
15,000
15,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
30,000
234,376
NEW ID
COMBINATION
DELETED
COMBINATION
COMBINATION
DELETED
COMBINATION
DELETED
SPLIT
NEW -SPLIT
COMBINATION
DELETED
DELETED
DELETED
DELETED
FULL ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE WITH THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
February 12, 2002
58
•
11.H.2. SOUTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT -
ADDITIONAL WELL REHABILITATION WORK AUTHORIZATION
NO. 15 - CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 - CAMP DRESSER & McKEE, INC.
(CDM)
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of January 30, 2002:
DATE:
TO:
THROUGH:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 30, 2002
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
W. ERIK OLSON, DIRECTOR
GENE A. RAUTH, OPERATIONS MANAGER
SOUTH COUNTY WATER TREATMENT PLANT
ADDITIONAL WELL REH_4BILITATION WORK
AUTHORIZATION #15 CHANGE ORDER No. 1
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 2000 the Board of County Commissioners approved Work Authorization No. 13 in the
amount of $206,800 to Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) for well rehabilitation services for the South
County Water Supply System. Wells 1,2, and 3 were commissioned, along with the original phase of the
plant, in 1983. Wells 4, 5, and 6 were commissioned with the second phase of the plant expansion, in
1990. Since being commissioned, all six wells have been operating with minimal maintenance required.
The major portions of the scope of service for each of the six wells under this work authorization for
engineer and contractor services include:
1. Initial Capacity Evaluation, Production Pump Removal, Inspection, Evaluation, and Maintenance.
2. Video Surveys of each well.
3. Drawdown access port construction on Well Numbers 1,2,3, and 4.
4. Chemical treatment, cleaning, and disinfection of each well.
5. Reinstallation of production pump, and capacity evaluation of each well system.
Five of the six wells were video surveyed and tested for specific capacity. The testing revealed four
wells; numbers 1,2,3, and 5, had borehole obstructions, and tapered boreholes below the well casings.
1 hese issues required attention through a separate work authorization. The wells have been put back into
service in order to continue plant operation. Well No. 6 was videotaped and appeared to be in good
structural condition, and has also been placed back into service. Well No. 4 could not be videotaped at the
time since the pump column could not be physically removed without damaging the well and pump
column assembly. During operation and testing of Wells 6 and 3, the proper drawdown water column
height was not being maintained above the pump impellers. I his condition required attention through a
later work authorization. The current expended dollar amount for Work Authorization 13 is $193,800.
On January 2, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners approved Work Authorization 15 with CDM, in
the amount of $332,520 for additional well rehabilitation services. These services included reaming of
Wells 1,2,3, and 5. Additionally, the Scope of Services for Work Authorization 15 included forced
removal of the pump column assembly of Well No. 4, along with well borehole reaming, if required. (See
attached Agenda item dated December 12, 2000).
February 12, 2002
59
u1'
•
The portion of the scope of services for Work Authorization # 15 dealing with the rehabilitation and
reaming of Well No's. 1, 2, 3, and 5 has been completed. These wells were put back into service. The
forced removal of the pump and column assembly of well number 4 was completed. The video survey
showed that the well was not obstructed and did not require borehole reaming. From inspection of the
well, it was determined that the flanged column piping had wom a depression / groove into the wall of the
well casing. This depression / groove would not allow the flanged column piping to move out of the well
freely. As a result of this, damage to the well occurred rendering it unusable. The damage to Well No. 4
would require attention through a Change Order to Work Authorization # 15 The current expended
dollar amount for Work Authorization 15 is $312,520.00.
As stated, during normal operation and testing of well numbers 6 and 3, staff discovered that the
drawdown measurements for the proper water column height above the pump impellers was not being
maintained. The depths of each of the pumps was 40 feet. On June 19, 2001 the Board of County
Commissioners approved Work Authorization 18 with CDM in the amount of $83,500.00, for extension
of the pump columns 20 feet further down into wells 6 and 3. In addition, Board approval was given to
proceed with similar modifications on the other four wells (1, 2, 4, and 5), as part of this same Work
Authorization. The current expended dollar amount for Work Authorization 18 is $65,500.00.
ANALYSIS
As a result of the depression / groove not allowing the column piping from being removed from Well No.
4, the pump, discharge head, column assembly, and well casing were damaged. This damage has
rendered the current system unusable for production. As explained in the December 12, 2000 agenda
item, this damage was anticipated. Staff has investigated the two options of either replacing the complete
well and pump system, or repairing it. The estimated replacement cost of the well and pump system is
$250,000. The estimated repair cost for the system is $145,440. (See attached draft CDM cost estimate).
The less expensive repair option entails making repairs to the damaged well casing, replacement of the
discharge head, and re -fitting the well with a compatible capacity pump, with smaller physical
dimensions. The smaller physical dimensions of the new pump are needed to allow proper fit, and future
removal from the repaired well casing. The largest single item of the repair estimate is for the
replacement of the pump assembly, estimated at $55,000.00. This item also has the longest manufacture
and delivery time of all the required components to put the pump and well system back in service. Staff
has instructed CDM to proceed with placing and expediting the order for the pump. The scheduled
delivery date for the pump is March 14, 2002. Staff intends to purchase the pump directly from the
manufacturer.
Since the forced removal of the pump and column assembly of well number 4, well pump number 6 has
experienced mechanical failure. These problems resulted in the pump being removed from the well and
re -inspected. The inspection found that several of the bolts that hold the impeller bowls together were
missing. These missing bolts may have caused the failure of the pump. Staff has instructed CDM to
proceed with rebuilding / repairing the pump and expediting its return to service. Additionally, staff has
requested CDM provide a written explanation on the pump failure. The estimated cost for repairs and
labor required for restoring the pump to service is $36,000.00. Staff will be seeking reimbursement for
these costs as a warranty claim.
Concurrently, Well No. 3 has experienced water production problems. Test results on the well are
indicating production short -fall from the well. This condition has required removal of the well form
service, and the well is currently unavailable for production. At this time the cause of these problems are
still being determined. Staff is working very closely with CDM to correct these problems and expedite
the return of well number 3 to service.
February 12, 2002
60
8!
1
06
•
As a result of these events, three of the six production wells for the South County plant have been out of
service at various times. the three wells are well numbers 3, 4, and 6. Wells 1, 2, and 5 are currently in
production and meeting the minimum requirement for water supply for the treatment plant. At the present
time the plant is involved in a scheduled membrane replacement. One of the four RO treatment trains has
been taken off line and is undergoing membrane replacement. 1 his has reduced the plant demand on the
well field. Under this condition, these three wells are capable of meeting the treatment plant's production
needs. As a result of the scheduled membrane replacement and well rehabilitation projects, staff has
expedited several precautionary steps to insure that overall system demand continues to be met. 1 he first
of these steps was to procure, on an emergency basis, a temporary, reusable backup pump. This pump has
been installed in well number 4 and is providing additional water supply reliability for the south water
treatment plant. The cost for purchase and installation of this emergency backup pump is $15,850.00.
(See attached draft CDM change order). the second precautionary step to insure that overall system
demand is met, was to extend the production hours of the North RO plant. This step will insure that all
available water storage remains full in the event of a major water main break or if a fire occurs.
1 he staff of the Department of Utilities is requesting approval of Change Order No. 1 for Work
Authorization Number 15 in the estimated amount of $197,290.00 ($145,440 + $36,000 + $15,850).
The following is a summary of change order number 1:
Description
Amount
Original Contract Price
$332,520.00
Estimated cost of repairs to well system number 4
$145,440.00
Estimated cost of repairs to pump number 6
$ 36,000.00
Cost of purchase and installation of emergency backup pump
$ 15,850.00
Amended Contract Price as a result of change Order Number 1
$529,810.00
RECONIMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the Staff of the Department of Utility Services that the Board of County
Commissioners approve Change Order Number # 1, in the amount of $197 290.00, for an amended
contract price of $529,810.00. Staff further requests that the Chairman execute Change Order if 1
contingent upon County Attorney's review and acceptance of the change order for legal sufficiency.
FUNDING SOURCE
471-000-169-391.00
LIST OF EXHIBITS:
1. Agenda Item dated December 12, 2000
2. Draft CDM Change Order Number 1 / Cost Estimate
February 12, 2002
61
Qu 1.s'1 PJ 507
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Chairman
Stanbridge absent) approved Change Order #1 to the Work
Authorization with Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., in the amount
of $197,290.00, for an amended price of $529,810.00; and
authorized the Chairman to execute same contingent upon the
County Attorney's review and acceptance for legal sufficiency,
as recommended in the memorandum.
CHANGE ORDER No. 1 IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
13.A. CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES
Chairman Stanbridge was not present.
14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None.
14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced at the close of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste
Disposal District. Those minutes are being written separately.
14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD
None.
February 12, 2002
62
There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman
adjourned the meeting at 10:43 a.m.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk
Minutes approved
February 12, 2002