Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/23/2002MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman John W. Tlppin, Vice Chaiinlan Fran B. Adams Caroline D. Ginn. Kenneth R. Macht D istrict 2 D istrict 4 D istrict 1 District 5 D istrict 3 James E. Chandler, County Administrator Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP PAGES INVOCATION Ray Scent, Chaplain Indian River Memorial Hospital P LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. Ruth M. Stanbridge ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA / E MERGENCY ITEMS ADDITIONAT BACKUP: 11.C.2. and 7.K. REPLACEMENT PAGE: 7.K. (page 149) MOVED: Item 12.A. & 12.B. to end of agenda. 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS A. Presentation of Proclamation Designating May 5-11, 2002, as National Drinking Water Week Presentation of Proclamation Designating May 5-11, 2002, as National Goodwill week Presentation of Proclamation Designating the Month of Apnl, 2002 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in Indian River County APPROVAL OF MINUTES CONSENT AGENDA A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk to the Board: St. Johns River Water Management District Annual Financial Report for FY Ended 09/30/01 Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated April 11, 2002) 4-15 Proclamation Honoring Raymond Choquet on his Retire- ment from Indian River County Effective April 25, 2002 16-17 Election of MPO Charman and Vice Chaiiman (memorandum dated April 11, 2002) 18 Request to Approve the Indian River County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) for Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement (memorandum dated March 13, 2002) IRC Bid #4056 Two 4 -inch Portable Dual Diaphragm Pumps with a 5 hp Diesel Engine and an Electric Starter (memorandum dated April 11, 2002) IRC Bid #4052 Replace the Roof on Fire Station #2 (memorandum dated April 11, 2002) 61-75 Roofing Design Services (memorandum dated April 9, 2002) 76-95 Proclamation Designating April 21 through 27, 2002 as Crime Victims' Rights Week in Indian River County 96 Children's Services RFP Request for Advertising (memorandum dated April 17, 2002) 97-145 North County Regional Park Change Order No. 1 for Proctor Construction Co. and Change Order No. 2 for Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. (memorandum dated April 16, 2002) 146-154 Bi< 1 LL PG 369 j1 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS I. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR +17.5 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 4th STREET (CITRUS ROAD), APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE WEST OF 58`h AVENUE (KINGS HIGHWAY), FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIS- TRICT (UP TO 1 UNIT/5 ACRES), TO RS -3, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 3 UNITS/ ACRE); AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVID- ING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE Tom and Mary Funlca's Request to Rezone f 17.5 Acres from A-1 to RS -3 (Quasi -Judicial) (memorandum dated April 4, 2002) 2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR 7.21 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET SOUTH OF 20`h STREET (SR 60), AND EAST OF 78`h AVENUE, FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (UP TO 1 UNIT/5 ACRES), AND RM -6, MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE) TO RM -8, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 8 UNITS/ACRE) AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE Gary Purdy's Request to Rezone Approximately 7.21 Acres from A-1 and RM -6 to RM -8 (Quasi -Judicial) (memorandum dated April 8, 2002) B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS Request from George Racicot to address the Board of County Commissioners "on matters concerning code enforcement (letter dated April 9, 2002) • BACKUP PAGES 155-171 172-188 189 PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS Scheduled for Public Hearing on May 7, 2002 Sebastian Water Expansion — Phase's III -D and III -E Resolution III (memorandum dated April 9, 2002) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development None Emergency Services None BACKUP PAGES General Services 1. Enhanced Security for Courthouse (memorandum dated April 17, 2002) 191-201 Supervisor of Elections Office Space (memorandum dated April 17, 2002) 202-218 Leisure Services None Office of Management and Budget None Personnel None Public Works King's Highway Improvements — Engineering Services Amendment No. 15 (memorandum dated April 17, 2002) Utilities None 219-220 Human Services None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY A. Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session — 10:30 a.m. re: Debra K. Mercuri, State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, Office of the Judge of Com- pensation Claims, District "I -North", Indian River County, OJCC No. 98-006898PSL. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman John W. Tippin, Commissioner Fran B. Adams, Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn, Commis- sioner Kenneth R. Macht, County Administrator James E. Chandler, County Attorney Paul G. Bangel, and outside counsel Paul L. Westcott, will attend the attorney-client session. The entire session will be recorded by certified court reporter Nancy Hodges or another certified court reporter, who will be present. (memorandum dated April 17, 2002) B. Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session — 11:15 a m. re: Ronnie D. Baker and Marie B. Baker v. James E. Chandler, individually and as the Administrator of Indian River County, Florida; Indian River County, Florida; and Kenneth R. Macht; The Estate of Carolyn E. Eggert, Deceased; Caroline D. Ginn; John W. Tippin; and Fran B. Adams, individually and as members of the Indian River County Commission; Appeal No. 01 -15653 -II, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbndge, Vice Chairman John W. Tippin, Commissioner Fran B Adams, Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn, Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht, County Administrator James E. Chandler, County Attorney Paul G. Bangel, and outside counsel Michael T. Burke, will attend the attorney-client session. The entire session will be recorded by certified court reporter Nancy Hodges or another certified court reporter, who will be present (memorandum dated April 17, 2002) 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Ruth NI. Stanbridge Updates • BACKUP PAGES 221-222 223-224 B. Vice Chairman John W. Tippin F-� d p `!^��{ ri �J] i / 2 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd.): C. Commissioner Fran B Adams D. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Letter from Gerna Bradwell regarding cleaning our County beaches (letter dated April 9, 2002) 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 April 2, 2002 2. Authorization to Execute a Contract to Construct a Scale House and Other Infrastructure Improve- ments at the County's Landfill (memorandum dated April 15, 2002) C. Environmental Control Board None BACKUP PAGES 225-228 229-231 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. 1 Li 9 373 • INDEX TO MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF APRIL 23, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTA (IONS 2 5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 5-11, 2002, AS NATIONAL 2 DRINKING WATER WEEK 5.B. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATI\G MAY 5-11, 2002, AS NATIONAL GOODWILL WEEK 3 5.C. PROCLAMAIION DESIG\ATING APRIL, 2002, AS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION NTIO\ MO\ TH 5 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 6 7. CONSENT AGENDA 6 7.A. Report - St. Johns River Water Management District 6 7.B. Approval of Warrants 7 7.C. Proclamation and Retirement Award Honoring Raymond Choquet on His Retirement from Indian River County Effective April 25, 2002 16 7.D. Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization - John Tippin Elected Chairman; John McCants Elected Vice Chairman 19 7 E Indian River County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) for Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement (hast Gifford) 19 1 • 1 r` r' flp ^ '7 7.F. Bid #4056 - Two 4" Portable Dual Diaphragm Pumps With a 5hp Diesel Engine and an hlectric Starter - ABS Pumps, Inc. 21 7.G. Bid #4052 - Replace Roof on Fire Station #2 - Cardinal Roofing & Siding of Florida, Inc. 24 7.H. Re -Roofing Design Services for Health Department Building and Indian River County Jail, Phase I - R. L Reeger 25 7.I. Proclamation Designating April 21-27, 2002 as Crime Victims' Rights Week 26 7J. Children's Services RFP - Advertising Authorization FY 2002/03 28 7.K. North County Regional Park - Change Order 41 for Proctor Construction Co. - Change Order 42 for Weller Pool Constructors, Inc 29 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE NO. 2002-018 - REZONE +17.5 ACRES FROM A-1 I'0 RS -3 - VICINITY OF INTERSECTION OF 4TH STREET & 58TH AVFNUE - RFQUFSTED BY TOM AND MARY FUNKA 33 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-019 - REZONE 7 21 5.62 ACRES FROM A-1 AND RM -6 TO RM -8 TO RM -6- VICINITY OF 20TH STREET AND 78TH AVF\UE - RhQUESTED BY GARY PURDY 43 9.B PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM GEORGE RACICOT CONCERNING CODF ENFORCEMENT 56 9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7, 2002 - SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION - PHASE III -D AND PHASE III - E - RESOLUTION III 56 11.C.1. ENHANCED SECURITY FOR COURTHOUSE - SIEM1-NS BUILDING TECIINOLOGIFS 57 11.C.2. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS' NEW OFFICE SPACE SITE PLAN 59 11.G. KINGS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - ENGINEERING SERVICES - AMENDMbNT NO. 15 TO REPLACE AMENDMENT NO. 13 - KIMLEY- HORN, INC. 68 2 BIS: FG X75 p s • • 12.A. PENDING LITIGATION ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION CONCERNING DEBRA K. MERCURE STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS, DISTRICT "I -NORTH' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; OJC NO. 98-006898PSL; CAO FILE NO. 1901-1 69 12.B. PENDING LITIGATION ATTORNFY-CLIENT SESSION RE RONNIF D. BAKER AND MARIE B. BAKER V JAMES F CHANDLER ET AL - APPEAL NO. 01-15653-1I, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 73 13.A. CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - NO UPDATES 76 13.D. COMMISSION -FR GIN\ - LETTER FROM GENIA BRADWELL REGARDING CLFANING OUR COUNTY BEACHES 76 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 79 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 79 14.C. ENVIRONMFNTAL CONTROL BOARD 79 3 al( area y, 3 7 6 • April 23, 2002 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, April 23, 2002. Present were Ruth Stanbridge, Chairman; 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. 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. INVOCATION Vice Chairman Tippin delivered the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Stanbridge led the Pledge to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Stanbridge announced there was additional backup for Items 7.K. and 11.C.2. April 23, 2002 1 A 10 377 • County Attorney Paul Bangel asked that his matters (Items 12.A. and 12.B.) be moved to the end of the agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously made the above changes to the agenda. 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS 5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 5-11, 2002, AS NATIONAL DRINKING WATER WEEK The Chairman read the following into the record and presented it to Staff Assistant Joyce Daugherty who accepted on behalf of the Utilities Department. Ms. Daugherty spoke from prepared remarks advising of upcoming events planned for "Water Celebration Week" and recognized several of the many employees who bring good water to Indian River County and thanked the Board for their leadership. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 5 - 11, 2002, AS NATIONAL DRINKING WATER WEEK WHEREAS, the conservation of water is an extremely timely and noteworthy pursuit; and WHEREAS, one of the most important ways of insuring that we have clean, potable water is through educational programs such as National Drinking Water Week, which is promoted through the efforts of the American Water Works Association; and April 23, 2002 2 8r 378 • • WHEREAS, National Drinking Water Week has been an internationally celebrated event for the last 30 years. The event is recognized as one of the outstanding methods of educating the public regarding conservation of one of our most precious resources, water; and WHEREAS, the Department of Utilities wishes to recognize and support National Drinking Water Week on May 5th — 11th, so that we may continue to promote our involvement in public and private drinking water issues, as well as continuing the Utility Department's three -fold mission; to conserve, protect and preserve Indian River County's water through educational programs, not only for this, but future generations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of May 5 — 11, 2002, be designated as NATIONAL DRINKING WATER WEEK in Indian River County. Adopted this 23rd day of April, 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Ruth M. Stanbridge, ahairman 5.B. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 5-11, 2002, AS NATIONAL GOODWILL WEEK Commissioner Adams read the following into the record and presented it to Scott Wheeler of Gulfstream Goodwill Industries who advised of the pride in this community and thanked the Board for their support. April 23, 2002 3 Ott i r: it J 1 9 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 5 — 11, 2002, AS NATIONAL GOODWILL WEEK WHEREAS, the citizens of Indian River County value hard work and support the right of individuals to provide for themselves and their families, and believe all people should have every freedom to pursue careers, integrate into the workforce and participate as full members in the economic marketplace; and WHEREAS, Gulfstream Goodwill Industries was established in 1966 as a non-profit provider of vocational services to assist people with disabilities and other barriers to employment to become self-sufficient, working members of our community by providing assessment, work experience, job placement services, life skills training and residential services; and WHEREAS, 8,277 residents received these services through Gulfstream Goodwill Industries during the last year; and WHEREAS, people placed in community employment while receiving services from Gulfstream Goodwill in 2001 earned $9,861,004, representing a significant contribution to the local economy; and WHEREAS, Gulfstream Goodwill Industries diverted over 5 million pounds of textile materials from area landfills last year, and 89% of all revenues generated by Gulfstream Goodwill Industries supports employment and training programs within the community; and WHEREAS, Goodwill Industries International is celebrating 100 years of opening doors of employment opportunities to countless people, and has prepared them for brighter, more fulfilling futures in the United States and 25 other countries. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that May 5 — 11, 2002, be designated as NATIONAL GOODWILL WEEK in Indian River County. Adopted this 23rd day of April, 2002. / /, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chair an April 23, 2002 4 nu 80 5.C. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL, 2002, AS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH Commissioner Macht read the following into the record and presented it to Colette Cook who accepted with thanks on behalf of the Hibiscus Children's Center. Ms. Cook spoke from prepared remarks and advised of the purpose, structure, services, and works of the HCC. She was pleased to announce that a generous couple in Vero Beach has donated over 4 acres of land at 12' Street and Old Dixie Highway for building 8 homes which will house more than 96 children in Indian River County. Ground breaking will be in June. She thanked the Board for all their assistance. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2002 AS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect is a serious and growing problem affecting more than 3.1 million of our nation's children annually and over 3,500 children locally; and WHEREAS, this societal malignancy known as child abuse and neglect respects no racial religion, class or geographical boundaries, and, in fact, has been declared a national emergency; and WHEREAS, increased public awareness of the devastating problem of child abuse and neglect is our strongest weapon in the fight to end it; and WHEREAS, agencies such as Hibiscus Children's Center, through their support of parent aide programs, parenting classes and educational programs are making significant progress toward elimination of this heinous crime against the children and families of our nation and community. April 23, 2002 5 Ott 1 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that the month of April, 2002, be designated as CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH in Indian River County, and all citizens are urged to use this time to better understand, recognize and respond to this grievous problem. Adopted this 23rd day of April, 2002. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Ruth M. Stanbridge, Ch'airman 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Ginn requested that Item 7.K. be separated from the Consent Agenda for questions. 7.A. Report - St. Johns River Water Management District Financial report for St. Johns River Water Management District for fiscal year ending September 30, 2001 has been placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board. NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN April 23, 2002 6 X82 • • 7.B. Approval of Warrants The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 11, 2002: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: April 11, 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 he 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 April 4, 2002 to April 11, 2002. Attachment ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period April 4-11, 2002, as requested. CHECK NAM NUMBER O 021687 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE O 021688 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE - O 021689 BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF O 021690 ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT O 021691 UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC O 021692 IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE - O 021693 HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE O 021694 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND O 021695 KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE O 021696 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT O 021697 BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR O 021698 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE O 021699 IRS - ACS O 021700 CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE O 021701 VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. O 021702 INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT O 021703 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT O 021704 NACO/SOUTHEAST O 021705 SALEM TRUST COMPANY O 021706 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE April 23, 2002 7 CHECK DATE 2002-04-04 2002-04-04 2002-04-04 2002-04-04 2002-04-04 2002-04-04 2002-04-04 2002-04-08 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 2002-04-10 dsC CHECK AMOUNT 4,168.80 28,837.50 4,610.13 2,260.26 555.06 10,029.05 260.55 1,688.84 138.50 37.75 115.38 50.00 50.00 639.86 2,500.00 80,891.33 193.86 10,001.16 331.93 132.46 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0021707 FL SDU 2002-04-10 7,762.62 0021708 AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA) 2002-04-11 927.64 0021709 AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE 2002-04-11 162.86 0321051 A A FIRE. EQUIPMENT, INC 2002-04-11 47.00 0321052 AMERICAN WATER WORKS 2002-04-11 215.50 0321053 AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION 2002-04-11 317.65 0321054 ALPHA ACE HARDWARE 2002-04-11 62.52 0321055 AMERICAN CONCRETE INDUSTRIES, 2002-04-11 840.00 0321056 ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE 2002-04-11 235.50 0321057 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 2002-04-11 618.41 0321058 APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO 2002-04-11 531.45 0321059 ATCO TOOL SUPPLY 2002-04-11 188.20 0321060 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 2002-04-11 859.40 0321061 ABS PUMPS, INC 2002-04-11 1,602.86 0321062 AQUAGENIX 2002-04-11 86.00 0321063 ACS COURIER SERVICE 2002-04-11 95.00 0321064 ADDISON OIL CO 2002-04-11 656.00 0321065 A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES 2002-04-11 39.17 0321066 A T & T 2002-04-11 134.65 0321067 AMERIGAS 2002-04-11 14.00 0321068 ASHWORTH INC 2002-04-11 243.78 0321069 ANIMAL MEDICAL CLINIC 2002-04-11 15.00 0321070 AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC 2002-04-11 464.43 0321071 ARAMARR UNIFORM SERVICES 2002-04-11 7,929.37 0321072 AMERICAN REPORTING 2002-04-11 384.00 0321073 A T & T 2002-04-11 151.67 0321074 APOLLO ENTERPRISES 2002-04-11 90.03 0321075 AIR COMPRESSOR WORKS INC 2002-04-11 512.50 0321076 ANCOR CORE INC. 2002-04-11 185.80 0321077 AMERITREND HOMES 2002-04-11 500.00 0321078 ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIPMENT 2002-04-11 109.26 0321079 A M ENGINEERING & TESTING INC 2002-04-11 588.00 0321080 ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC 2002-04-11 34.29 0321081 AIRWICK PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS 2002-04-11 69.54 0321082 AT&T BROADBAND 2002-04-11 39.95 0321083 AUTO SUPPLY CO WEST 2002-04-11 1,401.22 0321084 A W M CONSTRUCTION, INC 2002-04-11 25,932.00 0321085 BARTH CONSTRUCTION 2002-04-11 15,300.00 0321086 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2002-04-11 4,819.90 0321087 BENSONS LOCK SERVICE 2002-04-11 6.00 0321088 BUREAU OF ECONOMIC & BUSINESS 2002-04-11 22.50 0321089 BARTON, JEFFREY K- CLERK 2002-04-11 40,208.01 0321090 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 2002-04-11 1,837.00 0321091 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 2002-04-11 63.60 0321092 BRIDGESTONE SPORTS, INC 2002-04-11 216.00 0321093 BURGOON BERGER 2002-04-11 1,500.00 0321094 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 2002-04-11 641.66 0321095 BRODART CO 2002-04-11 1,412.01 0321096 BRYANT, BILL & ASSOCIATES 2002-04-11 183,348.50 0321097 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 2002-04-11 227.34 0321098 BOWKER 2002-04-11 330.36 0321099 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 2002-04-11 27.15 0321100 BURNETT, EDWIN 2002-04-11 200.66 0321101 BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC 2002-04-11 29.95 0321102 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 2002-04-11 68.20 0321103 BELLSOUTH 2002-04-11 26,078.00 0321104 BRADFORD, MADGE A 2002-04-11 577.50 0321105 BELLSOUTH PUBLIC COMMUNICATION 2002-04-11 35.38 April 23, 2002 8 • • CHECK NAME NUMBER O 321106 O 321107 O 321108 O 321109 0321110 O 321111 O 321112 O 321113 O 321114 O 321115 O 321116 O 321117 O 321118 O 321119 O 321120 O 321121 O 321122 O 321123 O 321124 O 321125 O 321126 0321127 O 321128 O 321129 O 321130 O 321131 O 321132 O 321133 O 321134 O 321135 O 321136 O 321137 O 321138 O 321139 O 321140 O 321141 O 321142 O 321143 O 321144 O 321145 O 321146 O 321147 O 321148 O 321149 O 321150 O 321151 O 321152 O 321153 O 321154 O 321155 O 321156 O 321157 O 321158 0321159 O 321160 O 321161 0321162 O 321163 O 321164 O 321165 April 23, 2002 BMG BEAM, GERALD F AND BETTY BRACKETT & COMPANY BASS-CARLTON SOD INC B & S SOD INC BELLSOUTH SUBPOENA COMPLIANCE B IOMASS PROCESSING BREVARD EMERGENCY SERVICES BROWNING, CARLEAN BRADSHAW, BENJAMIN E BELLSOUTH CAMERON & BARKLEY CO CAMP, DRESSER & MCKEE, INC CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC CHUCK'S ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC CROON CONSTRUCTION CO CHEMSEARCH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CLARKE, DOROTHEA CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO CALL ONE, INC COAST TO COAST JANITOR SERVICE COASTAL ORNAMENTAL & CLIFFORD, MIKE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT CDW GOVERMENT INC CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND COLUMBIA HOUSE CURTIS, ROBERT CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN CARQUEST AUTO PARTS CENTER POINT PUBLISHING COMMUNITY ASPHALT CORP CALLAWAY GOLF BALL CO CINGULAR WIRELESS CHOICEPOINT BUSINESS & CAMPBELL, ALYCE CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND CARNICELLA, JAMES RAVES COMMUNICATIONS DAVIS, JAMES D ELTA SUPPLY CO D EMCO INC D EPENDABLE DODGE, INC D ICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC D ATA SUPPLIES, INC D EBLAKER, KARLEEN F DAVIDSON TITLES, INC D EAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE DADE PAPER COMPANY DWYER INSTRUMENTS DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIR D EPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND D IGITAL TECHNOGRAPHICS, INC D ELL MARKETING L.P. E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC E G P, INC 9 CHECK DATE 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 20C2-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 k CHECK AMOUNT 18.69 500.00 70,204.50 54.00 215.00 35.00 116,141.83 92.00 126.18 150.00 86.40 181.06 42,265.61 2,793.60 428.00 315.00 9,424.99 500.00 295.27 4,062.98 26.10 11,058.00 25.00 695.00 1,440.00 200.00 16.25 659.99 456.00 21.57 26.10 4,365.73 434.05 425.00 1,420.18 1,153.54 808.69 25.00 23.44 160.00 6.00 172.00 14.00 365.14 639.44 434.66 14,887.71 724.14 6.00 996.89 160.00 864.70 172.33 463.20 6,655.66 6,305.36 44.00 955.00 71.25 125.68 5 CHECK NUMBER O 321166 O 321167 O 321168 O 321169 O 321170 O 321171 O 321172 O 321173 O 321174 O 321175 O 321176 O 321177 O 321178 O 321179 O 321180 O 321181 O 321182 O 321183 O 321184 O 321185 O 321186 O 321187 O 321188 O 321189 O 321190 O 321191 O 321192 O 321193 O 321194 O 321195 O 321196 O 321197 O 321198 O 321199 O 321200 O 321201 O 321202 O 321203 O 321204 O 321205 O 321206 O 321207 O 321208 O 321209 O 321210 O 321211 O 321212 O 321213 O 321214 O 321215 O 321216 O 321217 O 321218 O 321219 0321220 O 321221 O 321222 April 23, 2002 NAME E SQUIRE REPORTING INC E G P, INC E LDRIDGE, MYRA A ELPEX, INC ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC ECOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES INC ELECTRICAL MOTOR SERVICES INC ENNIS PAINT INC FEDEX FELLSMERE, CITY OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY LLC FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO FLORIDA ENGINEERING SOCIETY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FLORIDA SLUDGE, INC FRED PRYOR FOOTJOY FLORIDA FLOWERS FLORIDA SEMINARS DEPARTMENT OF STATE BAKING COMPANY OF TIRE RECYCLING, INC FLINN, SHEILA I FLORIDA MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FLORIDA VETERINARY LEAGUE FISCHMAN, CHARLES, M D F & W PUBLICATIONS INC FACTICON, INC FIRSTLAB FLORIDA PAIN MANAGEMENT ASSOC FIRST LAB FREY, MICHAEL L FLINN COURT REPORTING FIRST CHOICE CARE FLORIDA STATE TECHNOLOGY GATEWAY COMPANIES, INC GALE GROUP, THE GENEALOGICAL PUBLISHING GENERAL GMC, TRUCK GENE'S AUTO GLASS GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE GOEL, AMITABH MD GEISLER-STEINER, MARCIA J GAGEL, SALOI GREAT -FULLY DEAD PEST MGMT INC G .NEIL GENE'S MASONRY, INC GOULD, COOKSEY,FENNEL, ONEIL, HAMMOND & SMITH, P A HERE'S FRED GOLF CO, INC HUGHES SUPPLY, INC HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES H ILL MANUFACTURING HACH COMPANY H ICKMAN, GUY MD HERCULES INC HARPRING, JAMES G ESQ HOLIDAY BUILDERS 10 CHECK DATE 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 200.2-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 CHECK AMOUNT 45.00 250.00 710.50 984.84 3,000.00 7,976.04 715.00 18,942.00 134.12 20.33 182.36 1,194.80 75.00 16,460.75 8,867.00 99.00 60.56 101.36 304.90 2,661.00 77.00 6,332.00 215.00 42.00 929.20 7,240.00 765.00 470.00 186.00 187.08 148.00 320.00 4,786.68 4,870.00 1,754.66 19.25 624.54 215.00 320.63 4,448.80 200.00 224.00 20.00 53.00 147.08 880.00 26,169.00 22,050.00 58.69 2,228.00 599.80 128.96 36.50 400.00 18,345.60 316.00 3,000.00 386 • • CHECK NUMBER 0321223 O 321224 O 321225 O 321226 O 321227 O 321228 O 321229 O 321230 O 321231 O 321232 O 321233 O 321234 O 321235 O 321236 O 321237 O 321238 NAME HINTON'S CARPET CLEANING HARBOR BRANCH ENVIRONMENTAL HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL HANSEN, SUSAN HEALTHSOUTH HOLDINGS HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER HURLEY,ROGNER,MILLER,COX AND HYDRANUATICS HUBERT, LATOSHIA HISTORICAL PUBLISHING NETWORK HYDRANAUTICS HAYWARD, GLORIA R HEISEY ESQ, MICHAEL HAMILTON, DUSTIN MUNOZ, IDANIA MORABITO, PETER S CHECK DATE 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 O 321239 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2002-04-11 O 321240 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL 2002-04-11 O 321241 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2002-04-11 O 321242 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC 2002-04-11 O 321243 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TRAFFIC 2002-04-11 O 321244 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 2002-04-11 O 321245 INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC 2002-04-11 O 321246 INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES 2002-04-11 O 321247 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID 2002-04-11 O 321248 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 2002-04-11 O 321249 INDIAN RIVER OFFICE CENTRE,INC 2002-04-11 O 321250 IBM CORPORATION 2002-04-11 O 321251 INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC 2002-04-11 O 321252 INTELECT NETWORK TECHNOLOGIES 2002-04-11 O 321253 INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALISTS 2002-04-11 O 321254 JANET'S AUTO TRIM & GLASS 2002-04-11 O 321255 JOHN DEERE COMPANY 2002-04-11 O 321256 JUDICIAL & ADMINISTRATIVE 2002-04-11 O 321257 JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA 2002-04-11 O 321258 JACKSON BROS GROVES, INC AND 2002-04-11 O 321259 JUNGINGER, GEAN CARY, JR 2002-04-11 O 321260 JOHNSTON, JOSEPH 2002-04-11 O 321261 KELLY TRACTOR CO 2002-04-11 O 321262 KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC 2002-04-11 O 321263 KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC 2002-04-11 O 321264 KOUNS, DARLENE 2002-04-11 O 321265 K S M ENGINEERING & TESTING 2002-04-11 O 321266 KING REPORTING SERVICE, INC 2002-04-11 O 321267 KNOWLES, CYRIL 2002-04-11 O 321268 KRISS, HOLDEN E 2002-04-11 O 321269 KEMIRON INC 2002-04-11 O 321270 KEITH, DONALD A 2002-04-11 O 321271 KUHNS,JANICE 2002-04-11 O 321272 LESCO, INC 2002-04-11 O 321273 LONG, JAMS T ESQUIRE 2002-04-11 O 321274 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. 2002-04-11 O 321275 LEWIS, RUTH A 2002-04-11 O 321276 LANDRUM, GREGORY C PSY D 2002-04-11 O 321277 LABOR FINDERS 2002-04-11 O 321278 LOWE'S COMPANIES,INC 2002-04-11 O 321279 LANGSTON, HESS, BOLTON,ZNOSKO 2002-04-11 April 23, 2002 11 nI CHECK AMOUNT 115.00 50.00 530.91 158.34 99.00 32.19 521.00 123,975.00 129.50 59.95 123,975.00 6.00 17.40 224.03 20.00 43.00 2,450.00 1,495.00 100.00 307.55 1,143.99 92.70 720.64 119.18 658.75 11,794.40 299.00 1,023.59 528.48 3,076.50 3,637.50 100.00 6,479.28 409.00 780.24 7.07 100.00 78.39 50.15 7,682.45 401.81 167.38 1,825.00 371.00 1,039.84 173.42 979.00 149.72 500.00 35.05 12,300.00 1,743.48 60.20 675.00 5,293.44 41.42 5,671.71 33 7 CHECK NUMBER O 321280 O 321281 O 321282 O 321283 O 321284 O 321285 O 321286 O 321287 O 321288 O 321289 O 321290 O 321291 O 321292 O 321293 O 321294 O 321295 O 321296 O 321297 O 321298 O 321299 O 321300 O 321301 O 321302 O 321303 O 321304 O 321305 O 321306 O 321307 O 321308 O 321309 O 321310 O 321311 O 321312 O 321313 O 321314 O 321315 O 321316 O 321317 O 321318 O 321319 O 321320 O 321321 O 321322 O 321323 O 321324 O 321325 O 321326 O 321327 O 321328 O 321329 O 321330 O 321331 O 321332 O 321333 O 321334 O 321335 April 23, 2002 NAME LUNA, JUVENAL LOPOLITO, STEPHEN LATORTUE, EVENS MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY MCCOLLUM, NATHAN MIKES GARAGE MASTELLER, MOLER & REED, INC MORGAN AND EKLUND, INC MATTHEW BENDER & CO, INC MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE MCCLEARY, MILDRED MEDCHECK MGB CONSTRUCTION INC MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC MURPHY, DEBBIE MORTON SALT MALLAMS, JOHN H, PHD MUNNINGS, WANDA MERCEDES HOMES INC MOSHER ESQ, EDWARD M/A-COM METCALF,ANDREW MILLS,CAREN MIDLANTIC DATA SYSTEMS MAXFLI GOLF DIVISION NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS NEBEL, MICHAEL E. P.A. NU CO 2, INC NORTHSIDE AGAPE MINISTRIES NFPA OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO ON ITS WAY PARKS RENTAL INC PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION P B S & J PERKINS MEDICAL SUPPLY PETTY CASH PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION PROFESSIONAL TITLE OF PROFESSIONAL TITLE OF PORT CONSOLIDATED POSTMASTER POMEROY COMPUTER RESOURCES PROFESSIONAL CASE MANAGEMENT PHELPS, PAMELA G PERSONNEL PLUS INC PROSPER, JANET C PROFORMA P B S & J 12 CHECK DATE 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 a1 CHECK AMOUNT 364.00 110.02 50.00 186.40 647.60 85.00 2,994.00 945.00 58.74 25.22 58.34 170.90 74.90 755.17 1,000.00 151.10 171.50 1,277.39 17.00 95.88 105.25 99.90 22,300.00 500.00 500.00 2,237.05 284.50 32.14 40,281.01 20.13 775.00 94.16 2,646.50 269.00 192.74 4,545.00 102.94 136.86 206.47 57.08 40,963.27 2,000.00 280.51 11.49 500.00 410.59 117.43 8,091.27 136.00 1,008.00 324.95 154.00 1,140.00 52.50 21.85 13,728.00 .J 8 • CHECK NUMBER O 321336 O 321337 O 321338 O 321339 O 321340 O 321341 O 321342 O 321343 NAME PERMA-FIX POINTE WEST LTD PARALEE COMPANY INC PETRECZ, MICHAEL PETTY CASH QUEST DIAGNOSTICS RINKER MATERIALS ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC O 321344 ROSE, TIM - CONTRACTOR O 321345 RADIOLOGY IMAGING ASSOCIATES O 321346 ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA 0321347 RANGEMASTER S E, INC O 321348 RECORDED BOOKS, LLC O 321349 R & G SOD FARMS O 321350 RELIABLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE O 321351 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE O 321352 ROSEMOUNT/UNILOC O 321353 ROYAL CUP COFFEE O 321354 REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING O 321355 RAUTH, GENE O 321356 ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET O 321357 R 3 MEDICAL O 321358 SCHOPP, BARBARA G O 321359 SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS O 321360 SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC O 321361 SMART CORPORATION O 321362 SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING, O 321363 REXEL SOUTHERN O 321364 ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC O 321365 STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO O 321366 SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY O 321367 SUN TELEPHONE, INC O 321368 SAFESPACE INC O 321369 SIGNS IN A DAY O 321370 SOUTHEASTERN FREIGHT LINES INC O 321371 SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL O 321372 SOLID WASTE ASSOCIATION O 321373 STEFFEN, KURT O 321374 SANDRIFT MOTEL O 321375 SYSCO OF SOUTHEAST FLORIDA O 321376 STEVENS PRINTING O 321377 SAFETY PRODUCTS INC O 321378 SUNTRUST BANK O 321379 SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE O 321380 SIMPLY KLEEN SYSTEMS INC O 321381 SUMMIT CONSTRUCTION MGMT INC O 321382 SPHERION O 321383 SUNCOAST COUNSELING & O 321384 SPEIRS, DONNA O 321385 SANDOVAL, ERIC S 0321386 STORAGE SOLUTIONS 0321387 SEYMOUR, LINDA O 321388 SUNNYTECH INC- FL O 321389 STEPHENS, LARRY O 321390 ST PETER'S HUMAN SERVICES, INC 0321391 SEC SENIOR PGA 0321392 STEWART TITLE OF INDIAN RIVER April 23, 2002 13 CHECK DATE 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 CHECK AMOUNT 3,628.80 14,331.63 1,410.25 10.00 100.00 304.00 1,105.62 123.39 108,646.80 12.00 10,149.58 16.72 362.40 235.00 81.79 73.82 3,868.05 79.00 62.99 58.00 530.83 80.00 38.50 252.00 68.74 10.03 855.70 176.40 658.21 91.10 45.00 249.00 2,019.23 55.00 42.42 14,080.78 98.00 105.00 630.00 1,118.02 2,675.00 186.10 353.39 1,184.40 191.51 59,266.62 306.00 537.50 318.50 216.30 210.50 189.00 808.92 154.00 838.69 150.00 7,500.00 • CHECK NUMBER O 321393 0321394 0321395 O 321396 O 321397 O 321398 O 321399 0321400 O 321401 O 321402 O 321403 O 321404 O 321405 O 321406 O 321407 O 321408 0321409 O 321410 O 321411 O 321412 O 321413 O 321414 O 321415 O 321416 O 321417 O 321418 O 321419 O 321420 O 321421 0321422 O 321423 O 321424 O 321425 0321426 O 321427 O 321428 O 321429 0321430 0321431 O 321432 O 321433 O 321434 O 321435 O 321436 O 321437 0321438 0321439 O 321440 O 321441 O 321442 O 321443 O 321444 O 321445 O 321446 O 321447 O 321448 O 321449 O 321450 April 23, 2002 NAME SUNCAM INC TEEJAYS' TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC TRANSIT AIR CONDITIONING TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTIONS FL TREASURE COAST REFUSE SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR CORP TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL TREASURE COAST IRRIGATION AND TROPIC PEST CONTROL SERV, INC TESTAMERICA INC UNIVERSITY PRESS OF FLA ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT UNITED PARCEL SERVICE U S FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP UNISHIPPERS U S FILTER/DAVIS PRODUCTS VELDE FORD, INC VERO VERO VERO VERO VERO VERO VERO BEACH, CITY OF BEACH, CITY OF CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC BEACH, CITY OF BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT BEARING & BOLT VALVE & CONTROLS WALSH, LYNN WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY WIGINTON FIRE SYSTEMS WILLHOFF, PATSY WETHERINGTON, WILSON WILLIAM THIES & SONS, INC WILSON GOLF DIVISION WILDLIFE PHARMACEUTICALS INC WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC WATERWORKS CAR WASH WABASSO GOLF WHAT'S NEW WHITESIDE PARTS & SERVICE INC WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR WILLOW BEND BOOKS & FAMILY WASTE MANAGEMENT WASTE MANAGEMENT WHEELED COACH INDUSTRIES INC WALGREEN COMPANY W ILSON, STEVEN W IDNER, BRADLEY J W INGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE WELLER POOL CONSTRUCTORS INC W ITKOWSKI, EDWARD JR XEROX CORPORATION YORK, DAVID ZEPHYRHILLS NATURAL SPRING ANGELONE, RANIERO LAUER, RAYMOND GERRY, RAYMOND 14 CHECK DATE 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 CHECK AMOUNT 65.00 195.00 4,171.14 39,656.96 362.18 97.25 584.60 281.75 1,958.00 39.35 550.00 750.00 11,087.00 82.83 655.57 33.92 6,004.89 78.64 2,888.00 459.09 31,666.76 224.93 656.78 122.00 1,683.74 75.00 1,558.10 75.43 18.56 46.16 970.00 104.00 48.00 451.40 169.20 133.60 216.35 202.50 300.00 33.50 245.27 2,925.75 112.65 767.39 89,927.47 174,000.00 916.65 133.90 206.00 947.05 210,822.00 151.93 676.87 367.00 9.50 831.60 571.00 1,175.64 J9 • • CHECK NAME NUMBER O 321451 CLASS, HELEN O 321452 ANDO BUILDERS O 321453 ANDO BUILDING CORRP O 321454 HOLIDAY BUILDERS O 321455 BARTH CONSTRUCTION O 321456 BYRNE, MARIE O 321457 FIRTH, KERRY O 321458 BURGOON & BERGER O 321459 THOMPSON, ELIZABETH A O 321460 JAMES YOUNG CONSTRUCTION O 321461 BEAZER HOMES O 321462 BEAZER HOMES O 321463 RICHARD ZORC O 321464 AMERITREND HOMES O 321465 CAPPELEN, RICHARD O 321466 RCL DEVELOPMENT O 321467 STREET, DAN 0321468 MCDONALD PROPERTIES O 321469 CAPP CUSTOM HOMES O 321470 LOPE, MICHELLE O 321471 KOZO, ANDREW O 321472 GIANAKIS, CHRIS O 321473 ZORC, RICHARD O 321474 ENDRES, PETER O 321475 ZADEL, WILLIAM C O 321476 CAL BUILDERS INC O 321477 BURGOON BERGER CONST CO O 321478 MGB CONSTRUCTION O 321479 DOTSON, MARIE O 321480 STEWART, DAVID O 321481 JULIN, PAUL O 321482 HOLIDAY BUILDERS O 321483 MERCEDES HOMES INC 0321484 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY O 321485 STEPHENSON, MOLLY 0321486 ORCHID ISLAND PROPERTIES O 321487 MGB CONSTRUCTION O 321488 TOZZOLO BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION O 321489 BEAZER HOMES CORP O 321490 PURDY, JOHN D O 321491 AUTO PARTS OF VERO O 321492 O 321493 O 321494 O 321495 O 321496 O 321497 O 321498 O 321499 O 321500 O 321501 O 321502 O 321503 O 321504 O 321505 O 321506 O 321507 O 321508 O 321509 O 321510 April 23, 2002 BENNETT, ALVIN L AND KATHRYN RACINE, TODD & KRISTEN HUGHES, JOHN B BOERUM, HOWARD J PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES OSMER, JEFFREY AND AMERITREND HOMES TROMBLE & CO EAST INC CHANNING CORP XXIX THORTON, MILO LOUGHRAN, DENNIS S HOWPLACE SIGNATURE HOMES INC MULLER, HENRY J D J HOLDING COMPANY FELIX EQUITIES PRICE, MELISSA AND JAHANGIRVAND, SHAWN B LUM, CHRIS AND H ILLYER, SAMUEL 15 CHECK DATE 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 CHECK AMOUNT 31.78 12.64 79.41 26.41 73.43 28.91 26.41 26.41 9.59 23.99 79.12 19.30 5.20 34.23 42.51 100.00 61.10 44.78 50.65 25.73 29.38 7.50 39.57 68.03 59.81 79.90 11.69 155.40 51.28 90.95 2.15 113.05 335.13 67.26 73.90 49.60 127.55 24.03 68.22 40.75 114.54 24.79 37.82 69.36 129.67 225.98 48.45 59.31 294.05 35.43 30.35 19.19 28.21 106.16 33.37 208.79 89.39 52.23 15.12 80.85 b• .. 1 • 91 CHECK NUMBER O 321511 O 321512 O 321513 O 321514 O 321515 O 321516 O 321517 O 321518 O 321519 NAME TATE, CLARKE ANDERSON, BOBBY L D ISALVIO, VINCENT AND KELLY, TROY GRB CONSTRUCTION INC S NYDER, MARK LARSON, JAMES FILOSA, JOAN WELLENS, KAREN CHECK DATE 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 2002-04-11 CHECK AMOUNT 33.92 45.74 34.14 33.22 41.42 37.29 24.14 10.83 65.39 2,272,317.13 7.C. Proclamation and Retirement Award Honoring Rayinond Choquet on His Retirement from Indian River County Effective April 25, 2002 The Chairman entered the following proclamation and retirement award for the record. PROCLAMATION HONORING RAYMOND CHOQLET ON HIS RETIREMENT FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EFFECTIVE APRIL 25, 2002 WHEREAS, Raymond Choquet has announced his retirement as Custodian to the General Services Department Building & Grounds Division, effective April 25, 2002; and WHEREAS, Raymond Choquet began his career with the County as a Custodian on November 5, 1990. He was selected for the new custodial position that was created to care for the North County Library. He currently holds this position today; and WHEREAS, Raymond Choquet from the very beginning took great pride in his work and in maintaining the Library as if it were his own. He provided us with an employee who could make minor April 23, 2002 l6 2 • At, .. repairs to the building and saved the Division and the County substantial dollars by eliminating trips to complete the work. By reporting problems that may require our attention and before they became unmanageable, Ray allowed us to allocate our manpower more effectively and efficiently. WHEREAS, Raymond Cho quethas always exhibited a cooperative attitude with those he works with and has shown an ongoing willingness to do whatever it takes to keep his Library looking great. Ray will be missed as a member of our staff and a valuable asset to the North County Library. NOW, THER FIORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board expresses its deep appreciation for the dedicated service Raymond Choquet has given to Indian River County over the past eleven years; and, the Board wishes to express its appreciation to Raymond for his career on behalf of local government and extend its heartfelt wishes for his success in his future endeavors. Adopted this 23rd day of April, 2002 • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY 9z7r Ruth M. Stanbridge'; Chaiinian April 23, 2002 • 17 /401 • • Wil ai X0311- �'^Iii for Indian Rjver County Vero each, T'CoYicfa uJ1 iR is to rrrtifl that (J gymond Choquet in llrrehll presenteO tins iRrtirentrut Awari' for nutotaniing performance quo faithful nrrnice to Indian Wiver County Board Of County Commissioners E[even on this 25th Oat' of `r (Frame (Director of General Services gars of seri-lire Apri[ 211 02 (24altr 77. 151. K,utfi 9K. Stan6rufge Boardof CountyCommusioncr, �'hain,ian April 23, 2002 18 Lie • • 7.D. Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization - John Tippin Elected Chairman; John McCants Elected Vice Chairman The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 11, 2002: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: DATE SUBJECT: Vickie Phillips, Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Advisory Committee (MPO TAC) Secretary April 11, 2002 Election of MPO Chairman and Vice Chairman This is to confirm that at the MPO meeting of April 10, 2002, the members unanimously voted (9-0) to reelect John Tippin Chairman and elect John McCants Vice -Chairman of the MPO for the year 2002 No board action is required. NO ACTION RF QUIRED OR TAKEN. 7.E. Indian River County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) for Housing Rehabilitation and Replacement (East Gifford) The Board reviewed a memorandum of March 13, 2002: April 23, 2002 19 nv 95 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: James E. Chandler; County Administrator D1 VISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 77/ Robert M. Keating, AICf /77 Community Development Director Sasan Rohani, AICP Chief, Long -Range Planning March 13, 2002 REQUEST TO APPROVE THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) HOUSING ASSISTANCE PLAN (HAP) FOR HOUSING REHABILITA PION AND REPLACEMENT It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 23, 2002. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On October 23, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners authorized community development staff to apply for a Housing Rehabilitation Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the east Gifford area. The Board also authorized staff to initiate the process of selecting a consultant to prepare the CDBG application and administer the grant, if awarded. On February 12, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners approved the county's CDBG consultant selection committee's consultant selection prioritization list and authorized staff to begin contract negotiations with the number one ranked firm, Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc. On March 19, 2002, the Board approved a consultant contract for CDBG application services with Fred Fox Enterprises, Inc. Staff is now working with the consultant to prepare all documents which need to be included in the county's CDBG application One required document is a CDBG Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) A HAP outlines all applicable standards and guidelines that will apply to housing rehabilitation and replacement activities funded by the Community Development Block Grant. The county HAP must be submitted to the state with the county's CDBG application. The HAP establishes the following guidelines: ▪ Sets the county's CDBG rehabilitation policies. • Identifies how units will be chosen for rehabilitation. • Establishes eligibility criteria for the units and the owners. • Establishes guidelines for determining when a house is not feasible for be demolished and replaced. • Provides for CDBG rehabilitation funds to be granted to unit owners as that will be forgiven in five years. April 23, 2002 20 rehabilitation and must deferred payment loans 96 • • • Establishes procedures for reviewing applications, bidding work, contracting for rehabilitation activities, inspecting completed work, processing change orders, making payments, and undertaking other activities. ▪ Provides information regarding conflict of interest, and ■ Sets a procedure for appeal of any decisions made through the CDBG rehabilitation process. If the county is successful in obtaining CDBG funds, then the HAP guidelines and standards will be utilized for all rehabilitation and replacement work done with the CDBG funds. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached CDBG Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) ind authorize the Chairman to sign the plan. ATTACHIENT 1.) Proposed Indian River County CDBG Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the proposed CDBG Housing Assistance Plan and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended in the Memorandum. COPY OF ASSISTANCE PLAN IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 7. F. Bid #4056 - Two 4" Portable Dual Diaphragm Pumps With a 5hp Diesel Engine and an Electric Starter - ABS Pumps, Inc. The Board reviewed a memorandum of April 11, 2002: April 23, 2002 21 it r L ;Jv J DATE: TO: THR O UGH: April 1 1 , 2002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS James E. Chandler, County Administrator Thomas Frame, General Services, Director tel( Erik Olson, Utilities Department, Director FROM: Fran Powell, Purchasing Manage SUBJECT: IRC Bid # 4056 Two 4 -inch Portable Dual Diaphragm Pumps with a 5 hp Diesel Engine and an Electric Starter Utilities Department BACKGROUND: The Utilities Department has requested the purchase of two trailer mounted 4 -inch dual diaphragm pumps with a 5 -hp diesel engine and an electric starter. This type of pump is used to remove standing water from job sites. The bid results are as follows: Bid Opening Date: Advertising Dates: DemandStar Broadcast to: Specification's requested by: Replies: BID TABULATION: 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Vendor ABS Pumps Sanford, FL March 28, 2002 March 14 and 21, 2002 One Hundred Eighty Five (185) vendors Twenty -Eight (28) vendors Thirteen (13) vendors Thompson Pump & Mfg. Comp Port Orange, FL Air Components & Equip Inc Tampa, FL USA Bluebook Wzukegan, LL Southeastern Pump Pompano Beach, FL Unit Cost $5,820.00 Quantity 2ea. Total Bid Amount $11,640 00 $5,999.00 $7,1.50.00 2ea. 2ea. $11,998.00 $14,300.00 $7,499.00 $7,753.00 Locke Well & Pump Co Inc I $7,780.00 1 Orlando, FL April 23, 2002 22 '- ea. 2ea. 2 ea. $14,998.00 $15,506.00 $15.560.00 • • ESTIMATED BUDGET: 5,500.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $11,640.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: RECOMMENDATION: 471-268-536-066.49 (55,820.00) 471-269-536-066.49 (55,820.00) Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to ABS Pumps, Inc. as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. ON MOTIO\ by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously awarded Bid 114056 to ABS Pumps, Inc. as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid, as recommended in the Memorandum. April 23, 2002 BID DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN RECEIVED 23 Vendor Unit Cost Quantity 2 ea. Total Bid Amount $16,854.00 7 Walker Miller Equip Co Inc Orlando. FL $8,47700 8.L & L Worldwide Inc S3,500.00 2 ea. 517,000.00 Lake Park, FL g Nations Rent Ft Pierce, FL $8,700.00 2 ea. $17,400.00 10. Bamcy's Pumps Inc 58,950.00 2 ea. 517,900.00 Lakeland, FL 11. Industrial & Municipal Supply $9,838.00 2 ea. 519,676.00 Tallahassee, FL 1� Acme Design Inc Plant City, FL $10,400.00 2 ea. $20,800.00 13. Blanchard Machinery Voest Palm Beach, FL $11,155.00 2 ea. $22310.00 ESTIMATED BUDGET: 5,500.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $11,640.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: RECOMMENDATION: 471-268-536-066.49 (55,820.00) 471-269-536-066.49 (55,820.00) Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to ABS Pumps, Inc. as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. ON MOTIO\ by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously awarded Bid 114056 to ABS Pumps, Inc. as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid, as recommended in the Memorandum. April 23, 2002 BID DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN RECEIVED 23 7.G. Bid #4052 - Replace Roof on Fire Station #2 - Cardinal Roofing & Siding of Florida, Inc. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 11, 2002: DATE: TO: THROUGH: FROM: SUBJECT: April 11, 2002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS James E. Chandler, County Administrator Thomas Frame, General Services, Director —1-E Fran Powell, Purchasing Manager. //rat IRC Bid # 4052 Replace the Roof on Fire Station # 2 Department of Emergency Services B ACKGROUND: The Department of Emergency Services has requested that the roof on Fire Station #2 located at 3301 Bridge Plaza Drive be repaired and replaced. The bid results are as follows: B id Opening Date: Advertising Dates: Specifications mailed to: Bids Received from: B ID TABULATION: April 3, 2002 March 13 and 20, 2002 Twenty (20) vendors Six (6) vendors April 23, 2002 24 BK U Vendor Lump Sum Bid Amount Completion Time 1. Cardinal Roofing & Siding of Florida Inc Port St Lucie, FL $10,759.00 14 days 2. Atlantic Roofing of Vero Beach Vero Beach, FL $11,995.00 21 days 3 The Roof Authority Inc $12,412.00 10 days Ft Pierce, FL 4. Lucas Waterproofing Vero Beach, FL $12,800.00, 10 days 5 . Dependable Roofing Systems Inc $14,000.00 14 days Vero Beach, FL 6 Energy Coatings Corporation Vero Beach, FL $16,874.00 18 days ) April 23, 2002 24 BK U • • ESTLYIATED B UDGET: $15,000.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID• $10,759.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS: 114-120-522-066.29 EMS Capital Expense RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Cardinal Roofin; & Siding of Florida, Inc. as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously awarded Bid #4052 to Cardinal Roofing & Siding of Florida, Inc as the lowest most responsive and responsible bidder meeting the specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid, as recommended in the memorandum. BID DOCUMENTS WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN RECEIVED 7.H. Re -Roofing Design Services for Health Department Building and Indian River County Jail, Phase I - R. L. Reeger The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 9, 2002: Date: April 9, 2002 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: .James E. Chandler, County Administrator From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director --tze..4 Subject: Roofing Design Services BACKGROUND: Currently, two roofing projects have been budgeted for within this fiscal year. The first is the re - April 23, 2002 25 0 I roofing of the Health Department building for $75,000. The second project is the re -roofing of Phase 1 of the Indian River Count- Jail for $112,000. To proceed ahead with those projects, a roofing consultant was needed to advise staff on the best methods and specifications to be used in the roof replacement. In addition the services would include preparation of hid documents and inspections. Staff is proposing the use of R.L. Reeger, an architect and roofing consultant from Gainesville. Mr. Reeger has been selected as a result of piggybacking off a contract with School Board of Lake County for roofing services. Attached is a letter in the foiin of a proposal from Mr. Reeger offering his services for both facilities for a fee of $15,900. This letter proposal would be included as part of the Standard Foini of Agreement Architect's piggy -backed off the contract with Lake County Schools. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposal submitted by R.L. Reeger in the amount of $15,900 and authorize the chairman to execute the proposal letter as submitted. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the proposal submitted by R. L Reeger in the amount of $15,900 and authorized the chairman to execute the proposal letter as submitted, as recommended in the Memorandum. LETTER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 7.1. Proclamation Designating April 21-27, 2002 as Crime Victims' Rights Week The Chairman entered the following proclamation for the record. April 23, 2002 26 UR 1 • PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 21 THROUGH 27, 2002 AS CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WHEREAS our County continues to make strides in reducing the crime rate, we must remember that there are still far too many victims of crime. Those who have suffered a violation of their person, property, or trust deserve to be treated with dignity and respect by our criminal and juvenile justice systems and by society at -large; and WHEREAS, we recognize that our response to crime victims plays an important role in their efforts to rebuild their lives following the offense. Let all of us policy makers, those in the criminal justice system, counselors, clergy members, and members of the general public- do what we can to respond to victims of crime compassionately and respectfully; and WHEREAS our County has adopted laws to protect the rights of victims of crime and provide them with certain essential services, all of us must do what we can to adhere not only to the letter of victims' rights laws, but the spirit of those laws as well. Let us acknowledge that, just as government must be open to its citizens, so our system of justice must be open to victims of crime. Let us "Reach for the Stars" in the year 2001 and beyond, until we create a world where respect and dignity will be basic rights for everyone victimized by crime, and where those responsible for implementing the rights of victims are accountable for their actions; and WHEREAS, through public and private efforts, our community has already taken important steps to ensure that our treatment of victims helps them to begin the healing. Let us gratefully acknowledge all those who work, often as volunteers, on behalf of crime victims. Let us recognize those many law enforcement officers, prosecutors, victim service providers, corrections officers, parole and probation officers, counselors, physicians, health care professionals, and the many others whose dedication and service to crime victims helps to lessen trauma and assists in personal recoveries. Let us in particular express our appreciation for those victims and survivors of crime who have turned personal tragedy into a motivating force not only to improve the rights and treatment of other victims of crime, but also to build a better more just community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of April 21 through 27, 2002 be designated as CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK in Indian River County, and urge the citizens of this County to use the week to reaffirm our commitment to see that crime victims receive our respect, understanding and help this week and throughout the year. Adopted this 23rd day of April, 2002. April 23, 2002 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Ruth M. Stanbridge, Ch man 27 IMME 1 7.J. Children's Services RFP - Advertising Authorization FY 2002/03 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 17, 2002: April 17, 2002 Indian River County Commissioners 1840 25'h Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Consent Agenda — Request for Proposal Attached is the Children's Services Advisory Committee 2002/2003 Request for Proposal (RFP) for approval and permission to advertise. The Children's Services Advisory Committee has approved the RFP at their April 15, 2002 meeting. The contract, with the Comprehensive Policy for Funding Outside Agencies attached, will be sent for Commissioners' approval at a later date. Staff recommends acceptance. Respectfully Submitted, Joyce Johnston -Carlson ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously authorized advertising the Children's Services Request for Proposals for FY 2002/03 funding to provide programs for Indian River County children, as requested in the Memorandum. April 23, 2002 28 V uR o eTh C. • • 7.K. North County Regional Park - Change Order #1 for Proctor Construction Co. - Change Order #2 for Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. The Board reviewed Memoranda of April 16 and 18, 2002: TO: James Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.F., Public Works Director a 7 FROM: Christopher J. Kafer, .Jr., P.E. County Engine SUBJECT: North County Regional Park, Pool Constructioi , IRC Project No. 9926 Change Order No. 1 for Proctor Construction Co. AND Change Order No. 2 for Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. DATE: April 16, 2002 DESCRIPTIO AND CONDITIO\S 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. At the February 12, 2002 Board of County Commissioners meeting, the Board approved Change Order #1 whereby reducing the contract amount by $404,993.76 to allow for sales tax savings for direct purchase of materials. In addition to the pool construction at the park, the Board approved a Guaranteed Maximum Price in the amount of $3,352,892.00 to Proctor Construction Company for Pool Building, Parking Lots, driveways, stormwater facilities, pool deck and other supporting facilities. At this time, Proctor Construction Company, the Construction Manager at Risk for this project, feels confident that we can reduce the contract sum by $239,000.00. The contract initially had a S100,000.00 contingency. Savings on the project include modification to landscaping, sod and seed, masonry, electrical, maintenance building, etc., which allows for the reduction of this project at this time. Typically, monies are not taken out of a contract with a Guararlteed Maximum Price. There is a possibility that future unforeseen costs may be necessary. Now, with the savings from direct purchase items, contingency reductions, and various savings listed above, it is considered feasible to add one bulkhead and the geothermal heating to the competition pool. Change Order No. 2 to the Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. contract is to add one bulkhead and the Geothermal Heating System to the Olympic pool. Also included in this change order is reduction of the SCS Interactive Play Feature, which will be a direct purchase by Indian River County, saving the 7% sales tax (54,339.65 savings). April 23, 2002 29 J r; 05 Attached is Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Proctor Construction Company' for reduction in contract sum of $239,000.00. Also attached is Change Order \o. 2 to the Contract with Weiler Pool Constructors, Inc. for an increase in contract price of $225 206.35. At this time, we do not anticipate any unforeseen costs, fees, or expenses that would result in a total project cost higher than $5,800,000.00. No additional time will be added to the contiact. Substantial completion date is October 12, 2002. The following is an outline of monies budgeted and approved for this project: April 10, 2001 Board of County Commissioners Approved Budget Amount $5,800,000.00 Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. November 20, 2001, BCC Approval $2,061,967.00 February 12, 2002, BCC Approval, Change Order No. I (-) 404,993.76 April 23, 2002, Pending Change Order No. 2 (+)225,206.35 Total After Change Orders: Proctor Construction Company November 20, 2001, BCC Approval April 23, 2002, Pending Change Order No. 1 Total After Change Order Administrative Costs Rr County Costs As of November 20, 2001 Direct Purchase Items for Weller Pool (CO #1) Direct Purchase Items for Weller Pool (CO 42) Total Administrative Costs: TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR PHASE lA RECOMMENDATIONS $3,352,892.00 039,000.00 $ 358,000.00 (+)379,603.52 (+) 61,995.00 $1,882,179.59 $3,113,892.00 $ 799,598.52 $5,795,670.11 Staff recommends the Board approve Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Proctor Construction Company for a decrease in the amount of $239,000.00, and approve Chance Order No. 2 to the contract with Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. for an increase in the amount of $225,206.35. ATTACHMENTS 1. Change Order No. 1 (Proctor Construction Company) 2. Change Order No. 2 (Weller Pool Constructors, Inc.) 3. Proposal from Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. for Geothermal Heating System 4. Proposal from Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. for Olympic pool bullchead. April 23, 2002 30 n t; 1 06 • • ACTOR Construction Co. General Contractors CCC034069 1101 01011wny A 1-A, Suite 301 Vero Beocn.:=lorida 32963 Telephone (561( 234 8164 Fig 1561) 234 8188 MEMORANDUM D ate: April 18, 2002 TO: Christopher J. Kafer, P.E., County Engineer Jim Davis, Indian River County S UBJECT: North County Regional Park - IRC Project No. 9926 Contingency Reduction In an effort to procure the Bulkheads and Geo -Thermal elements of this project, Proctor Construction is offering the Contingency Reduction of $239,000. At this time Proctor feels that this is a prudent move. While there is always a chance of some unforeseen or overlooked items, we believe the project team could resolve such a situation without a negative impact. Additionally, Proctor feels there could be some further cost savings to replenish the contingency S incerely, Michael McCabe P roject Director, Proctor Construction Commissioner Ginn thought a change order of this magnitude should be listed under Departmental Matters, not Consent Agenda. She expressed concern that the activity pool was not heated. Commissioner Adams explained there would be no heat pump for the activity pool water because the water is very shallow and all heat would be lost when it is activated. Also, the sun will heat the shallow water. Concerning contingency funding, Commissioner Adams stated that was the reason for contract manager at risk agreements. Commissioner Ginn explained she had no objections to this request but felt the public April 23, 2002 31 pit needed an explanation. Commissioner Adams advised that they are still working on trying to provide a lazy river" at the park. She credited County Engineer Chris Kafer, Public Works Director James Davis, Proctor, and Weller with having done a superb job and their "can do" attitude. She assured the Commissioners they will be proud of the resulting product. Engineer Kafer explained some of the details concerning the cost savings which have been achieved and how direct purchasing has also helped to save costs. Commissioner Ginn agreed the contract manager at risk concept does seem to work. Chairman Stanbridge noted that there would be no additional time required under these change orders and understood the facility would be ready in October 2002. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Change Order No. 1 to the contract with Proctor Construction Company for a decrease in the amount of $239,000 and approved Change Order No. 2 to the contract with Weller Pool Constructors, Inc. for an increase in the amount of $225,206.35, as recommended in the Memorandum. April 23, 2002 PROCTOR AND WELLER CHANGE ORDERS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 32 • • 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING -ORDINANCE NO. 2002-018 - REZONE '17.5 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RS -3 - VICINITY OF INTERSECTION OF 4TH STREET & 58TH AVENUE - REQUESTED BY TOM AND MARY FUNKA PROOF OF PUBLICATION Is ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed a Memorandum ofApril 4, 2002 with the aid of a Power Point presentation (copy on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board) which included color site maps. TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator Mar MENT HEAD CONCURRENCE ` 701 71 Robert M. Keating, AICY Community Development•Director--; ( THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICD Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Michael Brillhart, I on; -Range Planning DATE: April 4, 2002 RF: loin and Mary Funka's Request to Rezone ±17.5 acres from A-1 to RS -3 (RZON 2001-09 0105) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 23, 2002. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This request is to rezone ±17.5 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) Depicted in Figure 1, the subject property is located on the north side of 4`h Street (Citrus Road), approximately a quarter mile west of 58"' Avenue (Kings Highway). The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site with single-family residences at a density that is consistent with the site's comprehensive plan land use designation. April 23, 2002 33 nU Past Action On November 8. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to RS -3. This rezoning was originally scheduled as an item on the Board's January 8, 2002 meeting agenda. However, the applicant's agent subsequently asked staff to pull the item from the agenda and defer the rezoning hearing to a later date. Based upon the agent's recent request, staff is now placing this item hack on the Board's agenda. Figure 1- Zoning and Location of the Subject Property Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property and the adjacent parcel to the east are zoned A-1 and consist of citrus groves. To the south of the site, across 4`t Street, land is zoned A-1 and consists of heavily wooded 2 to 8 acre single-family lots. To the west of the site, land is zoned RS -3 and contains a subdivision of single-family residences, and a metes and bounds lot containing one single-family residence. Land abutting the site on the north is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) and contains a large single-family subdivision. April 23, 2002 34 BK 10 Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and properties to the east, west and north; are designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the county future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. To the south of the subject property, land is outside the urban service area and is designated AG -1, Agricultural -1, on the county future land use map. The AG -1 designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 1 unid5 acres. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. Being a citrus grove, the site does not contain any native uplands. The site is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of 23 feet NGVD. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Arca of the county. Potable water lines extend from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, along 4th Street, to within a quarter mile of the site. Wastewater lines extend from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, along 58th Avenue, to within a quarter mile of the site. Transportation System The site is bounded on the south by 4th Street. Classified as a rural major collector road on the future roadway thoroughlare plan map, this segment of 4'h Street is a two lane paved road. Currently, the portion of 4"' Street adjacent to the subject property consists of 30 feet of public road right-of-way County plans call for this portion of 4`h Street to be expanded to four lanes and 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2020. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of thc rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include: • an analysis of thc request's potential impact 011 public facilities; • an analysis of the request's consistency with thc county's comprehensive plan; • an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and • an analysis of the request's potential impact on environmental quality. Concurrency of Puhlic Facilities This site is located within the county's Urban Service Arca, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stouuwater Management and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. April 23, 2002 35 • Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall he approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management sy stem component of the C apit it Improvernent.s Fitment. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested zoning. For residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could he built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed zoning. The site rnfoiivation used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±17.5 acres 2. Existing Zoning District: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) 3. Proposed Zoning District: RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up units/acre) 4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Existing Zoning District: 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Proposed Zoning District: Transportation 3 Single -Family Units 52 Single -Family Units to 3 As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIS. A TIS reports the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction .trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district, and assigns those trips to impacted roads Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as ro idway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more project trips, whichever is less. According to the approved TIS, the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be lowered by the traffic generated by development of 52 single-family units on the subject property. Water With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate up to 52 residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 52 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 13,000 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Development on the subject property would be served by the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 3,900,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed rezoning. Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 52 Equivalent Residential Units (ERIJ), or April 23, 2002 36 By • • 13,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/FRU/clay. County wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of 875,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request. Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/year. With the county's average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a 52 unit residential development would be anticipated to house approximately 120 people (2.3 X 52). For the subject request to meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 1.97 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must have enough capacity to accommodate approximately 237 (120 X 1.97) cubic yards/year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of over 800,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a four year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under the proposed zoning district. Stormwater Management AU developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations in addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements Of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will he prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate. In this case, the minimum floor elevation level -of -service standard applies, since the property hes within a floodplain. Consistent with Stormwater Management Sub -Element Policy 1.2 the Finished floor elevation of any new buildings constructed within a floodplain must be elevated a minimum of six inches above the base flood level. Since the subject property lies within Flood Zone AE -23, which is a special flood hazard area located within the 100 -year floodplain, any development on the property must have a minimum finished floor elevation of no less than 23.5 feet above mean sea level. Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and discharge standards also apply to this request. With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface under the proposed zoning classification will he approximately 10.5 acres. The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch discharge requirement, will he approximately 466,522 cubic feet In order w maintain the county's adopted level -of -service, the applicant will he required to retain approximately 339,772 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, the estimated pre -development peak runoff rate is 38.66 cubic feet/second. Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level -of -service standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, requiring retention of the 466,822 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property, and requiring that all finished floor elevations exceed 23.5 feet above mean sea level. A, with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval pr )cess. April 23, 2002 37 nv Gi Recreation A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense development that could occur on the subject property under the proposed zoning district indicates that the adopted level of service would be maintained. The following table illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus park acreage. Concurrency Summary Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including stoimwater management, roads solid waste, recreation, water, wastewater, and parks have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the pioposed zoning district. Therefore, the concunency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition, policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area. Since the subject property is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would permit residential uses no greater than 3 units/acre, which is less than the 6 units/acre permitted by the L-2 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12. Consistency Summary As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all applicable objectives and -policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. April 23, 2002 38 1[4 PARK INFORMATION LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population) Project Demand (Acres) Surplus Park Acreage 4.0 0.48 1.164 Concurrency Summary Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including stoimwater management, roads solid waste, recreation, water, wastewater, and parks have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the pioposed zoning district. Therefore, the concunency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. In addition, policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area. Since the subject property is located within an area designated as L-2 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would permit residential uses no greater than 3 units/acre, which is less than the 6 units/acre permitted by the L-2 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12. Consistency Summary As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all applicable objectives and -policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. April 23, 2002 38 1[4 • • Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staff's position is that granting the request to rezone the subject property to RS -3 will result in development which will be compatible with surrounding areas. Because single-family zoning districts border the subject property on the north and west, the request is for the continuation of an existing zoning pattern. In fact, staff anticipates that, eventually, single- farruly residential development will also occur on the tract to the east of the subject property. Conflicts are also unlikely with the agricultural zoned land to the south, across 4' Street, since, in terms of actual use, that land is more residential than agricultural. For these reasons, staff feels that the requested RS -3 zoning would be compatible with development in the surrounding area. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality The subject property does not contain any wetlands or native upland habitat. As a previously cleared site, the subject property is not environmentally significant nor environmentally important. Consequently, the proposed rezoning will nut have any significant impacts on important environmental resources. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested zoning district is compatible with surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency critilia, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for low-density single-family residential uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RS -3 by adopting the attached ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary Pag*e 2. Rezoning Application 3. Approved Minutes of the November 8, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Rezoning Ordinance Chairman Stanbridge asked if there were any questions; there were none. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. April 23, 2002 39 15 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance No. 2002-018 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning Map for +17.5 acres, located on the north side of 4th Street (Citrus Road), approximately a quarter mile west of 58th Avenue (Kings Highway), from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -3, Single Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre); and described in the ordinance, and providing severability and effective date. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-018 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR ± 17 5 ACRES, LOCAIED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 4TH STREET (CITRUS ROAD), APPROXIMATELY A QUARTER MILE WEST OF 58TH AVENUE (KINGS HIGHWAY), FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (UP TO 1 UNIT/5 ACRES), TO RS -3 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 3 UNITS/ACRE); AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; April 23, 2002 40 orL'1 i G. €. 1 J • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THE EAST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 7, SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE 39 EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25; SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 290 FEET OF THE WEST 300 FEET THEREOF AND LESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE EAST 10 ACRES OF TRACT 7 SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, IN PLAT BOOK 2 PAGE 25 SAID LAND NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 23`d day of April, 2002. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 10th day of April, 2002, for a public hearing to be held on the 23`d day of April, 2002, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner Ginn , and adopted by the following vote: April 23, 2002 Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye 41 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Ruth M. Stanbridge, Ch'irman A 1"1'EST _it c� c..���� 11 % '2).0 -0-°R Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: APPROVFD AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William G. Collins IT, Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MAI 1ERS Robert M. Keating, AICP; ommuniyy''evelopment Director April 23, 2002 42 1 • 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-019 - REZONE .215.62 ACRES FROM A-1 OF 20TH STREET AND 78TH AVENUE - REQUESTED BY GARY PURDY PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed a Memorandum ofApril 8, 2002 aided by a Power Point presentation (copy on file with the backup in the Office of the Clerk to the Board), a graphic showing the general location of the property, and an aerial view of the general vicinity of the subject property: TO: .Tames E. Chandler; County Administrator %EPA (TiMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE IL,a"-C3 ..(1,--- A.0 ri, "1-7,11 Robert M. Keating, AICP") i f / THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP -S 'X• `.- Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Randy Deshazo tcc9 Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: April 8, 2002 RE: Gary Purdy's Request to Rezone Approximately 7.21 Acres from A-1 and RM -6 to RM -8 (RZON 20-00-0095) It is requested that the following infornlation be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 23, 2002. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This request is to rezone 5.62 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), and 1.59 acres from RiV1-6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to RM -8 Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). The northern portion of the site is currently zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), while the southern portion of the site is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1. unit/5 acres). The subject property is depicted in the figure below, and is located approximately 300 feet south of SR 60, on the east side of 78`h Avenue. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site with a residential use at a density that is consistent with its comprehensive plan land use designation. April 23, 2002 43 `i DI+ 1 tr,. 1 13 'i AND RM-f,TORVI-t OF 20TH STREET AND 78TH AVENUE - REQUESTED BY GARY PURDY PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed a Memorandum ofApril 8, 2002 aided by a Power Point presentation (copy on file with the backup in the Office of the Clerk to the Board), a graphic showing the general location of the property, and an aerial view of the general vicinity of the subject property: TO: .Tames E. Chandler; County Administrator %EPA (TiMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE IL,a"-C3 ..(1,--- A.0 ri, "1-7,11 Robert M. Keating, AICP") i f / THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP -S 'X• `.- Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Randy Deshazo tcc9 Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: April 8, 2002 RE: Gary Purdy's Request to Rezone Approximately 7.21 Acres from A-1 and RM -6 to RM -8 (RZON 20-00-0095) It is requested that the following infornlation be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 23, 2002. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This request is to rezone 5.62 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), and 1.59 acres from RiV1-6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to RM -8 Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). The northern portion of the site is currently zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), while the southern portion of the site is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1. unit/5 acres). The subject property is depicted in the figure below, and is located approximately 300 feet south of SR 60, on the east side of 78`h Avenue. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site with a residential use at a density that is consistent with its comprehensive plan land use designation. April 23, 2002 43 `i DI+ 1 tr,. 1 13 'i On March 28, 2002, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request to rezone the subject property. • 1 • • 1 • I< 7,R W a 4 0 l m 10tH SIW1l 11 nI- Q 11. RS -6 „ ,a 'MCI 11 RM -6 R.10 r ILC +fv tifiLt 911 S.R. 60 SELL= % d AZ IE I InCEC a• k }riles. GSOfE lasso w PDTND SIL / A POINTE WEST % 1 WORT -1 VILLAGE 'i i PHASE 1 FD PHI. 15- I r. MILT l oc PQ la 031114. JO c RM -6 Pt 2 lm1 w y Salt e L11 /41 Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property consists of cleared land, a single-family residence, a wooded area, and trees along the perimeter of the property. Land along the subject property's west boundary is zoned RS -6 (Single Family Residential, up to 6 units/acre) and includes the Greenbrier Subdivision. Land along the southern boundary is zoned PDTND, Traditional Neighborhood Design Planned Development, and contains the Pointe West project. To the east of the subject property, land is zoned RM -6 and contains the Tamara Gardens Condo subdivision To the north of the subject property Land is zoned RM -6 and contains two single-family residences, and a wooded lot. Continuing north, across SR 60, land is also zoned RM -6 and contains active citrus groves. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and all surrounding properties are designated M--1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. April 23, 2002 44 nit j ri °"1 Ey LIR t Lei 10 0 • • Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain any flood hazard areas. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Region Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Transportation System The site is bounded on the west by 78ffi Avenue, a public road with 43 feet of right of way. If the property is developed in the future, that Right of Way will be expanded to 60 feet_ To the north is SR 60 (20`h Street). Classified as an urban principal arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of SR 60 is a tour -lane road with approximately 163 feet of public road right-of-way. By 2005, the Florida Department of Trmsportation plans to begin constriction to exp and the portion of SR 60 between 66th Avenue and Interstate 95 from four lanes to six lanes. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include: an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities; an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and an analysis of the request's potential impact on environmental quality. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation Potable Water Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate provision of these sr,rviccs is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also require that new development he reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. For rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested zoning. For residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of April 23, 2002 45 the property and the maximum density under the proposed zoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 2. Existing Zoning Districts: 3. Proposed Zoning District: 4_ Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Existing Zoning Districts: 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Proposed Zoning Distnct: Transportation 7.21 acres 1.59 Acres of RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) and 5.62 Acres of A- 1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) 7.21 Acres of RM -S, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre) 10 Single -Family Units 57 Single -Family Units Access to the site will be from 78th Avenue, a paved public road with 43 feet of right of way, open to SR 60. If the property is developed in the future, that Right of Way will he expanded to 60 feet. As part of the concurrency rev iew process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact. Statement (TIS). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIS. A TIS reports the number of peak hour/peak season,'peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district, and assigns those trips to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more project trips, whichever is less. According to the approved TIS, the existing level of service on impacted roads would not be lowered by the traffic generated by development of 57 single-family units on the subject property. Water With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 57 residential units resulting in ater consumption at a rate of 57 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) or 14,250 gallons/day This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Development on the subject property would be served by the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed rezoning. Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 57 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU) or 14,250 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request. April 23, 2002 46 • • Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/year. With the county s average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a 57 unit residential development would be anticipated to house approximately 131 people (2.3 X 57). For the subject request to meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 1.97 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must have enough capacity to accommodate approximately 258 (131 X 1 97) cubic yards/year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segiuent of the county landfill indicates the availability of more than 820,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under the proposed zoning district. Stormwater Management All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stonnwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of 2 inches in a 24 hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate. In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be approximately 219,542 square feet, or 5.04 acres. The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD 2 inch discharge requirement, would be approximately 220,824 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 168,552 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil charactenstics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 21.45 cubic feet/second. Based upon the County Engineering Division's would be met by limiting off-site discharge to inches in 24 hours, and requiring retention of intense use of the property. analysis, the drainage level of service standard the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of 2 the 168,552 cubic feet of runoff for the most As with all development, a more detailed draina development approval process. Recreation e review will be conducted during the A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district indicates that the adopted levels of service would he maintained. The following table illustrates the additional pirk demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus park acicage. April 23, 2002 47 PARK INFORMATION LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population) 4.0 Project Demand (Acres) j Surplus Park Acreage .524 1,164 Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, wastewater, and parks, have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies. Future Land Use Element Objective 1 Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl. By allowing the site to be developed in a manner that is consistent with the site's land use designation, the request works to create a more compact land use pattern within the urban service area and reduces the chances for urban sprawl to occur For these reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1. Future Land Use Element Policies L13 and L14 Future Land Use Element Policy 1 14 states that the M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. In addition Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area. Since the subject property is located within an area designated as M-1 on the county's future land use plan map and is located within the county's urban sen ice area, and the proposed zoning distnct would allow residential uses no greater than the 8 units/acre permitted by the M-1 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.13 and 1.14. Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the county shall encourage and direct growth into the urban service area through zoning and LDRs. Since the proposed rezoning would allow and encourage more development on the subject property and the subject property is within the urban service area, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2. April 23, 2002 Future Land Use Element Objective 4 Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that the county will reduce the number and length of trips on county roads. The site is located near several of the county's largest employment centers, including the Indian River Mall and the Prime Outlet Mall. Many people who work in those employment centers live in moderately -priced, low to medium density housing. The RM -8 zoning district is intended for such uses. Therefore, the proposed rezoning will increase the opportunity for people who work in those areas to live near their jobs, thus reducing the length of their trips to and from work. For this reason, the request implements Future Land Use Element Objective 4. Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1 Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1 state that the county will encourage a compact land use pattern (with appropriate densities that are consistent the comprehensive plan's future land use map) in the urbanized area and along major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass transit provision. Since the proposed rezoning encourages a compact land use pattern that is consistent with the comprehensive plan along and near several major transportation corridors, this request implements Transportation Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1. As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all appropriate objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area With this proposed rezoning, compatibility is an issue only with the property to the west. That property is developed as Greenbrier, a single-family subdivision. Properties to the north, south, and east are either developed as, or programmed for, multi -family development. Therefore, no incompatibilities between these properties and the subject property are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed rezoning. Compatibility, however, is an issue that must be addressed when property adjacent to a single- family subdivision is rezoned to multi -family. Generally, multi -family zoning will result in a higher number of dwelling units being constructed on a given site than would be constricted on that site under single-family zoning. Consequently, multi -family development will result in more traffic and more activity generally_ Because multi -family developments often concentrate parking and other site activities, there are potential noise and lighting impacts that could affect adjacent single-family areas. Most of these compatibility issues can be resolved through the site plan process. In fact, multi- family is often a transitional zoning, separating commercial areas from single-family residential areas. So site design requirements are often used to mitigate compatibility issues in situations like this where multi -family abuts single -fancily. In this case, most potential compatibility issues between development on the subject property and the adjacent Greenbrier subdivision will be addressed at site plan review. At that time, the April 23, 2002 site plan review process will require that buffers be established along the subject property's perimeter to ensure compatibility between development on the property and Greenbner. Also, the site plan review process will ensure that activity areas on the site are located such that noise, light, and other impacts will not affect Greenbrier. Given the location of the subject property, access to any development project constricted on the property will be through 78th Avenue, a road shared with the Greenbrier subdivision and located along Greenbrier's eastern edge. When the subject property is developed, additional right of way will be required for 78th Avenue to bring it up to the 60 foot local road standard. This additional right of way will increase the separation distance between Greenbrier and new development on the subject property. Also, access to the subject property from 78th Avenue will be restricted to the northernmost point of the subject property s 78`h Avenue frontage, thereby limiting the southern extent of multi -family traffic on 78th Avenue. With some of the site already zoned for multiple -family uses, this request is primarily for a density increase (consistent with the comprehensive plan). Since the density increase meets the concurrency test and is consistent with the site's future land use designation, the request is not anticipated to negatively impact surrounding areas. For these reasons, staff feels the requested zoning district would be compatible with adjacent residential development. Approximately half of the subject property has been cleared. Since the subject property currently contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or sensitive uplands, development of the site is anticipated to have little or no impact on environmental quality For this reason, no adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis, staff has detennined that the requested zoning district is compatible with surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency critena, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for medium -density multiple -family residential uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis, the Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to RM -8 by approving the attached ordinance. ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary Page 2. Rezoning Application 3. Minutes of the March 28, 2002 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Connnission 4. Ordinance April 23, 2002 • After Director Keating responded to questions concerning actual development density in the area, Commissioner Macht stated that he could not support RVI -8 in spite of the zoning specified by the Comprehensive Plan and believed the property should be rezoned to RM -6. Commissioner Ginn agreed that it should be RM -6 particularly if it should be developed in subsidized housing which would permit a density bonus. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. W. F. "Bill" McCain, W. F. McCain and Associates, 2066 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, representing the applicant, Gary Purdy, advised that the neighbors generally supported this proposal. He distributed a handout to the Commissioners which included a site plan and letters in support from two neighbors who could not attend. (A copy of the handout has been placed on file with the backup in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) He was aware of some concerns of the neighbors and gave assurances concerning density, buffers, and roadways issues. He described the 4 contiguous parcels in detail and indicated a willingness on behalf of his client to accept RM -6 on Parcel 1 but he explained the configuration of the whole site pointing out why Mr. Purdy wanted RM -8 on Parcels 2, 3, and 4. He specified that Mr. Purdy wished to develop 32 units rather than 28 units on Parcels 2, 3, and 4. He believed that a project being planned by the Department of Transportation will take care of neighbors' concerns about safety factors relative to ingress and egress on SR 60. He understood those FDO f construction plans will soon be coming to fruition. Mr. McCain responded to questions of Commissioners Ginn and Adams to clarify the sizes and configuration of the 4 parcels, the driveway, and renovations to Mr. Purdy's April 23, 2002 51 Di'' ' '14 27 private residence on Parcel 1. Gary Purdy, 7775 20`'' Street, advised that the property had been in his family since the 1960's and he planned on staying there, has recently done extensive remodeling and added a pool. He wanted the development of the property compatible with his home and the neighborhood. He described how his development will be gated. He has spoken with neighbors and has tried to address their concerns. Using one of the graphics, he pointed out the homes of neighbors who have signed letters supporting the project. Commissioner Adams was concerned about what would happen if Mr. Purdy sold the property. If the Board were to rezone the property RM -8, there would be no guarantee that the property would be developed as Mr. Purdy has planned. Mr. McCain explained that Mr. Purdy plans to have 32 units on the site but RM -6 would allow only 28 units; that RM -8 would actually allow 48 units on the total of six acres. A discussion was held on maximum density after which Commissioner Adams indicated her preference to support RM -6. Bob Hennessey, 1933 Tamara Trail, advised that he was representing his condo association which is located near the proposed rezoning. He specified they had no objection to RM -6. He then advised that the association's petition for a sewer line was just submitted to Utilities Department Assessment Projects Manager Dan Chastain and they want the ability to connect if there is going to be one nearby. Leonard Hatala, 5865 34th Street, owns two units in Tamara Gardens and property on SR 60. He favored RM -6 but not RM -8. Homer Gindlesperger, 1935 79`'' Avenue, was concerned that 79`x' Avenue, which he can now use, will no longer provide direct access to SR 60. He saw no problem with the Board approving RM -6. April 23, 2002 52 B( Th �� t28 In closing, Mr. McCain expressed his client's desire for RM -8 but he did not want to lose the ability to have at least RVI -6. In response to a Commissioner's inquiry, Director Keating advised that he did not see a problem with RM -6 and it would have no affect on the 78th Avenue project. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance \o. 2002-019 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning Map for 5.62 acres, located approximately 612' south of 20`" Street (SR 60), and east of 78`" Avenue, from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), and RM -6, Multiple Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to RM -6, Multiple Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre); and described in the ordinance, and providing severability and effective date. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-019 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR 5 62 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 612 FEET SOUTH OF 20TH STREET (SR 60), AND EAST OF 78TH AVENUE, FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (UP TO 1 UNIT/5 ACRES), TO RM -6, MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE); AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and April 23, 2002 7,440 n - WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described properties situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: COMMENCING AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE EAST FIVE ACRES OF THE WEST 10.68 ACRES OF TRACT 10, SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE 38 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST LUCIE COUNTY,FLORIDA; SAID LAND NOW SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND BOUNDED: THENCE S 00°06'15' E 612.00' TO A POINT; THENCE N 89°47'13" E A DISTANCE OF 164.73' TO A POINT; SAID BEING THE POINT OF' BEGINNING OF PARCEL 3, THENCE RUN S 00°06'16" E A DISTANCE OF 693.93 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE S 89°26'38' W A DISTANCE OF 191.72 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE RUN N 00°27'28" W A DISTANCE OF 695.10 FEET TO A POINT THENCE RUN N 89°47'13' E A DISTANCE OF 184.89 FEET TO A POINT SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF PARCEL 3. AND COMMENCING AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE EAST FIVE ACRES OF THE WEST 10.68 ACRES OF TRACT 10, SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH RANGE 38 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST LUCIE COUNTY,FLORIDA; SAID LAND NOW SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLORIDA; LESS AND EXCEPT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AND BOUNDED: THENCE S 00°06'15" E 612.00' TO A POINT; SAID BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF' PARCEL 2, THENCE RUN S 00°06'15" E A DISTANCE OF 693.12 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE N 89°26 38" E A DISTANCE OF 164.73 FEET TO A POINT THENCE RUN N 00°06'16" W A DISTANCE OF 693 93 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE RUN N 89°47'13" E A DISTANCE OF 164.73 FEET TO A POINT; SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF PARCEL 2. are changed from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RM -6, Multiple -family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). April 23, 2002 .15 54 Dr 30 All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 23rd day of April, 2002. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 10th day of April, 2002, for a public hearing to be held on the 23rd day of April, 2002, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Ginn seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R Macht Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye ATTEST B Jeffrey K. Barton, 1 erk This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date:_ APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney D AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Indian River Co. Approved Budget Risk Mgr. t\ed\u\r\rz\purdy\ord. doe April 23, 2002 Xti y5 (CLERK'S NOTE* AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE ABOVE ITEM, THE CHAIRMAN CALLED A SHORT RECESS AT 10:07 A.M. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 10:12 A.M. ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT VICE CHAIRMAN TIPPIN WHO ARRIVED AT 10:14 A.M.) 9.B PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM - REQUEST FROM GEORGE RACICOT CONCERNING CODE ENFORCEMENT Mr. Racicot was not present when called. 9.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON MAY 7, 2002 - SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION - PHASE III -D AND PHASE III -E - RESOLUTION III DATE:: TO: TI -IRU: FROM:: SUBJ:: APRIL 9, 2002 MARGARET GUNTER EXECUTIVE SECRETARY/ASSISTANT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ADMINISTR W. ERIK OLSON DIRECTOR OF UTILI Y SERVICES JAMES D. CHAS MANAGER OF 411 TION SMENT PROJECTS PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM FOR BCC MAY, 7 PUBLIC HEARING SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION PHASE'S III -D & III -E INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROTECT NO'S. UW -97 -19 -DS & UW -97 -20 -DS The following item is scheduled for public hearing on May 7, 2002. Please post under Public Notice Items in the BCC Agenda the April 23 2002 meeting prior. SEBASTIAN WATER EXPANSION — PHASE'S III -D & III -E INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO'S. UW -97 -19 -DS & UW -97 -20 -DS RESOLUTION III - PUBLIC HEARING April 23, 2002 56 32 a, The Chairman read the above title into the record. 11.C.1. ENHANCED SECURITY FOR COURTHOUSE - SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES General Services Director Tom Frame reviewed a Memorandum of April 17, 2002: Date: April 17, 2002 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director /ItiLccic,/ �' Subject: Enhanced Security for Courthouse BACKGROUND: Following the attacks in New York on September 11, 2001, a task force was utilized by the Indian River County Sheriff's Department relative to security enhancements for the Indian River County Courthouse. A number of recommendations were generated for consideration. Foremost in those recommendations was an enhancement to the closed circuit TV system. That enhanced system proposed 13 additional cameras along with various controls and recorders. Star Communications has quoted a price of $34,035 for the installation of this system with county staff to provide camera installation labor. The labor work must be performed after hours or on weekends to prevent disturbances in the courtrooms. 1 his would require overtime for the county employees. We had attempted to obtain quotes from our current security provider in vain. Next we contacted Siemens Building Technologies, which is the company utilized to provide and install detention controls in the county jail. `Their quote is attached for your review. They submitted a quote that included the cost of installation of wiring and cable, which is only $2,765 more than the quote from Star Communications. By having Siemens Building Technologies install the equipment and wiring we eliminate a problem of undetermined time to finished the wiring through scheduling difficulties, we eliminate overtime costs and we obtain a system that is under warranty from camera to processor including wiring. This is an unanticipated expense, which has been identified as a needed security enhancement for the Courthouse. It was not budgeted accordingly and needs to be funded via the General Fund Contingency. RECOMMENDATION: That the Board waiver its fouual bid procedures and accept the proposal submitted by Siemens Building Technologies for the installed quotation of $36,800, the funding be authorized from the General Fund Contingency and that the Chairman be authorized to execute the Terns and Conditions of Sales Acknowledgement upon the final approval of the acicnowledgement by the County Attorney's office. April 23, 2002 Ji Commissioner Adams had concern that staff was contemplating using general fund contingency dollars for funding this item and not sales tax or capital funds. Administrator Chandler advised that the optional sales tax dollars are vert' tight since $2,000,000 of those dollars were required to purchase unexpected/unbudgeted voting machines, but general fund contingency monies were available. Commissioner Macht indicated there were concerns about security in the County Administration Building and asked how that issue was being addressed since there seemed to be more incidents in this building than in the Courthouse. Administrator Chandler advised that the Sheriff's Office had made their priority list which included the Utilities Department, the Courthouse, and the Administration Building. Director Frame added that moving this forward has taken a lot longer since the Task Force came with their recommendations. He stated it was not his place to say the additional security at the Courthouse was a real emergency or was not. Chairman Stanbridge wondered if there was a priority list, and Director Frame responded that he had not seen one but had been told that the Courthouse was first and then this building. Another concern in the Courthouse is the intake ventilation. Commissioner Macht commented that the security of the Courthouse had been breeched when so many keys had been issued for the back door and Director Frame advised that most of those keys had been taken up and access to the back entrance has been restricted quite a bit. Commissioner Ginn asked for an update on contingency funds and Administrator Chandler advised that if this item was approved for use of those funds, there would remain about $40,000 to $50,000 for use in the remainder of the fiscal year. Commissioner Adams was concerned if a storm came along and used up our contingency funds, what then, and Administrator Chandler responded that the Board could April 23, 2002 58 BK 434 go to our reserves and the County has never exhausted our contingency as far as he can remember. Commissioner Ginn thought it might be best to wait until next fiscal year to implement the additional Courthouse security, whereupon Director Frame suggested perhaps the Board could defer this matter to the next meeting so someone from the Sheriff's office could address the matter. Commissioner Adams' concern was the source of the funds. She preferred to have the matter addressed in the next budget year and that may not cause a big problem. ON MO HO\ by Commissioner Adams, SECO\ DED BY Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously deferred this matter to the next fiscal year. 11.C.2. SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS' NEW OFFICE SPACE SITE PLAN General Services Director Tom Frame reviewed Memoranda of April 17 and 19, 2002 using the site plans (existing and proposed) displayed on the overhead projector: Date: April 19, 2002 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director 'ir'""'d J- Subject: Update on Proposed Siting of Supervisor of Flections Office Attached is a drawing representative of the proposed site plan being submitted for review by the City of Vero Beach. April 23, 2002 17TH AVENUE EXISTING ADMINISTRATION BUILDING EXISTING SITE PLAN CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING 1140 7th COURT, SUITE F VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 TEL 561 / 770-9622 FAX 561 / 770-9496 EMAIL sbseng©gatenet April 23, 2002 17TH AVENUE 350.00' .IO.LsI 1'1 EXJST1NG ADMINISTRATION BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN SCHULKE, BITTLE & STODDARD, L.L.C. CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING ENVIRONMLNTAI PERMITTING 1140 7th COURT, SUITE F VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 TEL 561 / 770-9622 FAX 561 / 770-9496 EMAIL sbseng@gate.net April 23, 2002 As can be noted the building is located principally within the East Employees Parking Lot with a small section projecting back into the green grassed area. This location was chosen for a number of reasons. First, it minimizes both the increase of additional impervious surface area by utilizing mostly existing paved area. Secondly, it minimizes the impact on the existing parking areas by being placed in a location where more traffic circulation is being used than existing parking. Thirdly it will be adjacent to an existing walkway, which is available for use by the general public when coming from the existing Administrative Building or by visitors who park in the adjacent parking lot. It also minimizes the run of water and sewer lines to the facility. Obviously, the parking spaces displaced by the building have to be replaced and additional parking spaces due to the size of the building have to be provided. To accomplish the replacement of the parking and to provide the additional parking, two things are going to occur. First, new parking is being provided around the circular drive. Those spaces will be new diagonal spaces with close proximity to the Administration Building. There will also be additional accessibility spaces provided to enhance the number of spaces available to the public in need of such spaces. Both the East Employee Parking Lot and the parking lot adjacent to the Board's chambers will be re -striped to provide additional spaces. In general, spaces will be reduced from ten feet in width to nine feet in width In some cases, compact spaces will also be utilized. The results of this plan will provide a facility location that is easily accessible by the public and provides a site here at the main administrative complex where both the public and Supervisor of Elections can retain access to the existing governmental services that were always present with the Supervisor's existing office facility location. The existing grassed area between the circular driveway will be modified slightly to accept some minimal drainage retention. Some of the existing cabbage palms will be relocated to make room for the additional parking. If anyone has any questions please contact me at your convenience. Cc: James E. Chandler, County Administrator The Honorable Kay Clem, Supervisor of Elections Date: April 19, 2002 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners j From: Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director a< AU.) Subject: Agenda Item 11.C.2 Correction of Err The above referenced agenda item had indicated that if the modular unit was ordered by May 26, it would be delivered six weeks later on May 31. Obviously that is incorrect It should have read that if ordered by April 26, it would be take approximately six weeks to be delivered and arrive approximately June 7`h. In actuality, GE has indicated a delivery date by June 10. This is Still within the acceptable range of meeting the absolute deadline for having Ms. Clem up and operating. April 23, 2002 62 • Date: April 17, 2002 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator From: Thomas \V. Frame, General Services Director Subject: Supervisor of Elections Office Space BACKGROUND: On March 12, 2002, the Board opted to proceed with a modular facility to provide office expansion to meet the needs of the Supervisor of Elections here on the site of the County Administration Building. For your convenience the back-up includes the agenda transmittal submitted at that time. At the time the matter was presented to the Board, the Wind Load requirements had been thought to be in the level below the 140 -mph zone. It was subsequently determined to be at the higher level and this has caused an increase in the cost of the unit for its annual lease cost. That cost has risen from $59,928 to $67,200. For an additional $295 per month the modular can be outfitted with both impact resistant windows and doors. The basic set-up rose by $3,000 due to increase in wind load, and the additional items addressing specific plumbing and electrical configurations and demands along with telephony and data lines pushed the total one time charge up to $57,244. These changes do cause the over all up -front costs to rise $26,618 from the earlier figure of $163,596.20 to $190,214.20. Relative to timing, we have secured engineering services to obtain all appropriate regulatory approvals from local and state agencies. The site plan review is anticipated in early May and subsequent stormwater approval shortly thereafter Overall the schedule to meet the July 1 deadline is still achievable. G. E. Capital says it will take 6 weeks from order to delivery and about 30 days set-up time. If the modular is ordered by May 26, six weeks delivery would be May 31. With 30 days of set-up time, this provides an occupancy by July 1, 2002, meeting Ms. Clem's deadline. The lease document has been reviewed by Will Collins and except for a couple of minor items, it is not expected to be a problem. RECOMMENDATION: While the cost of the modular unit has risen, considering the timing and the desired location, the modular is considered to be the best option available. Staff would like to request the Board to waiver the noimal bid procedure and authorize the staff to proceed with obtaining the modular office from G. E. Capital by authorizing the Chaiunan to execute the lease agreement. That the approval be subject to the final review and approval of the lease by the County Attorney's office. That it be subject to the annual lease amount not exceeding $70,740 (includes impact resistant window and doors). That it be subject to the one-time set-up charges by G. E. Capital not to exceed S57,244. April 23, 2002 63 rater R ) Dn ,",, uf1:,'). Kay Clem Supervisor of Elections Indian River Connor. Florida TO: Honorable Ruth Stanbridge Chairman, Indian River County Commission FROM: Kay Clerryt RE: Relocation of SOE Office DATE April 17, 2002 It is important for you as commissioners to weigh all the costs associated with the upcoming move of the elections office. There are some areas that have not been addressed that I believe you should consider as we move to a final decision regarding the move Our existing furniture, which for the most part I purchased from a bus company which was going out of business and a hospital surplus sale, will be used in the new building. We will be increasing our square footage in office space by over 3,000 sq. ft. (excluding increased warehouse space). We will obviously need additional furnishings for the increased space and additional shelving in the warehouse.. We need additional desks, counterspace, shelving and a few chairs. We also need fire proof file cabinets (in lieu of a vault) for the increased storage space required for larger absentee ballots. We have been working with Dave Tilton of Office Products and Services to come up with a definitive total of the costs which we believe will be in the neighborhood of $36,000. It is my understanding we may be able to tie onto a bid being used by St. Lucie County to relocate their Supervisor of Elections Office. I will have final figures for you prior to Tuesday's board meeting. We are also working on determining the costs associated with providing the state mandated security for the elections office. We will have an estimate prior to Tuesday's meeting. I am unaware of the costs which will be associated with the actual moving of our equipment and wiring charges. I assume that our county employees will facilitate the moving of the furniture and equipment but await your guidance as to whether we need to determine what a moving company would charge for that service. Further, I do not know if the modular building is furnished with carpeting, linoleum, etc. This project has thankfully been spread into many hands because of the time constraints of my hectic election year/new equipment/reapportionment schedule. I wanted to make sure you are made aware of all costs and to make certain that all aspects of the move are being covered by the various employees charged with coordinating the budgeting of this move. I thank you for your consideration and understanding of the extraordinary budgetary requirements the elections office has incurred as a result of the Presidential Election of 2000. April 23, 2002 64 0 • • Director Frame responded to Commissioner Adams' concerns advising that about 40- 50 feet of the grassy area will be removed and the existing oak tree will not be affected except possibly its drip line. Also he responded that if the building is located on the 17th Avenue side of the employee parking lot we would lose more parking. Staff has struggled with the location of the building and it was determined that the location depicted in the site plan was found to be the best. Concerning Commissioner Ginn's concerns about removal of the macadam, Director Frame assured her that if it is not found to be necessary, it would not be removed where the building will be sited. Commissioner Adams commented that although it has to be done, it is going to look like a building on a parking lot which would not be attractive. Vice Chairman Tippin felt that staff had struggled with this, it would never be beautiful, and the Board ought to approve staff's choice for site location. MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, to approve the site location. Commissioner Ginn reiterated her desire to leave the macadam under the building because of the additional cost and moisture concerns, but Commissioners Tippin and Macht were not concerned about that aspect of this issue. THE CHAIRMA\ CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Adams opposed). April 23, 2002 65 a b Director Frame explained that removal of the macadam may relate to stormwater issues and agreed to leave the asphalt there unless it is more expensive lo leave it there. He also wanted to point out some cost increases related to wind load requirements related to placement of the unit, cost of construction, and the main distribution panel for the electric and telephone/fax/data line requirements to support the Supervisor of Elections. Those matters translate to a S26,618 increase in the one-time up -front cost from $30,626 to $57,244. The projected overall one-time cost increases from S163,596 to S190,214, and the annual lease increases from $59,928 to $67,200, plus the recommended inclusion of impact - resistant windows and doors, increasing the cost on an annual basis up to S70,740. As a comparison, another company, William Scottsman, had faxed a proposal based on 91,000 square feet with an up-front/one-time cost of S115,000; the annual lease amount was $49,500; therefore, he felt the GI- Capital unit would be the more cost-effective of the two. Director Frame advised that the recommendation was to allow staff to proceed with GE Capital and authorize the Chairman to execute the contract upon full satisfaction of the County Attorney's office. He had reviewed the contract with Deputy County Attorney Will Collins and two minor issues remain. One concerned an issue on the standards in place for the return of the unit, and the other was to include the word "addendum" in a blank where they had the word "none." These are not significant issues and due to the time element, he asked for their approval today. Chairman Stanbridge reiterated her understanding of the approval Director Frame was requesting and the dollar figures above, and Director Frame advised that the figures given are estimates and that there will also be costs for landscaping and parking requirements. April 23, 2002 66 • ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SFCO\DFD BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved staffs recommendation. (Waived the normal bid procedure and authorized the staff to proceed with obtaining the modular office from G. F Capital by authorizing the Chairman to execute the Lease Agreement, subject to the following: 1) final review and approval of the lease by the County Attorney's office; 2) an annual lease amount not exceeding $70,740 (including impact resistant windows and doors); and one-time set-up charges by G. E. Capital not to exceed out in the Memorandum.) 57,244; as set Director Frame then advised that the Supervisor of Elections had information on a security system and additional furniture. Supervisor of Flections Kay Clem specified that the expansion of approximately 3,000 square feet will require additional furniture. An assessment of everything currently in her office has been done and she will be able to use almost everything. When determining the furnishings for the new modular building she kept in mind that they would be able to be moved to a new County Administration Building. The cost of what will be required is S36,000. She advised that she has also received two bids for a security system (required by the Department of State) but she desired to obtain more. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED for discussion by Commissioner Macht, to approve the Supervisor of Electionsrequest for up to $36,000 for furniture. April 23, 2002 67 L;t • • Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked if there was a list of required furniture, and Mrs. Clem advised she would be pleased to provide the list. Commissioner Adams understood this would be corning out of the contingency fund also. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Stanbridge understood that the funding for the security system would be brought back at a future date. GE CAPITAL MODULAR SPACE LEASE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G. KINGS HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS - ENGINEERING SERVICES - AMENDMENT NO. 15 TO REPLACE AMENDMENT NO. 13 - KIMLEY-HORN, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 17, 2002: TO: James Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director rf,'f FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E., Capital Projects Managero< S UBJECT: Kings Highway Improvements Engineering Services Amendment No. 15 D ATE: April 17, 2002 D ESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Kimley-Horn, Inc. is under contract with Indian River County to provide professional engineering and surveying services for improvements to Kings Highway. On December 18, 2001, the Board approved Amendment No. 13, which provided for revising the design of Kings Highway south of Oslo Road where the County had been unable to acquire right- of-way. The County finally reached an Agreement with the property owner and recently closed on the right-of-way. Attached is Amendment No. 15, which replaces Amendment No. 13: April 23, 2002 68 zr f 9 iii t L • Additional design services are needed for revisions to the Kings Highway Drawings at 5`h Street SW where an additional bridge is being proposed Additional services are also needed for revisions to the striping and addition of pedestrian ramps at the 12t Street, 8`h Street, and 4th Street intersections where signals are going to be installed. The $6,000.00 Not -to -Exceed compensation amount in Amendment No.15 is the same as Amendment No.13. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board Approve replacing Amendment No. 13 with Amendment No. 15 for the same Not -to -Exceed Amount of $6,000.00. Funding is from Account 315- 214-541-067.48 ATTACHMENT Amendment No. 15 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved replacing Amendment No. 13 with Amendment No 15 for the same not -to -exceed amount of 56,000, as recommended in the Memorandum. AMENDMENT NO. 15 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE Ol' THL CLERK TO THE BOARD 12.A. PENDING LITIGATION ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION CONCERNING DEBRA K. MERCURI; STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS, DISTRICT "I -NORTH" INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; OJCC NO. 98-006898PSL; CAO FILE NO. 1901-1 PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS I TEARING WAS POSTED IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AS REQUIRED BY LAW • CLERK'S NOTE: TI -IE CHAIRMAN CALLED THIS ITEM A THE CONCLUSION OF THE REGULAR AGENDA AT APPROXIMATELY 10:53 AM. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 17, 2002: April 23, 2002 69 Lam 7 April 17, 2002 MEMORANDUM To: Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners From: Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney \ L1 \11-1 Re: Debra K. Mercuri; State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims District "1 -North", Indian River County; OJCC No. 98-006898PSL; CAO File No. 1901-1 I respectfully request that the Chairman open a Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session of the Board of County Commissioners and its attorneys and chief administrative or executive officer at 10:30 a.m., on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at the Board's regular public meeting, to discuss the subject of settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures in connection with the above -referenced pending litigation, pursuant to Section 286.011(8), Florida Statutes (2001). The Chairman should announce that the meeting will continue in private session in Conference Room "B", 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. The County Attorney will advise the Board that he desires advice concerning the. above referenced litigation. Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman John W Tippin, Commissioner Fran B. Adams, Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn, Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht, County Administrator James E. Chandler County Attorney Paul G. Bangel and outside counsel Paul L. Westcott will be present. Except for those individuals and certified court reporter Nancy Hodges or another certified court reporter, no other persons will be present The estimated length of the attorney-client session is about thirty (30) minutes, and it may be continued from time to time upon notice. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session, the meeting will be reopened and the chairman should then announce the termination of the session. The County Administrator's Executive Secretary/Assistant should kindly place a notice of this Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session upon the Board s regular weekly calendar and on the meeting agenda as notice to the public of the conduct of the attorney- client session. A certified court reporter will be engaged by this office and will be present to record the entire session. The transcript will be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation. The proposed agenda for the pending litigation attorney-client session is as follows: 1. The county attorney advises that he desires advice concerning pending litigation in the case of Debra K. Mercuri, State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims District "I -North', Indian River County, OJCC No. 98-006898PSL. 2 The Chairman announces commencement of a pending litigation attorney- client session, that the estimated length of the attorney-client session is thirty (30) minutes, that Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman John W. Tippin, Commissioner Fran B. Adams, Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn, and April 23, 2002 70 Fo 16 • Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht, (as may be applicable), and County Administrator James E. Chandler County Attorney Paul G. Bangel, and outside counsel Paul L. Westcott will attend the attorney-client session, and that the entire session will be recorded by certified court reporter Nancy Hodges or another certified court reporter, who will be present. The attorney-client session convenes in Conference Room "B". 4. The meeting is reopened and the Chairman announces the termination of the attorney-client session. The chairman entertains a motion or motions. PGB cc: Board of County Commissioners James E. Chandler, County Administrator Kimberly E. Massung, Executive Aide to the Board of County Commissioners Beth Jordan Risk Manager Paul L. Westcott, Esquire County Attorney Paul Bangel made the following announcement: Madame Chairman, Commissioners, I advise the Board of County Commissioners, as your county attorney, that I desire advice in a private Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session concerning pending litigation in the case of Debra K. Mercuri, State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims, District "I -North", Indian River County, OJCC No. 98- 006898PSL, to which Indian River County is presently a party Chairman Stanbridge made the following announcement: The Board of County Commissioners hereby commences a Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session to discuss Debra K. Mercuri; OJCC No.98-006898PSL, to which Indian River County is presently a party, and which is now pending before the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims, District "I -North", Indian River County. The meeting will continue in private session in Conference Room "B", 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach Florida, to discuss settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures, pursuant to Section 286.011, subsection 8, Florida Statutes. It is estimated that the attorney client session will last thirty minutes. The persons attending the attorney-client session of the Board of County Commissioners are Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman John W. Tippm, Commissioner Fran B Adams Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn, Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht, County Administrator James E. Chandler, County Attorney Paul G. Bangel, and outside counsel Paul L. Westcott. The entire session will be recorded by certified court reporter Suzanne Beuttell, who will also be present. The Board of County Commissioners will resume the public meeting in Chambers immediately following the Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session. April 23, 2002 71 COI iJO 7 At approximately 10:54 a.m., Chairman Stanbridge recessed the meeting in the Chambers and Attorney Bangel stated that the meeting would be continued in Conference Room B. At approximately 11:20 a.m., Chairman Stanbridge reconvened the meeting in the Chambers and made the following announcement: I hereby announce that the private Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session regarding Debra K. Mercuri, State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, Office of the Judge of Compensation Claims, District "I -North' , Indian River County, OJCC No. 98-006898PSL is terminated (The Chair will entertain any motions that may be appropriate.) `, MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Macht, to settle the matter. Attorney Bangel suggested the Board hear from Attorney Westcott. Attorney Paul L. Westcott recommended that the actual motion set forth the case style and the settlement amount which has been recommended by the settlement committee of $75,000 to settle all pending issues both future and past entitlements to all worker's compensation benefits for Ms. Mercuri in exchange for a general release that is prepared by his office for her signature. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Tippin, SECONDED BY Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously settled the pending litigation in the case of Debra K. Mercuri, pending before the State ofFlorida Division ofAdministrative Hearings, Office ofthe Judge of Compensation Claims, District "I -North", April 23, 2002 72 • Indian River County, OJCC No. 98-006898PSL, to which Indian River County is a party, in the amount of $75,000 to settle all pending issues both future and past entitlements to all worker's compensation benefits for Ms. Mercuri in exchange for a general release prepared by Attorney Paul L Westcott to be signed by Ms. Mercuri. 12.B. PENDING LITIGATION ATTOR\ EY -CLIENT SESSION RE RONNIE D. BAKER AND MARIE B. BAKER V JAMES E. CHANDLER ET AL - APPEAL NO. 01 -15653 -II, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS HEARING WAS POSTED IN THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AS REQUIRFD BY LAW The Board reviewed a Memorandum of April 17, 2002: April 17, 2002 MEMORANDUM To: Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners From. Paul G. Rangel, County Attorney Q k4I Ill 2 - Re: Ronnie D. Baker and Marie B. Baker v. James E. Chandler, individually and as the Administrator of Indian River County, Florida; Indian River County, Florida; and Kenneth R. Macht; The Estate of Carolyn E. Eggert, Deceased; Caroline D. Ginn; John W. Tippin; and Fran 8. Adams, individually and as members of the Indian River County Commission; Appeal No. 01-15653-11, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit I respectfully request that the Chairman open a Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session of the Board of County Commissioners and its attorneys and chief administrative or executive officer at 11:15 a.m., on Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at the Board's regular public meeting, to discuss the subject of settlement negotiations or strategy sessions. related to litigation expenditures in connection with the above -referenced pending litigation, pursuant to Section 286.011(8)1 Florida Statutes (2001). The Chairman should announce that the meeting will continue in private session in Conference Room "B", 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida. The County Attorney will advise the Board that he desires advice concerning the above referenced litigation Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman John W. Tippin, Commissioner Fran B. April 23, 2002 73 • Adams, Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn, Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht, County Administrator James E. Chandler, County Attorney Paul G. Bangel and outside counsel Michael T. Burke will be present. Except for those individuals and certified court reporter Nancy Hodges or another certified court reporter, no other persons will be present. The estimated length of the attorney-client session is about forty-five (45) minutes, and it may be continued from time to time upon notice. At the conclusion of the attorney-client session the meeting will be reopened, and the chairman should then announce the termination of the session. The County Administrator's Executive Secretary/Assistant should kindly place a notice of this Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session upon the Board s regular weekly calendar and on the meeting agenda as notice to the public of the conduct of the attorney- client session. A certified court reporter will be engaged by this office and will be present to record the entire session. The transcript will be made part of the public record upon conclusion of the litigation. The proposed agenda for the Pending Litigation Attorney -Client session is as follows: 1. The county attorney advises that he desires advice concerning pending litigation in the case of Ronnie D Baker and Mane B. Baker v. James E. Chandler, individually and as the Administrator of Indian River County, Florida; Indian River County, Florida; and Kenneth R. Macht; The Estate of Carolyn E. Eggert, Deceased; Caroline D. Ginn; John W. Trppin; and Fran B. Adams, individually and as members of the Indian River County Commission; Appeal No. 01 -15653 -II, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. 2. The Chairman announces commencement of a Pending Litigation Attorney - Client session, that the estimated length of the attorney-client session is forty-five (45) minutes, that Chairman Ruth M..Stanbridge, Vice Chairman John W. Trppin, Commissioner Fran B. Adams, Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn, and Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht, (as may be applicable), and County Administrator James E. Chandler, County Attorney Paul G Bangel, and outside counsel Michael T. Burke will attend the attorney-client session, and that the entire session will be recorded by certified court reporter Nancy Hodges or another certified court reporter who will be present. 3. The attorney-client session convenes in Conference Room "B". 4. The meeting is reopened and the Chairman announces the termination of the attorney-client session. The chairman entertains a motion or motions. PGB cc: Board of County Commissioners James E Chandler, County Administrator Kimberly E Massung, Executive Aide to the Board of County Commissioners Beth Jordan Risk Manager Michael T. Burke, Esquire April 23, 2002 74 • County Attorney Paul Bangel made the following announcement: Madame Chairman, Commissioners, I advise the Board of County Commissioners, as your county attorney, that I desire advice in a private Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session concerning pending litigation in the case of Ronnie D. Baker andMarie B. Baker versus James E. Chandler, individually and as the Administrator of Indian River County, Florida; Indian River County, Florida; and Kenneth R. Macht; The Estate of Carolyn E. Eggert, Deceased; Caroline D. Ginn; John W. Tippin; and Fran B. Adams, individually and as members of the Indian River County Commission; Appeal No. 01 -15653 -II, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, to which Indian River County is presently a party Chairman Stanbridge made the following announcement: The Board of County Commissioners hereby commences a Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session to discuss Ronnie D. Baker and Marie B. Baker versus James E. Chandler, individually and as the Administrator of Indian River County, Florida; Indian River County, Florida; and Kenneth R. Macht; The Estate of Carolyn E. Eggert, Deceased; Caroline D. Ginn; John W Tiepin; and Fran B. Adams, individually and as members of the Indian River County Commission; Appeal No. 01- 15653 -II, to which Indian River County is presently a party, and which is now pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The meeting will continue in private session in Conference Room "B", 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to discuss settlement negotiations or strategy sessions related to litigation expenditures, pursuant to Section 286.011, subsection 8, Florida Statutes. It is estimated that the attorney client session will last forty-five minutes. The persons attending the attorney-client session of the Board of County Commissioners are Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman John W. Tippin, Commissioner Fran B. Adams, Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn, Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht, County Administrator James E. Chandler, County Attorney Paul G. Bangel, and outside counsel Michael T. Burke. The entire session will be recorded by certified court reporter Suzanne Beuttell, who will also be present. The Board of County Commissioners will resume the public meeting in Chambers immediately following the Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session. April 23, 2002 75 PG 5' • • At approximately 11:25 a.m., Chairman Stanbridge recessed the meeting in the Chambers to be reconvened in Conference Room B. At approximately 11:55 a.m., Chairman Stanbridge reconvened the meeting in the Chambers and made the following announcement: I hereby announce that the private Pending Litigation Attorney -Client Session regarding Ronnie D. Baker and Marie B. Baker versus James E. Chandler, individually and as the Administrator of Indian River County, Florida; Indian River County, Florida; and Kenneth R. Macht; The Estate of Carolyn E. Eggert, Deceased; Caroline D. Ginn; John W. Ti»Pin; and Fran B. Adams, individually and as members of the Indian River County Commission; Appeal No. 01 -15653 -II, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, is terminated (The Chair will entertain any motions that may be appropriate). NO ACTION TAKEN. County Attorney Paul Bangel announced the termination of the attorney-client session and the Board's meeting. Unless the Board had any other business, he believed the meeting could be adjourned. CLERK'S NOTE THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WAS ADJOURNED FOLLOWING THI1 ABOVE MATTER. 13.A. CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - NO UPDATES Chairman Stanbridge advised she had no updates. 13.D. COMMISSIONER GINN - LETTER FROM GENIA BRADWELL REGARDING CLEANING OUR COUNTY BEACHES The Board reviewed a letter of April 9, 2002: April 23, 2002 76 r April 9, 2002 Dear Caroline, Will you please share the enclosed photographs and Letters to the editor with your fellow council members in an effort to solicit their support for a plan to clean our beaches? Several beach walkers, my family included, pick up garbage every day However, the job is too important to rely on the efforts of volunteers. I have been working of this for two years. Your help would be so greatly appreciated. Sincerely, enia Bradwell Commissioner Ginn referred to the above letter. She felt something needed to be done to keep the beaches clean. She advised that Lisa Zahner from Keep Indian River Beautiful had come to her with a recommendation. Lisa Zahner (KIRB) expressed appreciation to the Commission for looking out for the trees in a previous item. She advised that she was working on the trash problem on the beaches. She advised that there are regular "Adopt a Shore" groups which clean the beaches at least four times a year as well as the special beach clean-up events. She advised that Ms. Bradwell had contacted them a few months ago and had tried to get some court-ordered community service volunteers through a program called CORE and the request was denied because she was not a non-profit organization. Ms. Zahner advised that she brought this to her board and the board decided that if Ms. Bradwell agreed to become a member of the board of directors and to be responsible for the volunteers that way, that KIRB would register to accept the volunteers. Ms. Bradwell agreed to Join the board and KIRB is now in the process of registering to accept the volunteers. Ms Bradwell had already done 3 beach cleanups on her own with some other volunteers she had recruited. Ms. Zahner specified that this effort is being made in order to address the trash problems with some no - cost workers. April 23, 2002 77 O n • Chairman Stanbridge praised Ms. 7ahner for creative thinking outside the box to benefit the entire community. Genia Bradwell thanked the Board for putting this on the agenda and she really appreciated the fact that they listen. She specified that although this is being done with volunteers, she thought that it is so important that more is needed. The parks are immaculate but the beaches are often littered and she has heard a lot of complaints from tourists. She wondered if perhaps the County's resources might be allotted differently by assigning someone to pick up the litter on the beach. She was surprised to learn that no one was assigned to the tracking station beach area since it is not under any local jurisdiction. Many of the things that wash up appear to have been dumped by cruise ships. She appreciated anything the Board can do and she would be glad to help. Commissioner Ginn thought this ought to be addressed during budget time and thought it was not enough to just pick up debris. Often the amount of seaweed can be great and smelly and that also needs to be addressed. She knew the City of Vero Beach rakes their beach during off -turtle season and the Board might want to consider doing that on some of our beaches. She suggested this be addressed in July during the Budget Workshops. She thanked Ms. Bradwell for doing and thinking outside the box. CLERK'S NOTE- AT THE CONCLUSION OF THF, LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, THE CHAIRMAN ANNOUNCED THAT COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS (INF MS 12.A. AND 12.B.) WOULD BE THF NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS. THOSE ITEMS ARE FOUND IN THEIR NUMF-FRIC ORDER TO PRFISERVE AGl-NDA CONTINUITY. April 23, 2002 78 J • 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT None. 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD None. There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:59 a.m. ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Minutes approved �� % � atom April 23, 2002 (2-41Crs. Ruth M. Stanbridge, Chairman • 79 F`,