Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/22/2001st4 MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - 9:00 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman District 5 Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman District 2 Fran B. Adams Kenneth R. Macht John W . Tippin District 1 District 3 District 4 James E Chandler, County Administrator Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. Ruth M. Stanbridge BACKUP PAGES 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS ADDITIONS: None DEFERRALS: 9.A.1. 9.A.4. Application for Transfer of Cable TV Franchise - Charter to AT&T (Continued to 6/5/01) Text Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element - Revision of "Cultural" Objectives and Policies (Continued to 6/5/01) 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation Designating the week of May 20-26, 2001 as Emergency Medical Services Week 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 1 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated May 10, 2001) 2-13 B. Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) 14 Gil st4 MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - 9:00 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman District 5 Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman District 2 Fran B. Adams Kenneth R. Macht John W . Tippin District 1 District 3 District 4 James E Chandler, County Administrator Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. Ruth M. Stanbridge BACKUP PAGES 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS ADDITIONS: None DEFERRALS: 9.A.1. 9.A.4. Application for Transfer of Cable TV Franchise - Charter to AT&T (Continued to 6/5/01) Text Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element - Revision of "Cultural" Objectives and Policies (Continued to 6/5/01) 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation Designating the week of May 20-26, 2001 as Emergency Medical Services Week 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 1 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated May 10, 2001) 2-13 B. Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) 14 Gil st4 MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 22, 2001 - 9:00 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25`h Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman District 5 Ruth M. Stanbridge, Vice Chairman District 2 Fran B. Adams Kenneth R. Macht John W . Tippin District 1 District 3 District 4 James E Chandler, County Administrator Paul G. Bangel, County Attorney Kimberly Massung, Executive Aide to BCC Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Comm. Ruth M. Stanbridge BACKUP PAGES 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS ADDITIONS: None DEFERRALS: 9.A.1. 9.A.4. Application for Transfer of Cable TV Franchise - Charter to AT&T (Continued to 6/5/01) Text Amendment to Comprehensive Plan - Recreation and Open Space Element - Revision of "Cultural" Objectives and Policies (Continued to 6/5/01) 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation Designating the week of May 20-26, 2001 as Emergency Medical Services Week 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 1 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated May 10, 2001) 2-13 B. Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) 14 Gil 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) D. Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement B & B Halliday, Inc. (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS BACKUP PAGES 15-19 20-25 1. Application for Transfer of Franchise— Charter to AT&T (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) 26-44 2. Thomas S. Hammonds request to amend the Compre- hensive Plan to redesignate t10 acres located ±950 feet east of 43`d Avenue, on the south side of 415` Street from M-2, Medium Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial; and to rezone those ±-10 acres from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to IL, Light Industrial Distnct. (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 3. J. Luther Groves and the Fairways at Grand Harbor's request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±-15.46 acres located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53`d Street from M-1, Medium -Density Residen- tial -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, CommerciaUlndus- trial, and rezone those ±-15.46 acres from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/ acre) to CG, General Commercial District; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ± 16.79 acres located ± 1,550 feet south of 53`d Street, on the east side of US 1, from C/I, Commercial/Industrial, to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/ Bk 11 PG2L9 45-71 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) D. Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement B & B Halliday, Inc. (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS BACKUP PAGES 15-19 20-25 1. Application for Transfer of Franchise— Charter to AT&T (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) 26-44 2. Thomas S. Hammonds request to amend the Compre- hensive Plan to redesignate t10 acres located ±950 feet east of 43`d Avenue, on the south side of 415` Street from M-2, Medium Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial; and to rezone those ±-10 acres from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to IL, Light Industrial Distnct. (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 3. J. Luther Groves and the Fairways at Grand Harbor's request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±-15.46 acres located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53`d Street from M-1, Medium -Density Residen- tial -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, CommerciaUlndus- trial, and rezone those ±-15.46 acres from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/ acre) to CG, General Commercial District; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ± 16.79 acres located ± 1,550 feet south of 53`d Street, on the east side of US 1, from C/I, Commercial/Industrial, to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/ Bk 11 PG2L9 45-71 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) D. Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement B & B Halliday, Inc. (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS BACKUP PAGES 15-19 20-25 1. Application for Transfer of Franchise— Charter to AT&T (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) 26-44 2. Thomas S. Hammonds request to amend the Compre- hensive Plan to redesignate t10 acres located ±950 feet east of 43`d Avenue, on the south side of 415` Street from M-2, Medium Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial; and to rezone those ±-10 acres from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to IL, Light Industrial Distnct. (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 3. J. Luther Groves and the Fairways at Grand Harbor's request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±-15.46 acres located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53`d Street from M-1, Medium -Density Residen- tial -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, CommerciaUlndus- trial, and rezone those ±-15.46 acres from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/ acre) to CG, General Commercial District; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ± 16.79 acres located ± 1,550 feet south of 53`d Street, on the east side of US 1, from C/I, Commercial/Industrial, to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/ Bk 11 PG2L9 45-71 • 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.): 3. (cont'd.): acre), and rezone those ± 16.79 acres from CL, Limited Commercial District, to RM -8, Multiple -Family Resi- dential District (up to 8 units/acre). (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) County -initiated request to amend the text of the Re- creation and Open Space Element of the Comprehen- sive Plan to revise the "Cultural" objective and policies. (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 5. County -initiated Request to Amend the LDR's to allow fruit and vegetable stand transient merchants to hook-up to electrical power for refrigeration Legislative) (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) • BACKI.P PAGES 72-97 98-109 110-129 6. City of Sebastian's Request for the County to Exe- cute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning (memorandum dated May 7, 2001) B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None 130-137 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS Dodgertown — consideration of a Resolution to extend the escrow termination date to August 31, 2001 (letter to Jim Chandler dated May 16, 2001) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development None B. Emergency Services None 138-159 C. General Services Contract Approval with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., for the Construction of Main Library Improvements (memorandum dated May 14, 2001) 160-171 • 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.): 3. (cont'd.): acre), and rezone those ± 16.79 acres from CL, Limited Commercial District, to RM -8, Multiple -Family Resi- dential District (up to 8 units/acre). (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) County -initiated request to amend the text of the Re- creation and Open Space Element of the Comprehen- sive Plan to revise the "Cultural" objective and policies. (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 5. County -initiated Request to Amend the LDR's to allow fruit and vegetable stand transient merchants to hook-up to electrical power for refrigeration Legislative) (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) • BACKI.P PAGES 72-97 98-109 110-129 6. City of Sebastian's Request for the County to Exe- cute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning (memorandum dated May 7, 2001) B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None 130-137 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS Dodgertown — consideration of a Resolution to extend the escrow termination date to August 31, 2001 (letter to Jim Chandler dated May 16, 2001) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development None B. Emergency Services None 138-159 C. General Services Contract Approval with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., for the Construction of Main Library Improvements (memorandum dated May 14, 2001) 160-171 • 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd.): 3. (cont'd.): acre), and rezone those ± 16.79 acres from CL, Limited Commercial District, to RM -8, Multiple -Family Resi- dential District (up to 8 units/acre). (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) County -initiated request to amend the text of the Re- creation and Open Space Element of the Comprehen- sive Plan to revise the "Cultural" objective and policies. (Legislative) (memorandum dated May 11, 2001) 5. County -initiated Request to Amend the LDR's to allow fruit and vegetable stand transient merchants to hook-up to electrical power for refrigeration Legislative) (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) • BACKI.P PAGES 72-97 98-109 110-129 6. City of Sebastian's Request for the County to Exe- cute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning (memorandum dated May 7, 2001) B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None 130-137 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS Dodgertown — consideration of a Resolution to extend the escrow termination date to August 31, 2001 (letter to Jim Chandler dated May 16, 2001) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development None B. Emergency Services None 138-159 C. General Services Contract Approval with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., for the Construction of Main Library Improvements (memorandum dated May 14, 2001) 160-171 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): D. Leisure Services None BACKUP PAGES Office of Management and Budget Tourist Development Council 2001/2002 Budget Recommendations (memorandum dated May 10, 2001) Personnel None 172-173 Public Works 1. Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements — Change Order No. 2 and Final Payment (Release of Retainage) (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) Change Order No. 3 — Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) 174-182 183-185 Pointe West Offsite Roadway Improvements to 74`h Avenue, 12`h Street and 16th Street — Substitution of Performance and Payment Bonds (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) Utilities 1. Sebastian Water Assessment — Phase 3A, Approval of Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) 186-189 190-202 Indian River County Dept. of Utility Services Utility Maintenance Building Extension (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) Human Services Indian River Homeless Services Council 2001 HUD Application — Revised (letter dated May 7, 2001) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 203-250 251-302 6141 1 18 PG 251 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): D. Leisure Services None BACKUP PAGES Office of Management and Budget Tourist Development Council 2001/2002 Budget Recommendations (memorandum dated May 10, 2001) Personnel None 172-173 Public Works 1. Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements — Change Order No. 2 and Final Payment (Release of Retainage) (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) Change Order No. 3 — Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) 174-182 183-185 Pointe West Offsite Roadway Improvements to 74`h Avenue, 12`h Street and 16th Street — Substitution of Performance and Payment Bonds (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) Utilities 1. Sebastian Water Assessment — Phase 3A, Approval of Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) 186-189 190-202 Indian River County Dept. of Utility Services Utility Maintenance Building Extension (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) Human Services Indian River Homeless Services Council 2001 HUD Application — Revised (letter dated May 7, 2001) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 203-250 251-302 6141 1 18 PG 251 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): D. Leisure Services None BACKUP PAGES Office of Management and Budget Tourist Development Council 2001/2002 Budget Recommendations (memorandum dated May 10, 2001) Personnel None 172-173 Public Works 1. Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements — Change Order No. 2 and Final Payment (Release of Retainage) (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) Change Order No. 3 — Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) 174-182 183-185 Pointe West Offsite Roadway Improvements to 74`h Avenue, 12`h Street and 16th Street — Substitution of Performance and Payment Bonds (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) Utilities 1. Sebastian Water Assessment — Phase 3A, Approval of Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 (memorandum dated May 9, 2001) 186-189 190-202 Indian River County Dept. of Utility Services Utility Maintenance Building Extension (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) Human Services Indian River Homeless Services Council 2001 HUD Application — Revised (letter dated May 7, 2001) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 203-250 251-302 6141 1 18 PG 251 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Caroline D. Ginn BACKUP PAVES Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Updates (no backup provided) Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS A. Emergency Services District 1. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of 3/6/01 Authorization for Release of Retainage to Speegle Construction Company for Construction of Emergency Services Station #11 (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Resolution of Utility Advisory Committee — Solid Waste Disposal District Master Plan (memorandum dated May 14, 2001) Request for Emergency Rental of Truck Scale for Landfill (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) 303-316 318-329 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Caroline D. Ginn BACKUP PAVES Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Updates (no backup provided) Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS A. Emergency Services District 1. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of 3/6/01 Authorization for Release of Retainage to Speegle Construction Company for Construction of Emergency Services Station #11 (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Resolution of Utility Advisory Committee — Solid Waste Disposal District Master Plan (memorandum dated May 14, 2001) Request for Emergency Rental of Truck Scale for Landfill (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) 303-316 318-329 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Caroline D. Ginn BACKUP PAVES Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Updates (no backup provided) Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS A. Emergency Services District 1. Approval of Minutes — Meeting of 3/6/01 Authorization for Release of Retainage to Speegle Construction Company for Construction of Emergency Services Station #11 (memorandum dated May 15, 2001) Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Resolution of Utility Advisory Committee — Solid Waste Disposal District Master Plan (memorandum dated May 14, 2001) Request for Emergency Rental of Truck Scale for Landfill (memorandum dated May 16, 2001) 303-316 318-329 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS (cont'd.): C. Environmental Control Board None 15. ADJOURNMENT PAGE Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m. BK 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS (cont'd.): C. Environmental Control Board None 15. ADJOURNMENT PAGE Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m. BK 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS (cont'd.): C. Environmental Control Board None 15. ADJOURNMENT PAGE Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Indian River County WebSite: http://bccl.co.indian-river.fl.us Full agenda back-up material is available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, Indian River County Main Library, IRC Courthouse Law Library, and North County Library Meeting may be broadcast live on AT & T Cable Channel 13 Rebroadcast continuously Thursday 1:00 p.m. until Friday morning and Saturday 12:00 noon until 5:00 p.m. BK • INDEX TO MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF MAY 22, 2001 1 CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/FMERGENCY ITEMS 1 1 1 1 5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK 2 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. 7B 7.C. 7D Approval of Warrants Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman - Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement - B Riverview Mobile Villas (Micco) 3 3 Adam Kubik 13 13 & B Halliday, Inc. - 18 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE FOR CABLE TV - FALCON CABLE MEDIA (CHARTER CABLE, LLC) TO TCI CABLEVISION OF MISSOURI, INC. (AT&T BROADBAND) 19 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 - TRANSMIT THOMAS S. HAMMOND'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE t10 ACRES FROM M-2 TO C/I AND REZONE THOSE +10 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO IL (LEGISLATIVE) 21 1 r • • INDEX TO MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF MAY 22, 2001 1 CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/FMERGENCY ITEMS 1 1 1 1 5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK 2 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. 7B 7.C. 7D Approval of Warrants Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman - Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement - B Riverview Mobile Villas (Micco) 3 3 Adam Kubik 13 13 & B Halliday, Inc. - 18 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE FOR CABLE TV - FALCON CABLE MEDIA (CHARTER CABLE, LLC) TO TCI CABLEVISION OF MISSOURI, INC. (AT&T BROADBAND) 19 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 - TRANSMIT THOMAS S. HAMMOND'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE t10 ACRES FROM M-2 TO C/I AND REZONE THOSE +10 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO IL (LEGISLATIVE) 21 1 r • • INDEX TO MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF MAY 22, 2001 1 CALL TO ORDER 2. INVOCATION 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/FMERGENCY ITEMS 1 1 1 1 5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK 2 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. 7B 7.C. 7D Approval of Warrants Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman - Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement - B Riverview Mobile Villas (Micco) 3 3 Adam Kubik 13 13 & B Halliday, Inc. - 18 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE FOR CABLE TV - FALCON CABLE MEDIA (CHARTER CABLE, LLC) TO TCI CABLEVISION OF MISSOURI, INC. (AT&T BROADBAND) 19 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 - TRANSMIT THOMAS S. HAMMOND'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE t10 ACRES FROM M-2 TO C/I AND REZONE THOSE +10 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO IL (LEGISLATIVE) 21 1 r • 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 - TRANSMIT J. LUTHER GROVES AND THE FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE +15.46 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I AND REZONE THOSE +15.46 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG AND REDESIGNATE +16.79 ACRES FROM C/I TO M-1 AND TO REZONE THOSE +16.79 ACRES FROM CL TO RM -8 (LEGISLATIVE) ... 35 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REVISE THE `CULTURAL" OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES (LEGISLATIVE) 52 9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 - AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW EXISTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK UP TO ELECTRICAL POWFR FOR REFRIGERATION (LEGISLATIVE) 56 9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF SEBASTIAN - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES (PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE DAVIS PROPERTY) (LEGISLATIVE) 69 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM 72 9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS 72 10.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-053 DODGERTOWN - CONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING THE ESCROW TERMINATION DATE TO AUGUST 31, 2001 (EXTENSION AGREEMENT) - CITY OF VERO BEACH - DE GUARDIOLA DEVELOPMENT, INC 73 11.C. MAIN LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS - BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC. - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPROVAL 85 11 E TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS - TOURIST TAX REVENUE 86 11.0.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - WILLIAM GLOVER, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND RELEASE OF RETAINAGE 88 2 R or 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 - TRANSMIT J. LUTHER GROVES AND THE FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE +15.46 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I AND REZONE THOSE +15.46 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG AND REDESIGNATE +16.79 ACRES FROM C/I TO M-1 AND TO REZONE THOSE +16.79 ACRES FROM CL TO RM -8 (LEGISLATIVE) ... 35 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REVISE THE `CULTURAL" OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES (LEGISLATIVE) 52 9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 - AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW EXISTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK UP TO ELECTRICAL POWFR FOR REFRIGERATION (LEGISLATIVE) 56 9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF SEBASTIAN - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES (PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE DAVIS PROPERTY) (LEGISLATIVE) 69 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM 72 9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS 72 10.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-053 DODGERTOWN - CONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING THE ESCROW TERMINATION DATE TO AUGUST 31, 2001 (EXTENSION AGREEMENT) - CITY OF VERO BEACH - DE GUARDIOLA DEVELOPMENT, INC 73 11.C. MAIN LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS - BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC. - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPROVAL 85 11 E TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS - TOURIST TAX REVENUE 86 11.0.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - WILLIAM GLOVER, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND RELEASE OF RETAINAGE 88 2 R or 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 - TRANSMIT J. LUTHER GROVES AND THE FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE +15.46 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I AND REZONE THOSE +15.46 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG AND REDESIGNATE +16.79 ACRES FROM C/I TO M-1 AND TO REZONE THOSE +16.79 ACRES FROM CL TO RM -8 (LEGISLATIVE) ... 35 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REVISE THE `CULTURAL" OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES (LEGISLATIVE) 52 9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 - AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW EXISTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK UP TO ELECTRICAL POWFR FOR REFRIGERATION (LEGISLATIVE) 56 9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF SEBASTIAN - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES (PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE DAVIS PROPERTY) (LEGISLATIVE) 69 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM 72 9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS 72 10.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-053 DODGERTOWN - CONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING THE ESCROW TERMINATION DATE TO AUGUST 31, 2001 (EXTENSION AGREEMENT) - CITY OF VERO BEACH - DE GUARDIOLA DEVELOPMENT, INC 73 11.C. MAIN LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS - BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC. - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPROVAL 85 11 E TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS - TOURIST TAX REVENUE 86 11.0.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - WILLIAM GLOVER, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND RELEASE OF RETAINAGE 88 2 R or • 11.02. EMERGENCY DUNE RESTORATION - RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - (INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE) - FEMA 89 11.0.3. POINTE WEST - OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO 74TH AVENUE 12TH STREET AND 16TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 1 - SUBSTITUTION OF PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS 90 11.H.1. SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT - PHASE 3A - TRI -SURE CORPORATION - CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 92 11.H.2. ADDITION TO UTILITY SERVICES MAINTENANCE BUILDING AT COUNTY WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) - BARTH CONSTRUCTION, INC. 94 11.I. INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL CONTINUUM OF CARE - 2001 HUD APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION UNDER THE McKINNEY VENTO ACT - REVISED 96 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - LOST TREE ISLANDS - P2000 FUNDS - OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL AUTHORIZED FOR VICE CHAIRMAN AND COUNTY ATTORNEY 100 REPORTS AND INFORMATION NOT ON AGENDA 101 Announcement Concerning the Death of William "Billy" Macht, son of Commissioner Kenneth R Macht 101 Announcement That Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Will Be Unable to Attend an Amtrak Meeting Friday 101 14 A EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 102 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 102 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 102 3 nif 6 • • 11.02. EMERGENCY DUNE RESTORATION - RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - (INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE) - FEMA 89 11.0.3. POINTE WEST - OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO 74TH AVENUE 12TH STREET AND 16TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 1 - SUBSTITUTION OF PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS 90 11.H.1. SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT - PHASE 3A - TRI -SURE CORPORATION - CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 92 11.H.2. ADDITION TO UTILITY SERVICES MAINTENANCE BUILDING AT COUNTY WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) - BARTH CONSTRUCTION, INC. 94 11.I. INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL CONTINUUM OF CARE - 2001 HUD APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION UNDER THE McKINNEY VENTO ACT - REVISED 96 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - LOST TREE ISLANDS - P2000 FUNDS - OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL AUTHORIZED FOR VICE CHAIRMAN AND COUNTY ATTORNEY 100 REPORTS AND INFORMATION NOT ON AGENDA 101 Announcement Concerning the Death of William "Billy" Macht, son of Commissioner Kenneth R Macht 101 Announcement That Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Will Be Unable to Attend an Amtrak Meeting Friday 101 14 A EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 102 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 102 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 102 3 nif 6 • • 11.02. EMERGENCY DUNE RESTORATION - RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - (INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE) - FEMA 89 11.0.3. POINTE WEST - OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO 74TH AVENUE 12TH STREET AND 16TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 1 - SUBSTITUTION OF PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS 90 11.H.1. SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT - PHASE 3A - TRI -SURE CORPORATION - CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 92 11.H.2. ADDITION TO UTILITY SERVICES MAINTENANCE BUILDING AT COUNTY WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) - BARTH CONSTRUCTION, INC. 94 11.I. INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL CONTINUUM OF CARE - 2001 HUD APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION UNDER THE McKINNEY VENTO ACT - REVISED 96 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - LOST TREE ISLANDS - P2000 FUNDS - OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL AUTHORIZED FOR VICE CHAIRMAN AND COUNTY ATTORNEY 100 REPORTS AND INFORMATION NOT ON AGENDA 101 Announcement Concerning the Death of William "Billy" Macht, son of Commissioner Kenneth R Macht 101 Announcement That Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Will Be Unable to Attend an Amtrak Meeting Friday 101 14 A EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT 102 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 102 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 102 3 nif 6 • • May 22, 2001 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida. on Tuesday. May 22, 2001. Present were Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman; Ruth Stanbridge. Vice Chairman; Commissioners Fran B Adams; and John W. Tippin. Kenneth R. Macht was absent due to a family emergency. Also present were Assistant Administrator Joseph Baird sitting in for the first hour for James E Chandler, County Administrator (arrived at 9:54 a.m.); 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 Commissioner Tippm delivered the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Stanbridge led the Pledge to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Commissioner Adams requested to continue public hearings to June 5, 2001, on the following: May 22, 2001 pig 257 • • May 22, 2001 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida. on Tuesday. May 22, 2001. Present were Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman; Ruth Stanbridge. Vice Chairman; Commissioners Fran B Adams; and John W. Tippin. Kenneth R. Macht was absent due to a family emergency. Also present were Assistant Administrator Joseph Baird sitting in for the first hour for James E Chandler, County Administrator (arrived at 9:54 a.m.); 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 Commissioner Tippm delivered the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Stanbridge led the Pledge to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Commissioner Adams requested to continue public hearings to June 5, 2001, on the following: May 22, 2001 pig 257 • • May 22, 2001 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida. on Tuesday. May 22, 2001. Present were Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman; Ruth Stanbridge. Vice Chairman; Commissioners Fran B Adams; and John W. Tippin. Kenneth R. Macht was absent due to a family emergency. Also present were Assistant Administrator Joseph Baird sitting in for the first hour for James E Chandler, County Administrator (arrived at 9:54 a.m.); 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 Commissioner Tippm delivered the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Vice Chairman Stanbridge led the Pledge to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Commissioner Adams requested to continue public hearings to June 5, 2001, on the following: May 22, 2001 pig 257 • 9.A.1. Application for Transfer of Cable TV Franchise - Charter to AT&T, and 9.A.4. County -initiated request to amend the text of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan to revise the"Cultural" objective and policies. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) agreed to continue the public hearings for 9.A.1. and 9.A.4. to June 5, 2001. 5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK Chairman Ginn read the following proclamation and presented it to Acting Emergency Medical Services Chief Brian Burkeen. i 1 May 22, 2001 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK WHEREAS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES is a vital public service; and the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and WHEREAS, ACCESS TO QUALITY EMERGENCY CARE dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and has traditionally served as the safety net of America's health care system; and WHEREAS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TEAMS consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, educators, administrators, and others; and the members of emergency medical services teams engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and WHEREAS, AMERICANS BENEFIT DAILY from the knowledge and skills of these highly trained individuals; it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and BK 8 9.A.1. Application for Transfer of Cable TV Franchise - Charter to AT&T, and 9.A.4. County -initiated request to amend the text of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan to revise the"Cultural" objective and policies. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) agreed to continue the public hearings for 9.A.1. and 9.A.4. to June 5, 2001. 5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK Chairman Ginn read the following proclamation and presented it to Acting Emergency Medical Services Chief Brian Burkeen. i 1 May 22, 2001 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK WHEREAS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES is a vital public service; and the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and WHEREAS, ACCESS TO QUALITY EMERGENCY CARE dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and has traditionally served as the safety net of America's health care system; and WHEREAS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TEAMS consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, educators, administrators, and others; and the members of emergency medical services teams engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and WHEREAS, AMERICANS BENEFIT DAILY from the knowledge and skills of these highly trained individuals; it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and BK 8 9.A.1. Application for Transfer of Cable TV Franchise - Charter to AT&T, and 9.A.4. County -initiated request to amend the text of the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Comprehensive Plan to revise the"Cultural" objective and policies. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) agreed to continue the public hearings for 9.A.1. and 9.A.4. to June 5, 2001. 5.A. PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK Chairman Ginn read the following proclamation and presented it to Acting Emergency Medical Services Chief Brian Burkeen. i 1 May 22, 2001 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF MAY 20-26, 2001 AS EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK WHEREAS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES is a vital public service; and the members of emergency medical services teams are ready to provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and WHEREAS, ACCESS TO QUALITY EMERGENCY CARE dramatically improves the survival and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and has traditionally served as the safety net of America's health care system; and WHEREAS, EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES TEAMS consist of emergency physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, educators, administrators, and others; and the members of emergency medical services teams engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their lifesaving skills; and WHEREAS, AMERICANS BENEFIT DAILY from the knowledge and skills of these highly trained individuals; it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of emergency medical services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week; and BK 8 • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that in recognition of this event do hereby proclaim the week of May 20-26, 2001 as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourage the community to observe this week with appropriate programs ceremonies, and activities. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2001. 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -arL A �x,,J Caroline D. Ginn, Ch an 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. Approval of Warrants The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 2001: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MAY 10, 2001 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes. Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the time period of May 4, 2001 to May 11, 2001. May 22, 2001 Attachment: 3 EK G ► 8 Fio • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that in recognition of this event do hereby proclaim the week of May 20-26, 2001 as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourage the community to observe this week with appropriate programs ceremonies, and activities. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2001. 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -arL A �x,,J Caroline D. Ginn, Ch an 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. Approval of Warrants The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 2001: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MAY 10, 2001 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes. Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the time period of May 4, 2001 to May 11, 2001. May 22, 2001 Attachment: 3 EK G ► 8 Fio • • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that in recognition of this event do hereby proclaim the week of May 20-26, 2001 as EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK and encourage the community to observe this week with appropriate programs ceremonies, and activities. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2001. 6.A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -arL A �x,,J Caroline D. Ginn, Ch an 7. CONSENT AGENDA 7.A. Approval of Warrants The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 2001: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: MAY 10, 2001 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants issued by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes. Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk to the Board, for the time period of May 4, 2001 to May 11, 2001. May 22, 2001 Attachment: 3 EK G ► 8 Fio May 22, 2001 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period May 4 to May 11, 2001, as requested. CHECK NAME NUMBER O 021152 O 021153 0021154 0021155 0021156 0021157 0021158 O 021159 O 021160 0021161 0021162 0021163 0021164 0021165 O 021166 O 021167 0021168 0021169 O 021170 O 021171 O 021172 0021173 O 021174 O 021175 O 302044 O 302045 0302046 O 302047 0302048 0302049 0302050 0302051 0302052 0302053 0302054 0302055 0302056 O 302057 O 302058 O 302059 0302060 0302061 O 302062 0302063 0302064 0302065 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR IRS - ACS CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT NACO/SOUTHEAST SALEM TRUST COMPANY WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE FL SDU BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE - AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA) ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, ABS PUMPS, INC ACTION DIESEL INJECTION ATHENS TECHNICAL SPEC, INC ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED ADAM'S MARK HOTEL A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES AMERICAN VAN EQUIPMENT, INC A T & T ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO ADDISON, GLEN AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS CLUB ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES AMERICAN REPORTING ARCH WIRELESS ARCO GARAGE DOOR CO AMERIPATH FL, INC A T & T 4 CHECK DATE 2001-05-04 2001-05-07 2001-05-07 2001-05-08 2001-05-08 2001-05-08 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 EX CHECK AMOUNT 315.59 4,159.40 216.00 17,287.50 1,041.04 272,810.71 138.50 115.38 50.00 664.73 2,560.00 80,022.24 213.83 9,140.81 432.09 23.08 120.92 7,109.68 4,499.10 2,254.50 486.00 10,030.40 162.86 1,057.14 300.77 264.42 580.57 8,425.89 174.06 510.00 29.95 204.00 51.57 516.30 300.87 58.00 27.00 369.32 87.20 251.25 7,502.97 55.00 226.83 98.13 59.50 178.15 C0 May 22, 2001 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period May 4 to May 11, 2001, as requested. CHECK NAME NUMBER O 021152 O 021153 0021154 0021155 0021156 0021157 0021158 O 021159 O 021160 0021161 0021162 0021163 0021164 0021165 O 021166 O 021167 0021168 0021169 O 021170 O 021171 O 021172 0021173 O 021174 O 021175 O 302044 O 302045 0302046 O 302047 0302048 0302049 0302050 0302051 0302052 0302053 0302054 0302055 0302056 O 302057 O 302058 O 302059 0302060 0302061 O 302062 0302063 0302064 0302065 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR IRS - ACS CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT NACO/SOUTHEAST SALEM TRUST COMPANY WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE FL SDU BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE - AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA) ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, ABS PUMPS, INC ACTION DIESEL INJECTION ATHENS TECHNICAL SPEC, INC ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED ADAM'S MARK HOTEL A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES AMERICAN VAN EQUIPMENT, INC A T & T ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO ADDISON, GLEN AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS CLUB ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES AMERICAN REPORTING ARCH WIRELESS ARCO GARAGE DOOR CO AMERIPATH FL, INC A T & T 4 CHECK DATE 2001-05-04 2001-05-07 2001-05-07 2001-05-08 2001-05-08 2001-05-08 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 EX CHECK AMOUNT 315.59 4,159.40 216.00 17,287.50 1,041.04 272,810.71 138.50 115.38 50.00 664.73 2,560.00 80,022.24 213.83 9,140.81 432.09 23.08 120.92 7,109.68 4,499.10 2,254.50 486.00 10,030.40 162.86 1,057.14 300.77 264.42 580.57 8,425.89 174.06 510.00 29.95 204.00 51.57 516.30 300.87 58.00 27.00 369.32 87.20 251.25 7,502.97 55.00 226.83 98.13 59.50 178.15 C0 May 22, 2001 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period May 4 to May 11, 2001, as requested. CHECK NAME NUMBER O 021152 O 021153 0021154 0021155 0021156 0021157 0021158 O 021159 O 021160 0021161 0021162 0021163 0021164 0021165 O 021166 O 021167 0021168 0021169 O 021170 O 021171 O 021172 0021173 O 021174 O 021175 O 302044 O 302045 0302046 O 302047 0302048 0302049 0302050 0302051 0302052 0302053 0302054 0302055 0302056 O 302057 O 302058 O 302059 0302060 0302061 O 302062 0302063 0302064 0302065 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE- AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE BUREAU FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFOR IRS - ACS CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT NACO/SOUTHEAST SALEM TRUST COMPANY WISCONSIN SUPPORT COLLECTIONS SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF THE FL SDU BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE - AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA) ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, ABS PUMPS, INC ACTION DIESEL INJECTION ATHENS TECHNICAL SPEC, INC ALL FLORIDA COFFEE & BOTTLED ADAM'S MARK HOTEL A T & T WIRELESS SERVICES AMERICAN VAN EQUIPMENT, INC A T & T ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP ALL COUNTY MOWER & EQUIP CO ADDISON, GLEN AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC ARCHITECTS & DESIGNERS CLUB ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES AMERICAN REPORTING ARCH WIRELESS ARCO GARAGE DOOR CO AMERIPATH FL, INC A T & T 4 CHECK DATE 2001-05-04 2001-05-07 2001-05-07 2001-05-08 2001-05-08 2001-05-08 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-09 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 EX CHECK AMOUNT 315.59 4,159.40 216.00 17,287.50 1,041.04 272,810.71 138.50 115.38 50.00 664.73 2,560.00 80,022.24 213.83 9,140.81 432.09 23.08 120.92 7,109.68 4,499.10 2,254.50 486.00 10,030.40 162.86 1,057.14 300.77 264.42 580.57 8,425.89 174.06 510.00 29.95 204.00 51.57 516.30 300.87 58.00 27.00 369.32 87.20 251.25 7,502.97 55.00 226.83 98.13 59.50 178.15 C0 • May 22, 2001 CHECK NUMBER 030206 O 30206 O 30206 O 30206 030207 030207 O 30207 O 302073 O 302074 0302075 O 302076 0302077 0302078 O 302079 0302080 0302081 O 302082 O 302083 0302084 O 302085 O 302086 O 302087 0302088 O 302089 O 302090 O 302091 0302092 O 302093 0302094 0302095 0302096 0302097 0302098 0302099 0302100 0302101 0302102 0302103 0302104 0302105 0302106 0302107 O 302108 O 302109 0302110 0302111 O 302112 0302113 O 302114 O 302115 0302116 0302117 0302118 0302119 C O 302120 C 0302121 C 0302122 C O 302123 C NAME 6 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND 7 ABC PRINTING CO 8 A T & T MEDIA SERVICES 9 AMERICAN PROSECUTORS RESEARCH 0 AKE, RICHARD -CLERK OF CIRCUIT 1 AMERICAN COMPLIANCE 2 ARCH ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC AMJ EQUIPMENT CORP ATLANTIC PSYCHIATRIC CENTER ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT ADAM'S MARK HOTEL AQUIFER MAINTENANCE & BAIRD, JOSEPH A BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BENSONS LOCK SERVICE BERNAN ASSOCIATES BURGOON BERGER BLANCHARD MACHINERY BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC BURKEEN, BRIAN BARER & TAYLOR INC BRODART CO BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION BREVARD BOILER CO BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC BOOKS ON TAPE INC BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P A BEAZER HOMES, INC BROGNANO, WILLIAM/AMERON HOMES BREVARD ANESTHESIA SERVICES BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF BASS-CARLTON SOD INC BETANCOURT, JAMES DMD, MS B & S SOD INC BLACKMON, SHANITA BREWER, DUANE E BARBER, THERESA BARROW, MARIA E BOBCAT OF ORLANDO BARRY CAMINATI'S ALTERATIONS BLACKMON, DWAYNE CARL BELLSOUTH CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY CENTRAL AUDIO & VISUAL, INC CLASSIC AWARDS CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC CORBIN, SHIRLEY E CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO CHEMSEARCH HAMBER OF COMMERCE ONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC LINIC PHARMACY OGAR, ROBERT LEANNET USA 5 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 DPI CHECK AMOUNT 30,287.52 250.20 75.00 45.00 4.00 9,725.00 494.15 23.56 376.00 45.00 19,012.95 342.00 2,775.00 171.26 5,930.50 8,864.55 138.00 95.00 1,500.00 417.55 11,730.18 48.00 1,277.37 5,443.93 56.40 1,278.00 593.75 503.95 33.08 9,865.58 500.00 500.00 282.42 37,942.41 27.00 57.00 400.00 79.82 97.85 300.00 150.00 66.92 303.50 300.00 1,272.89 74.12 389.00 39.60 672.50 402.00 73.50 500.00 618.15 64,470.53 210.54 325.85 59.16 20,537.72 261 • • May 22, 2001 CHECK NUMBER 030206 O 30206 O 30206 O 30206 030207 030207 O 30207 O 302073 O 302074 0302075 O 302076 0302077 0302078 O 302079 0302080 0302081 O 302082 O 302083 0302084 O 302085 O 302086 O 302087 0302088 O 302089 O 302090 O 302091 0302092 O 302093 0302094 0302095 0302096 0302097 0302098 0302099 0302100 0302101 0302102 0302103 0302104 0302105 0302106 0302107 O 302108 O 302109 0302110 0302111 O 302112 0302113 O 302114 O 302115 0302116 0302117 0302118 0302119 C O 302120 C 0302121 C 0302122 C O 302123 C NAME 6 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND 7 ABC PRINTING CO 8 A T & T MEDIA SERVICES 9 AMERICAN PROSECUTORS RESEARCH 0 AKE, RICHARD -CLERK OF CIRCUIT 1 AMERICAN COMPLIANCE 2 ARCH ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC AMJ EQUIPMENT CORP ATLANTIC PSYCHIATRIC CENTER ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT ADAM'S MARK HOTEL AQUIFER MAINTENANCE & BAIRD, JOSEPH A BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BENSONS LOCK SERVICE BERNAN ASSOCIATES BURGOON BERGER BLANCHARD MACHINERY BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC BURKEEN, BRIAN BARER & TAYLOR INC BRODART CO BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION BREVARD BOILER CO BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC BOOKS ON TAPE INC BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P A BEAZER HOMES, INC BROGNANO, WILLIAM/AMERON HOMES BREVARD ANESTHESIA SERVICES BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF BASS-CARLTON SOD INC BETANCOURT, JAMES DMD, MS B & S SOD INC BLACKMON, SHANITA BREWER, DUANE E BARBER, THERESA BARROW, MARIA E BOBCAT OF ORLANDO BARRY CAMINATI'S ALTERATIONS BLACKMON, DWAYNE CARL BELLSOUTH CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY CENTRAL AUDIO & VISUAL, INC CLASSIC AWARDS CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC CORBIN, SHIRLEY E CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO CHEMSEARCH HAMBER OF COMMERCE ONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC LINIC PHARMACY OGAR, ROBERT LEANNET USA 5 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 DPI CHECK AMOUNT 30,287.52 250.20 75.00 45.00 4.00 9,725.00 494.15 23.56 376.00 45.00 19,012.95 342.00 2,775.00 171.26 5,930.50 8,864.55 138.00 95.00 1,500.00 417.55 11,730.18 48.00 1,277.37 5,443.93 56.40 1,278.00 593.75 503.95 33.08 9,865.58 500.00 500.00 282.42 37,942.41 27.00 57.00 400.00 79.82 97.85 300.00 150.00 66.92 303.50 300.00 1,272.89 74.12 389.00 39.60 672.50 402.00 73.50 500.00 618.15 64,470.53 210.54 325.85 59.16 20,537.72 261 • • May 22, 2001 CHECK NUMBER 030206 O 30206 O 30206 O 30206 030207 030207 O 30207 O 302073 O 302074 0302075 O 302076 0302077 0302078 O 302079 0302080 0302081 O 302082 O 302083 0302084 O 302085 O 302086 O 302087 0302088 O 302089 O 302090 O 302091 0302092 O 302093 0302094 0302095 0302096 0302097 0302098 0302099 0302100 0302101 0302102 0302103 0302104 0302105 0302106 0302107 O 302108 O 302109 0302110 0302111 O 302112 0302113 O 302114 O 302115 0302116 0302117 0302118 0302119 C O 302120 C 0302121 C 0302122 C O 302123 C NAME 6 APPLIED TECHNOLOGY AND 7 ABC PRINTING CO 8 A T & T MEDIA SERVICES 9 AMERICAN PROSECUTORS RESEARCH 0 AKE, RICHARD -CLERK OF CIRCUIT 1 AMERICAN COMPLIANCE 2 ARCH ACTION WELDING SUPPLY INC AMJ EQUIPMENT CORP ATLANTIC PSYCHIATRIC CENTER ALDEN RISK MANAGEMENT ADAM'S MARK HOTEL AQUIFER MAINTENANCE & BAIRD, JOSEPH A BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BENSONS LOCK SERVICE BERNAN ASSOCIATES BURGOON BERGER BLANCHARD MACHINERY BRAD SMITH ASSOCIATES, INC BURKEEN, BRIAN BARER & TAYLOR INC BRODART CO BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION BREVARD BOILER CO BREVARD ORTHOPAEDIC CLINIC BOOKS ON TAPE INC BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P A BEAZER HOMES, INC BROGNANO, WILLIAM/AMERON HOMES BREVARD ANESTHESIA SERVICES BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD OF BASS-CARLTON SOD INC BETANCOURT, JAMES DMD, MS B & S SOD INC BLACKMON, SHANITA BREWER, DUANE E BARBER, THERESA BARROW, MARIA E BOBCAT OF ORLANDO BARRY CAMINATI'S ALTERATIONS BLACKMON, DWAYNE CARL BELLSOUTH CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY CENTRAL AUDIO & VISUAL, INC CLASSIC AWARDS CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC CORBIN, SHIRLEY E CROOM CONSTRUCTION CO CHEMSEARCH HAMBER OF COMMERCE ONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY INC LINIC PHARMACY OGAR, ROBERT LEANNET USA 5 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 DPI CHECK AMOUNT 30,287.52 250.20 75.00 45.00 4.00 9,725.00 494.15 23.56 376.00 45.00 19,012.95 342.00 2,775.00 171.26 5,930.50 8,864.55 138.00 95.00 1,500.00 417.55 11,730.18 48.00 1,277.37 5,443.93 56.40 1,278.00 593.75 503.95 33.08 9,865.58 500.00 500.00 282.42 37,942.41 27.00 57.00 400.00 79.82 97.85 300.00 150.00 66.92 303.50 300.00 1,272.89 74.12 389.00 39.60 672.50 402.00 73.50 500.00 618.15 64,470.53 210.54 325.85 59.16 20,537.72 261 • CHECK NUMBER 03021 03021 O 3021 O 3021 03021 O 3021 O 3021 030213 030213 030213 030213 O 30213 030213 O 30213 030213 030213 030214 O 30214 030214 030214 O 30214 030214 030214 030214 0302148 0302149 0302150 0302151 0302152 0302153 0302154 0302155 0302156 0302157 0302158 0302159 0302160 0302161 0302162 0302163 0302164 0302165 0302166 0302167 0302168 0302169 0302170 0302171 0302172 0302173 0302174 0302175 0302176 0302177 0302178 0302179 0302180 0302181 0302182 NAME 24 COMMUNITY CHILD CARE RESOURCES 25 CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO 26 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 27 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 28 COPYCO, LIBERTY DIV OF 29 CORVEL 30 CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN 1 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2 COLUMBIA PROPANE 3 CRISLIP GLASS 4 CHEMINEER, INC 5 CINGULAR WIRELESS 6 CENTRAL LOCATING SERVICE, LTD 7 COX, BRIANNA 8 CENTURY INDUSTRIES 9 DAILY COURIER SERVICE 0 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 1 DEEP SIX DIVE SHOP, INC 2 DEMCO INC 3 DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC 4 DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC 5 DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD PA 6 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 7 DOCTORS' CLINIC DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC DATA SUPPLIES, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF DIVE RESCUE INT'L, INC DAVIDSON TITLES, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE DAVIS, JERRY DARBY PRINTING CO DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC DANIEL KELL TELEPHONE DANSBY, GARY D S C E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES E G P INC ELDRIDGE, MYRA A ELPEX, INC ETHERINGTON CONSERVATION EVERGLADES FARM F W& P C O A TRAINING OFFICE FEDEX May 22, 2001 FISHER SCIENTIFIC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FLETCHER'S APPLIANCE AND FLINN, SHEILA I FLOW -TECHNOLOGY FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF FATHER & SON CARPET, INC FLORIDA NOTARY SERVICE AND FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE F & W PUBLICATIONS INC 6 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 BK CHECK AMOUNT 17,419.44 279.80 48.75 541.50 73.41 664.53 4,728.40 210.67 10.50 1,310.00 398.66 76.89 275.80 38.62 29,652.00 1,252.00 95.50 2,740.00 337.42 259.25 428.72 8.00 25.00 378.00 128.14 407.26 500.00 929.14 1,256.56 500.00 625.00 464.28 1,319.00 25.00 87.50 133.48 1,055.00 183.48 31.06 455.00 318.50 943.68 22.75 431.30 475.00 99.88 184.38 136.28 3,702.00 225.00 17,335.31 54.00 112.00 335.12 20.00 4,189.00 73.90 123.00 75.58 CHECK NUMBER 03021 03021 O 3021 O 3021 03021 O 3021 O 3021 030213 030213 030213 030213 O 30213 030213 O 30213 030213 030213 030214 O 30214 030214 030214 O 30214 030214 030214 030214 0302148 0302149 0302150 0302151 0302152 0302153 0302154 0302155 0302156 0302157 0302158 0302159 0302160 0302161 0302162 0302163 0302164 0302165 0302166 0302167 0302168 0302169 0302170 0302171 0302172 0302173 0302174 0302175 0302176 0302177 0302178 0302179 0302180 0302181 0302182 NAME 24 COMMUNITY CHILD CARE RESOURCES 25 CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO 26 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 27 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 28 COPYCO, LIBERTY DIV OF 29 CORVEL 30 CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN 1 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2 COLUMBIA PROPANE 3 CRISLIP GLASS 4 CHEMINEER, INC 5 CINGULAR WIRELESS 6 CENTRAL LOCATING SERVICE, LTD 7 COX, BRIANNA 8 CENTURY INDUSTRIES 9 DAILY COURIER SERVICE 0 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 1 DEEP SIX DIVE SHOP, INC 2 DEMCO INC 3 DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC 4 DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC 5 DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD PA 6 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 7 DOCTORS' CLINIC DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC DATA SUPPLIES, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF DIVE RESCUE INT'L, INC DAVIDSON TITLES, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE DAVIS, JERRY DARBY PRINTING CO DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC DANIEL KELL TELEPHONE DANSBY, GARY D S C E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES E G P INC ELDRIDGE, MYRA A ELPEX, INC ETHERINGTON CONSERVATION EVERGLADES FARM F W& P C O A TRAINING OFFICE FEDEX May 22, 2001 FISHER SCIENTIFIC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FLETCHER'S APPLIANCE AND FLINN, SHEILA I FLOW -TECHNOLOGY FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF FATHER & SON CARPET, INC FLORIDA NOTARY SERVICE AND FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE F & W PUBLICATIONS INC 6 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 BK CHECK AMOUNT 17,419.44 279.80 48.75 541.50 73.41 664.53 4,728.40 210.67 10.50 1,310.00 398.66 76.89 275.80 38.62 29,652.00 1,252.00 95.50 2,740.00 337.42 259.25 428.72 8.00 25.00 378.00 128.14 407.26 500.00 929.14 1,256.56 500.00 625.00 464.28 1,319.00 25.00 87.50 133.48 1,055.00 183.48 31.06 455.00 318.50 943.68 22.75 431.30 475.00 99.88 184.38 136.28 3,702.00 225.00 17,335.31 54.00 112.00 335.12 20.00 4,189.00 73.90 123.00 75.58 CHECK NUMBER 03021 03021 O 3021 O 3021 03021 O 3021 O 3021 030213 030213 030213 030213 O 30213 030213 O 30213 030213 030213 030214 O 30214 030214 030214 O 30214 030214 030214 030214 0302148 0302149 0302150 0302151 0302152 0302153 0302154 0302155 0302156 0302157 0302158 0302159 0302160 0302161 0302162 0302163 0302164 0302165 0302166 0302167 0302168 0302169 0302170 0302171 0302172 0302173 0302174 0302175 0302176 0302177 0302178 0302179 0302180 0302181 0302182 NAME 24 COMMUNITY CHILD CARE RESOURCES 25 CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO 26 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 27 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 28 COPYCO, LIBERTY DIV OF 29 CORVEL 30 CULTURAL COUNCIL OF INDIAN 1 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS 2 COLUMBIA PROPANE 3 CRISLIP GLASS 4 CHEMINEER, INC 5 CINGULAR WIRELESS 6 CENTRAL LOCATING SERVICE, LTD 7 COX, BRIANNA 8 CENTURY INDUSTRIES 9 DAILY COURIER SERVICE 0 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 1 DEEP SIX DIVE SHOP, INC 2 DEMCO INC 3 DEPENDABLE DODGE, INC 4 DICKERSON-FLORIDA, INC 5 DIRECTOR, KENNETH L MD PA 6 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 7 DOCTORS' CLINIC DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC DATA SUPPLIES, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF DIVE RESCUE INT'L, INC DAVIDSON TITLES, INC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE DAVIS, JERRY DARBY PRINTING CO DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC DANIEL KELL TELEPHONE DANSBY, GARY D S C E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES E G P INC ELDRIDGE, MYRA A ELPEX, INC ETHERINGTON CONSERVATION EVERGLADES FARM F W& P C O A TRAINING OFFICE FEDEX May 22, 2001 FISHER SCIENTIFIC FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY FLETCHER'S APPLIANCE AND FLINN, SHEILA I FLOW -TECHNOLOGY FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF FATHER & SON CARPET, INC FLORIDA NOTARY SERVICE AND FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE F & W PUBLICATIONS INC 6 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 BK CHECK AMOUNT 17,419.44 279.80 48.75 541.50 73.41 664.53 4,728.40 210.67 10.50 1,310.00 398.66 76.89 275.80 38.62 29,652.00 1,252.00 95.50 2,740.00 337.42 259.25 428.72 8.00 25.00 378.00 128.14 407.26 500.00 929.14 1,256.56 500.00 625.00 464.28 1,319.00 25.00 87.50 133.48 1,055.00 183.48 31.06 455.00 318.50 943.68 22.75 431.30 475.00 99.88 184.38 136.28 3,702.00 225.00 17,335.31 54.00 112.00 335.12 20.00 4,189.00 73.90 123.00 75.58 • CHECK NUMBER O 30218 O 302184 O 302185 0302186 O 302187 O 302188 0302189 O 302190 0302191 0302192 O 302193 O 302194 0302195 0302196 0302197 O 302198 0302199 0302200 O 302201 O 302202 0302203 O 302204 O 302205 O 302206 O 302207 0302208 0302209 0302210 0302211 O 302212 O 302213 0302214 O 302215 0302216 0302217 O 302218 0302219 0302220 0302221 0302222 O 302223 0302224 0302225 O 302226 0302227 O 302228 0302229 O 302230 0302231 0302232 0302233 0302234 0302235 0302236 0302237 0302238 0302239 NAME 3 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOSTER MD, THOMAS R FUCHS, SUSAN FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR, LTD FIRTH, RYAN FLORIDA SUPERIOR SAND INC FREEMAN, HOWARD MR & MRS GALE GROUP, THE GENERAL GMC, TRUCK GENE'S AUTO GLASS GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC GALL'S INC GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER GINN, CAROLINE D GOULD, COOKSEY,FENNELL,O'NEILL GORHAM, JONATHAN GENTGEN, JOAN 0 GORMAN, MINDY GUARDIAN EQUIPMENT INC HARRIS SANITATION, INC HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES HILL MANUFACTURING HALE CONSTRUCTION, INC HELD, PATRICIA BARGO HESCO SALES, INC HACH COMPANY HARRIS SANITATION, INC HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC HORIZON NURSERY HARRIS COTHERMAN & ASSOCIATES HOLIDAY BUILDERS HUBBS, DONALD R HARRIS, GREGORY PHD CVE HOLMES PUBLISHING, TOT AND HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE HOWELL SHOOTING SUPPLIES INC HARDCOVERS 0 OLD AND RARE INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL INDIAN RIVER MEDICAL IBM CORPORATION INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE - IMI -NET, INC IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT INDIAN RIVER HAND JAMES PUBLISHING, INC JOHNSON CONTROLS INC JACK CARUSO'S REGENCY DODGE May 22, 2001 7 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 2,854.51 356.34 1,662.55 177.52 10.00 24.00 500.00 105.57 7,131.69 250.00 574.96 1,085.99 307.00 235.93 239.99 397.52 27.96 26,169.00 37.41 69.60 38.62 33,915.00 187.90 72.87 516.11 500.00 308.00 16,500.00 2,816.35 61,932.86 125.00 890.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 528.06 407.95 22.95 8,422.70 7,350.00 160.00 225.00 501.15 2,641.99 620.42 239.77 1,333.40 1,201.75 500.00 923.17 4,342.30 233,021.04 450.00 132.11 148.00 99.00 650.00 16,616.00 • • CHECK NUMBER O 30218 O 302184 O 302185 0302186 O 302187 O 302188 0302189 O 302190 0302191 0302192 O 302193 O 302194 0302195 0302196 0302197 O 302198 0302199 0302200 O 302201 O 302202 0302203 O 302204 O 302205 O 302206 O 302207 0302208 0302209 0302210 0302211 O 302212 O 302213 0302214 O 302215 0302216 0302217 O 302218 0302219 0302220 0302221 0302222 O 302223 0302224 0302225 O 302226 0302227 O 302228 0302229 O 302230 0302231 0302232 0302233 0302234 0302235 0302236 0302237 0302238 0302239 NAME 3 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOSTER MD, THOMAS R FUCHS, SUSAN FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR, LTD FIRTH, RYAN FLORIDA SUPERIOR SAND INC FREEMAN, HOWARD MR & MRS GALE GROUP, THE GENERAL GMC, TRUCK GENE'S AUTO GLASS GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC GALL'S INC GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER GINN, CAROLINE D GOULD, COOKSEY,FENNELL,O'NEILL GORHAM, JONATHAN GENTGEN, JOAN 0 GORMAN, MINDY GUARDIAN EQUIPMENT INC HARRIS SANITATION, INC HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES HILL MANUFACTURING HALE CONSTRUCTION, INC HELD, PATRICIA BARGO HESCO SALES, INC HACH COMPANY HARRIS SANITATION, INC HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC HORIZON NURSERY HARRIS COTHERMAN & ASSOCIATES HOLIDAY BUILDERS HUBBS, DONALD R HARRIS, GREGORY PHD CVE HOLMES PUBLISHING, TOT AND HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE HOWELL SHOOTING SUPPLIES INC HARDCOVERS 0 OLD AND RARE INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL INDIAN RIVER MEDICAL IBM CORPORATION INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE - IMI -NET, INC IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT INDIAN RIVER HAND JAMES PUBLISHING, INC JOHNSON CONTROLS INC JACK CARUSO'S REGENCY DODGE May 22, 2001 7 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 2,854.51 356.34 1,662.55 177.52 10.00 24.00 500.00 105.57 7,131.69 250.00 574.96 1,085.99 307.00 235.93 239.99 397.52 27.96 26,169.00 37.41 69.60 38.62 33,915.00 187.90 72.87 516.11 500.00 308.00 16,500.00 2,816.35 61,932.86 125.00 890.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 528.06 407.95 22.95 8,422.70 7,350.00 160.00 225.00 501.15 2,641.99 620.42 239.77 1,333.40 1,201.75 500.00 923.17 4,342.30 233,021.04 450.00 132.11 148.00 99.00 650.00 16,616.00 • • CHECK NUMBER O 30218 O 302184 O 302185 0302186 O 302187 O 302188 0302189 O 302190 0302191 0302192 O 302193 O 302194 0302195 0302196 0302197 O 302198 0302199 0302200 O 302201 O 302202 0302203 O 302204 O 302205 O 302206 O 302207 0302208 0302209 0302210 0302211 O 302212 O 302213 0302214 O 302215 0302216 0302217 O 302218 0302219 0302220 0302221 0302222 O 302223 0302224 0302225 O 302226 0302227 O 302228 0302229 O 302230 0302231 0302232 0302233 0302234 0302235 0302236 0302237 0302238 0302239 NAME 3 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT FREIGHTLINER TRUCKS OF SOUTH FIRESTONE TIRE & SERVICE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE FOSTER MD, THOMAS R FUCHS, SUSAN FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR, LTD FIRTH, RYAN FLORIDA SUPERIOR SAND INC FREEMAN, HOWARD MR & MRS GALE GROUP, THE GENERAL GMC, TRUCK GENE'S AUTO GLASS GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC GALL'S INC GOODYEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER GINN, CAROLINE D GOULD, COOKSEY,FENNELL,O'NEILL GORHAM, JONATHAN GENTGEN, JOAN 0 GORMAN, MINDY GUARDIAN EQUIPMENT INC HARRIS SANITATION, INC HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES HILL MANUFACTURING HALE CONSTRUCTION, INC HELD, PATRICIA BARGO HESCO SALES, INC HACH COMPANY HARRIS SANITATION, INC HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC HORIZON NURSERY HARRIS COTHERMAN & ASSOCIATES HOLIDAY BUILDERS HUBBS, DONALD R HARRIS, GREGORY PHD CVE HOLMES PUBLISHING, TOT AND HIGHMARK LIFE INSURANCE HOWELL SHOOTING SUPPLIES INC HARDCOVERS 0 OLD AND RARE INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN, INC INGRAM LIBRARY SERVICES INSTRUMENTATION SERVICES, INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL INDIAN RIVER MEDICAL IBM CORPORATION INDIAN RIVER ALL -FAB, INC IRC EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE - IMI -NET, INC IRRIGATION CONSULTANTS UNLIMIT INDIAN RIVER HAND JAMES PUBLISHING, INC JOHNSON CONTROLS INC JACK CARUSO'S REGENCY DODGE May 22, 2001 7 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 2,854.51 356.34 1,662.55 177.52 10.00 24.00 500.00 105.57 7,131.69 250.00 574.96 1,085.99 307.00 235.93 239.99 397.52 27.96 26,169.00 37.41 69.60 38.62 33,915.00 187.90 72.87 516.11 500.00 308.00 16,500.00 2,816.35 61,932.86 125.00 890.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 528.06 407.95 22.95 8,422.70 7,350.00 160.00 225.00 501.15 2,641.99 620.42 239.77 1,333.40 1,201.75 500.00 923.17 4,342.30 233,021.04 450.00 132.11 148.00 99.00 650.00 16,616.00 • CHECK NUMBER NAME 0302240 JUDAH, HUSTON 0302241 JONES, ELVIN JR 0302242 JONES CHEMICALS, 0302243 R MART 0302244 KEATING, ROBERT M 0302245 0302246 0302247 0302248 0302249 0302250 0302251 0302252 0302253 0302254 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 O 3022 O 3022 030226 030226 030226 030226 030226 030226 O 30227 O 30227 O 30227 030227 0302274 0302275 0302276 0302277 0302278 0302279 0302280 0302281 0302282 0302283 O 302284 O 302285 0302286 0302287 0302288 0302289 0302290 0302291 0302292 0302293 0302294 0302295 INC KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC KELLY TRACTOR CO KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL KIRKUS REVIEWS KELLY, CHERRY KEENE, WAYNE F AND LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. LEWIS, RUTH A LANDRUM, GREGORY C PSY D L B SMITH, INC 55 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 56 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC 57 LANDSCAPE CONNECTION 58 LUNA, JORGE 59 LONGARDNER, SHARON A 60 LES CAMELA, ELISA M 61 LUNA, JUVENAL 62 LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION 63 LA CLAIR, LAWRENCE OR 4 LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 5 MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY 6 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 7 MIKES GARAGE 8 MOON, NANCY 9 MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT CO 0 MAX DAVIS & ASSOCICATES 1 MARTIN'S LAMAR UNIFORMS 2 MATTHEW BENDER & CO, INC 3 FIDS MATRX MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY MORNING STAR/NEW WAVE METAL CULVERTS M LEE SMITH PUBLISHERS LLC MULLER, MINTZ, KORNREICH, MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE MARC INDUSTRIES MGB CONSTRUCTION INC MEZZINA, PATRICIA MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES INC MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC MURPHY, DEBBIE MEDTRONIC PHYSIO -CONTROL MORTON SALT MALLAMS, JOHN H, PHD MARTRONICS INC MEREDITH BOOKS NASCO NAPIER, WILLIAM M NAGY, BELA NU CO 2, INC May 22, 2001 8 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 61.80 38.62 6,189.13 1,544.48 .67.50 2,200.00 371,381.00 1,900.00 375.00 28.00 22.42 2,984.70 48.23 1,125.00 267.14 367.60 156.31 40.00 195.70 50.00 287.00 115.87 1,000.00 500.00 374.50 38.10 11.93 235.00 650.00 1,275.00 486.00 185.00 35.66 499.49 8.55 75.45 1,009.80 460.62 287.00 3,055.80 114.94 365.84 1,500.00 165.92 195.63 367.00 138.00 25,174.20 2,384.28 73.15 1,720.80 171.10 138.40 55.97 59.25 75.23 CHECK NUMBER NAME 0302240 JUDAH, HUSTON 0302241 JONES, ELVIN JR 0302242 JONES CHEMICALS, 0302243 R MART 0302244 KEATING, ROBERT M 0302245 0302246 0302247 0302248 0302249 0302250 0302251 0302252 0302253 0302254 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 O 3022 O 3022 030226 030226 030226 030226 030226 030226 O 30227 O 30227 O 30227 030227 0302274 0302275 0302276 0302277 0302278 0302279 0302280 0302281 0302282 0302283 O 302284 O 302285 0302286 0302287 0302288 0302289 0302290 0302291 0302292 0302293 0302294 0302295 INC KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC KELLY TRACTOR CO KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL KIRKUS REVIEWS KELLY, CHERRY KEENE, WAYNE F AND LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. LEWIS, RUTH A LANDRUM, GREGORY C PSY D L B SMITH, INC 55 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 56 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC 57 LANDSCAPE CONNECTION 58 LUNA, JORGE 59 LONGARDNER, SHARON A 60 LES CAMELA, ELISA M 61 LUNA, JUVENAL 62 LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION 63 LA CLAIR, LAWRENCE OR 4 LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 5 MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY 6 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 7 MIKES GARAGE 8 MOON, NANCY 9 MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT CO 0 MAX DAVIS & ASSOCICATES 1 MARTIN'S LAMAR UNIFORMS 2 MATTHEW BENDER & CO, INC 3 FIDS MATRX MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY MORNING STAR/NEW WAVE METAL CULVERTS M LEE SMITH PUBLISHERS LLC MULLER, MINTZ, KORNREICH, MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE MARC INDUSTRIES MGB CONSTRUCTION INC MEZZINA, PATRICIA MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES INC MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC MURPHY, DEBBIE MEDTRONIC PHYSIO -CONTROL MORTON SALT MALLAMS, JOHN H, PHD MARTRONICS INC MEREDITH BOOKS NASCO NAPIER, WILLIAM M NAGY, BELA NU CO 2, INC May 22, 2001 8 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 61.80 38.62 6,189.13 1,544.48 .67.50 2,200.00 371,381.00 1,900.00 375.00 28.00 22.42 2,984.70 48.23 1,125.00 267.14 367.60 156.31 40.00 195.70 50.00 287.00 115.87 1,000.00 500.00 374.50 38.10 11.93 235.00 650.00 1,275.00 486.00 185.00 35.66 499.49 8.55 75.45 1,009.80 460.62 287.00 3,055.80 114.94 365.84 1,500.00 165.92 195.63 367.00 138.00 25,174.20 2,384.28 73.15 1,720.80 171.10 138.40 55.97 59.25 75.23 CHECK NUMBER NAME 0302240 JUDAH, HUSTON 0302241 JONES, ELVIN JR 0302242 JONES CHEMICALS, 0302243 R MART 0302244 KEATING, ROBERT M 0302245 0302246 0302247 0302248 0302249 0302250 0302251 0302252 0302253 0302254 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 03022 O 3022 O 3022 030226 030226 030226 030226 030226 030226 O 30227 O 30227 O 30227 030227 0302274 0302275 0302276 0302277 0302278 0302279 0302280 0302281 0302282 0302283 O 302284 O 302285 0302286 0302287 0302288 0302289 0302290 0302291 0302292 0302293 0302294 0302295 INC KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES, INC KELLY TRACTOR CO KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL KIRKUS REVIEWS KELLY, CHERRY KEENE, WAYNE F AND LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. LEWIS, RUTH A LANDRUM, GREGORY C PSY D L B SMITH, INC 55 LFI VERO BEACH, INC 56 LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC 57 LANDSCAPE CONNECTION 58 LUNA, JORGE 59 LONGARDNER, SHARON A 60 LES CAMELA, ELISA M 61 LUNA, JUVENAL 62 LEGENDARY CONSTRUCTION 63 LA CLAIR, LAWRENCE OR 4 LANGUAGE SERVICES INC 5 MACMILLAN OIL COMPANY 6 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 7 MIKES GARAGE 8 MOON, NANCY 9 MUNICIPAL EQUIPMENT CO 0 MAX DAVIS & ASSOCICATES 1 MARTIN'S LAMAR UNIFORMS 2 MATTHEW BENDER & CO, INC 3 FIDS MATRX MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY MORNING STAR/NEW WAVE METAL CULVERTS M LEE SMITH PUBLISHERS LLC MULLER, MINTZ, KORNREICH, MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE MARC INDUSTRIES MGB CONSTRUCTION INC MEZZINA, PATRICIA MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES INC MEDICAL SERVICES COMPANY, INC MURPHY, DEBBIE MEDTRONIC PHYSIO -CONTROL MORTON SALT MALLAMS, JOHN H, PHD MARTRONICS INC MEREDITH BOOKS NASCO NAPIER, WILLIAM M NAGY, BELA NU CO 2, INC May 22, 2001 8 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 61.80 38.62 6,189.13 1,544.48 .67.50 2,200.00 371,381.00 1,900.00 375.00 28.00 22.42 2,984.70 48.23 1,125.00 267.14 367.60 156.31 40.00 195.70 50.00 287.00 115.87 1,000.00 500.00 374.50 38.10 11.93 235.00 650.00 1,275.00 486.00 185.00 35.66 499.49 8.55 75.45 1,009.80 460.62 287.00 3,055.80 114.94 365.84 1,500.00 165.92 195.63 367.00 138.00 25,174.20 2,384.28 73.15 1,720.80 171.10 138.40 55.97 59.25 75.23 • • CHECK NUMBER O 302296 O 302297 O 302298 O 302299 O 302300 O 302301 O 302302 O 302303 O 302304 O 302305 O 302306 O 302307 0302308 O 302309 O 302310 0302311 O 302312 0302313 O 302314 O 302315 O 302316 O 302317 0302318 0302319 O 302320 O 302321 O 302322 0302323 O 302324 O 302325 0302326 O 302327 0302328 O 302329 O 302330 0302331 O 302332 O 302333 0302334 0302335 0302336 0302337 0302338 0302339 0302340 0302341 0302342 0302343 O 302344 0302345 O 302346 0302347 0302348 0302349 0302350 0302351 0302352 0302353 May 22, 2001 NAME NORTRAX SE L.L.C. NOEL, THOMAS NORTHSIDE AGAPE MINISTRIES NAIMISHA CONSTRUCTION, INC NU -PACK INC NATURE'S KEEPER INC OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE ON IT'S WAY OFFICE DEPOT, INC OSCEOLA PHARMACY ON-SITE DISCOUNT WINDOW ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO PARKS RENTAL INC PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY PETTY CASH PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION PETTY CASH PETRILLA, FRED Jr PHD P B S VIDEO PORT CONSOLIDATED PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION PARKER, DEBBIE PROSPER, JANET C P B S & J ANALYTICAL SERVICES PENA, JORGE PROFESSIONAL DIVING INDUSTRIES PEREZ, VICTOR P ISTOL POKER RINGHAVER EQUIPMENT COMPANY ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC RICHTER, CORY S RIORDAN, MICHAEL C PSY.D. RAY TECH ENTERPRISES INC RAPP, PAMELA REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING REXEL SOUTHER ELECTRICAL ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET RHINEHART, VALERIE RN HOME HEALTH CARE REYBURN SYLVIA REGENCY REPORTING, INC SCHOPP, BARBARA G SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE REXEL SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO SUN COAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY STEIL, HOLLY SHELTRA & SON CONSTRUCTION SCHONES, HENRY A JR SUBWAY STAMP SHOP INC SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL 9 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 1,609.77 66.95 3,000.89 500.00 21,650.00 2,700.00 1,160.21 871.60 1,802.77 38.51 139.00 1,192.50 477.44 134.58 80.18 166.87 500.00 13.56 500.00 35.23 19,754.57 140.00 398.67 206.00 35.00 14,848.00 95.27 4,192.00 75.00 160.00 6,400.00 602.66 42.00 500.00 4,075.00 24.00 2,007.13 208.68 1,298.67 540.60 122.01 250.00 214.55 31.50 735.00 80.00 145.30 190.30 571.57 143.54 285.30 44.66 68,078.92 2,282.52 35.20 170.90 55.00 14,652.84 65 • • CHECK NUMBER O 302296 O 302297 O 302298 O 302299 O 302300 O 302301 O 302302 O 302303 O 302304 O 302305 O 302306 O 302307 0302308 O 302309 O 302310 0302311 O 302312 0302313 O 302314 O 302315 O 302316 O 302317 0302318 0302319 O 302320 O 302321 O 302322 0302323 O 302324 O 302325 0302326 O 302327 0302328 O 302329 O 302330 0302331 O 302332 O 302333 0302334 0302335 0302336 0302337 0302338 0302339 0302340 0302341 0302342 0302343 O 302344 0302345 O 302346 0302347 0302348 0302349 0302350 0302351 0302352 0302353 May 22, 2001 NAME NORTRAX SE L.L.C. NOEL, THOMAS NORTHSIDE AGAPE MINISTRIES NAIMISHA CONSTRUCTION, INC NU -PACK INC NATURE'S KEEPER INC OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE ON IT'S WAY OFFICE DEPOT, INC OSCEOLA PHARMACY ON-SITE DISCOUNT WINDOW ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO PARKS RENTAL INC PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY PETTY CASH PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION PETTY CASH PETRILLA, FRED Jr PHD P B S VIDEO PORT CONSOLIDATED PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION PARKER, DEBBIE PROSPER, JANET C P B S & J ANALYTICAL SERVICES PENA, JORGE PROFESSIONAL DIVING INDUSTRIES PEREZ, VICTOR P ISTOL POKER RINGHAVER EQUIPMENT COMPANY ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC RICHTER, CORY S RIORDAN, MICHAEL C PSY.D. RAY TECH ENTERPRISES INC RAPP, PAMELA REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING REXEL SOUTHER ELECTRICAL ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET RHINEHART, VALERIE RN HOME HEALTH CARE REYBURN SYLVIA REGENCY REPORTING, INC SCHOPP, BARBARA G SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE REXEL SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO SUN COAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY STEIL, HOLLY SHELTRA & SON CONSTRUCTION SCHONES, HENRY A JR SUBWAY STAMP SHOP INC SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL 9 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 1,609.77 66.95 3,000.89 500.00 21,650.00 2,700.00 1,160.21 871.60 1,802.77 38.51 139.00 1,192.50 477.44 134.58 80.18 166.87 500.00 13.56 500.00 35.23 19,754.57 140.00 398.67 206.00 35.00 14,848.00 95.27 4,192.00 75.00 160.00 6,400.00 602.66 42.00 500.00 4,075.00 24.00 2,007.13 208.68 1,298.67 540.60 122.01 250.00 214.55 31.50 735.00 80.00 145.30 190.30 571.57 143.54 285.30 44.66 68,078.92 2,282.52 35.20 170.90 55.00 14,652.84 65 • • CHECK NUMBER O 302296 O 302297 O 302298 O 302299 O 302300 O 302301 O 302302 O 302303 O 302304 O 302305 O 302306 O 302307 0302308 O 302309 O 302310 0302311 O 302312 0302313 O 302314 O 302315 O 302316 O 302317 0302318 0302319 O 302320 O 302321 O 302322 0302323 O 302324 O 302325 0302326 O 302327 0302328 O 302329 O 302330 0302331 O 302332 O 302333 0302334 0302335 0302336 0302337 0302338 0302339 0302340 0302341 0302342 0302343 O 302344 0302345 O 302346 0302347 0302348 0302349 0302350 0302351 0302352 0302353 May 22, 2001 NAME NORTRAX SE L.L.C. NOEL, THOMAS NORTHSIDE AGAPE MINISTRIES NAIMISHA CONSTRUCTION, INC NU -PACK INC NATURE'S KEEPER INC OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE ON IT'S WAY OFFICE DEPOT, INC OSCEOLA PHARMACY ON-SITE DISCOUNT WINDOW ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO PARKS RENTAL INC PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY PETTY CASH PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION PETTY CASH PETRILLA, FRED Jr PHD P B S VIDEO PORT CONSOLIDATED PEEK TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION PARKER, DEBBIE PROSPER, JANET C P B S & J ANALYTICAL SERVICES PENA, JORGE PROFESSIONAL DIVING INDUSTRIES PEREZ, VICTOR P ISTOL POKER RINGHAVER EQUIPMENT COMPANY ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC RICHTER, CORY S RIORDAN, MICHAEL C PSY.D. RAY TECH ENTERPRISES INC RAPP, PAMELA REGIONS INTERSTATE BILLING REXEL SOUTHER ELECTRICAL ROGER DEAN CHEVROLET RHINEHART, VALERIE RN HOME HEALTH CARE REYBURN SYLVIA REGENCY REPORTING, INC SCHOPP, BARBARA G SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE REXEL SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO SUN COAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY STEIL, HOLLY SHELTRA & SON CONSTRUCTION SCHONES, HENRY A JR SUBWAY STAMP SHOP INC SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL 9 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 1,609.77 66.95 3,000.89 500.00 21,650.00 2,700.00 1,160.21 871.60 1,802.77 38.51 139.00 1,192.50 477.44 134.58 80.18 166.87 500.00 13.56 500.00 35.23 19,754.57 140.00 398.67 206.00 35.00 14,848.00 95.27 4,192.00 75.00 160.00 6,400.00 602.66 42.00 500.00 4,075.00 24.00 2,007.13 208.68 1,298.67 540.60 122.01 250.00 214.55 31.50 735.00 80.00 145.30 190.30 571.57 143.54 285.30 44.66 68,078.92 2,282.52 35.20 170.90 55.00 14,652.84 65 CHECK NUMBER 0302354 0302355 0302356 O 302357 0302358 0302359 0302360 0302361 O 302362 0302363 O 302364 O 302365 0302366 O 302367 O 302368 0302369 O 302370 0302371 0302372 0302373 0302374 0302375 0302376 0302377 0302378 0302379 0302380 O 302381 0302382 0302383 0302384 0302385 0302386 0302387 O 302388 0302389 O 302390 O 302391 O 302392 0302393 O 302394 0302395 O 302396 0302397 O 302398 0302399 0302400 O 302401 0302402 O 302403 0302404 0302405 O 302406 O 302407 O 302408 O 302409 0302410 O 302411 May 22, 2001 NAME SEXTON, HILDY SKINNER, BEVERLY SAFECO, INC SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY EQUIP SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC SAFETY KLEEN CORP STANBRIDGE, RUTH SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF SUNSHINE STATE ONE CALL STAGE & SCREEN SOUTHERN COMPUTER SUPPLIES INC DEP-STORAGE TANK REISTRATION SEMINOLE OF OKEECHOBEE/JUPITER SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT SPHERTON CORP SUNCOAST COUNSELING & SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY SPEIRS, DONNA SUNTREE PARTNERS, THE SUN LAB TECHNOLOGY INC STALHUT, SHANNON TAMPA ARMATURE WORKS, INC TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC TRI -SURE CORPORATION TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #769 THOMAS T BEELER, PUBLISHER SMITH, TERRY L T A P SOD TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL TROPIC PEST CONTROL SERV, INC ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT U S TOY/CONSTRUCTIVE PLAYTHING UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC UNIVERSAL PRECISION INDUSTRIES VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO MARINE CENTER, INC VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT VERO BEARING & BOLT VANTAGE EQUIPMENT CO WAKEFIELD, JUDITH A WAL-MART STORES, INC WALGREENS PHARMACY #03608 WALSH, LYNN WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC 10 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 80.00 380.66 2,700.00 11,835.00 798.75 462.77 138.47 111.84 826.00 734.30 40.99 3,152.97 675.00 55.00 75.00 399.00 2,350.00 219.96 220.50 18,245.73 5,395.00 236.25 2,428.28 2,068.07 316,141.20 251.34 195,794.14 15.00 62.58 92.05 4,061.91 2,393.96 515.34 770.00 663.45 106.90 240.00 6,800.02 4,098.60 4,900.00 1,279.77 365.71 123.27 1,367.95 260.00 276.90 501.00 147.32 12,000.00 60.00 205.02 1,174.01 154.00 145.46 845.68 27.84 27.98 14.00 CHECK NUMBER 0302354 0302355 0302356 O 302357 0302358 0302359 0302360 0302361 O 302362 0302363 O 302364 O 302365 0302366 O 302367 O 302368 0302369 O 302370 0302371 0302372 0302373 0302374 0302375 0302376 0302377 0302378 0302379 0302380 O 302381 0302382 0302383 0302384 0302385 0302386 0302387 O 302388 0302389 O 302390 O 302391 O 302392 0302393 O 302394 0302395 O 302396 0302397 O 302398 0302399 0302400 O 302401 0302402 O 302403 0302404 0302405 O 302406 O 302407 O 302408 O 302409 0302410 O 302411 May 22, 2001 NAME SEXTON, HILDY SKINNER, BEVERLY SAFECO, INC SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY EQUIP SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC SAFETY KLEEN CORP STANBRIDGE, RUTH SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF SUNSHINE STATE ONE CALL STAGE & SCREEN SOUTHERN COMPUTER SUPPLIES INC DEP-STORAGE TANK REISTRATION SEMINOLE OF OKEECHOBEE/JUPITER SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT SPHERTON CORP SUNCOAST COUNSELING & SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY SPEIRS, DONNA SUNTREE PARTNERS, THE SUN LAB TECHNOLOGY INC STALHUT, SHANNON TAMPA ARMATURE WORKS, INC TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC TRI -SURE CORPORATION TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #769 THOMAS T BEELER, PUBLISHER SMITH, TERRY L T A P SOD TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL TROPIC PEST CONTROL SERV, INC ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT U S TOY/CONSTRUCTIVE PLAYTHING UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC UNIVERSAL PRECISION INDUSTRIES VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO MARINE CENTER, INC VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT VERO BEARING & BOLT VANTAGE EQUIPMENT CO WAKEFIELD, JUDITH A WAL-MART STORES, INC WALGREENS PHARMACY #03608 WALSH, LYNN WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC 10 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 80.00 380.66 2,700.00 11,835.00 798.75 462.77 138.47 111.84 826.00 734.30 40.99 3,152.97 675.00 55.00 75.00 399.00 2,350.00 219.96 220.50 18,245.73 5,395.00 236.25 2,428.28 2,068.07 316,141.20 251.34 195,794.14 15.00 62.58 92.05 4,061.91 2,393.96 515.34 770.00 663.45 106.90 240.00 6,800.02 4,098.60 4,900.00 1,279.77 365.71 123.27 1,367.95 260.00 276.90 501.00 147.32 12,000.00 60.00 205.02 1,174.01 154.00 145.46 845.68 27.84 27.98 14.00 CHECK NUMBER 0302354 0302355 0302356 O 302357 0302358 0302359 0302360 0302361 O 302362 0302363 O 302364 O 302365 0302366 O 302367 O 302368 0302369 O 302370 0302371 0302372 0302373 0302374 0302375 0302376 0302377 0302378 0302379 0302380 O 302381 0302382 0302383 0302384 0302385 0302386 0302387 O 302388 0302389 O 302390 O 302391 O 302392 0302393 O 302394 0302395 O 302396 0302397 O 302398 0302399 0302400 O 302401 0302402 O 302403 0302404 0302405 O 302406 O 302407 O 302408 O 302409 0302410 O 302411 May 22, 2001 NAME SEXTON, HILDY SKINNER, BEVERLY SAFECO, INC SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT SOUTHEASTERN EMERGENCY EQUIP SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC SAFETY KLEEN CORP STANBRIDGE, RUTH SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF SUNSHINE STATE ONE CALL STAGE & SCREEN SOUTHERN COMPUTER SUPPLIES INC DEP-STORAGE TANK REISTRATION SEMINOLE OF OKEECHOBEE/JUPITER SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT SPHERTON CORP SUNCOAST COUNSELING & SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY SPEIRS, DONNA SUNTREE PARTNERS, THE SUN LAB TECHNOLOGY INC STALHUT, SHANNON TAMPA ARMATURE WORKS, INC TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC TRI -SURE CORPORATION TREASURE COAST REFUSE CORP TREASURE COAST CONTRACTING,INC TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION #769 THOMAS T BEELER, PUBLISHER SMITH, TERRY L T A P SOD TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS TARGET STORES COMMERCIAL TROPIC PEST CONTROL SERV, INC ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT U S TOY/CONSTRUCTIVE PLAYTHING UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP UNIPSYCH BENEFITS OF FL,INC UNIVERSAL PRECISION INDUSTRIES VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS,INC VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO MARINE CENTER, INC VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT VERO BEARING & BOLT VANTAGE EQUIPMENT CO WAKEFIELD, JUDITH A WAL-MART STORES, INC WALGREENS PHARMACY #03608 WALSH, LYNN WOLSTENHOLME, SHIRLEY WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC 10 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 80.00 380.66 2,700.00 11,835.00 798.75 462.77 138.47 111.84 826.00 734.30 40.99 3,152.97 675.00 55.00 75.00 399.00 2,350.00 219.96 220.50 18,245.73 5,395.00 236.25 2,428.28 2,068.07 316,141.20 251.34 195,794.14 15.00 62.58 92.05 4,061.91 2,393.96 515.34 770.00 663.45 106.90 240.00 6,800.02 4,098.60 4,900.00 1,279.77 365.71 123.27 1,367.95 260.00 276.90 501.00 147.32 12,000.00 60.00 205.02 1,174.01 154.00 145.46 845.68 27.84 27.98 14.00 • • CHECK NUMBER O 302412 0302413 O 302414 O 302415 0302416 0302417 0302418 O 302419 O 302420 O 302421 O 302422 0302423 O 302424 0302425 O 302426 O 302427 0302428 0302429 O 302430 O 302431 O 302432 0302433 O 302434 O 302435 O 302436 O 302437 O 302438 O 302439 0302440 O 302441 O 302442 O 302443 0302444 O 302445 0302446 O 302447 0302448 0302449 O 302450 O 302451 O 302452 0302453 0302454 O 302455 O 302456 O 302457 O 302458 O 302459 O 302460 0302461 0302462 O 302463 0302464 0302465 O 302466 0302467 O 302468 May 22, 2001 NAME WILLHOFF, PATSY WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC WATERWORKS CAR WASH WILSON, MARGARET F WELLINGTON HOMES WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR WALGREEN COMPANY WILLIAMSON, LESLIE K W C G, INC WILSON, STEVEN WODTKE, SHERRI WIGGINS, D B, P E XEROX CORPORATION ZBROROWKSI CONSTRUCTION REDDIE, BARRIS THOMAS, JAMES SR MILLER, JOSEPH WODTKE, RUSSELL LICARI, LINDA ROYAL, THOMAS SCHREIBER, D WADE, HANK BURGOON BERGER CONST HOLIDAY BUILDERS MC INERNEY, ROY BASTIEN, RALPH PROCTOR CONST HABITAT FOR HUMANITY BANOV ARCHITETURE & CONST SABONJOHN, JAMES CONTRAVEST CONST CO SHREVE, SANDY CASSADY, DEVON 0 CONNORS, LAURA BURGOON BERGER SE ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURES HOLIDAY BUILDERS MANNING, HUGH FLEISHER, DOUGLAS DENMARK, TOM AND BURGOON BERGER CONST CO ALLEN, ROXANNE STEWART, DAVID FLETCHER, JEFF FREEMAN, DIANE AND UBILLA, JOSE GERARDO ANDO BUILDING CORP GHO VERO BEACH INC MGB CONSTRUCTION INC MOLITORIS, CHRISTINA M TUCKER, BRUCE AND RAYMO INC PROVIDENCE INTERNATIONAL INC BROGNANO, WILLIAM CAVIT CONSTRUCTION INC BEHRENS, THOM T VANHEMELRIJCK, LISA AND 11 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 130.00 208.10 59.00 120.64 500.00 1,911.00 13.31 140.00 4,820.59 51.50 504.70 2,270.00 1,166.42 500.00 290.96 873.10 506.24 591.94 906.08 582.98 31.15 4.93 11.93 9.59 9.64 26.24 14.17 100.00 91.45 3.60 26.78 53.24 22.87 18.86 6.33 7.79 38.58 15.61 39.76 2.07 130.74 29.95 65.88 46.43 36.27 41.87 2.18 113.97 38.30 97.41 20.94 80.97 42.82 38.26 36.05 11.92 56.66 q p • • CHECK NUMBER O 302412 0302413 O 302414 O 302415 0302416 0302417 0302418 O 302419 O 302420 O 302421 O 302422 0302423 O 302424 0302425 O 302426 O 302427 0302428 0302429 O 302430 O 302431 O 302432 0302433 O 302434 O 302435 O 302436 O 302437 O 302438 O 302439 0302440 O 302441 O 302442 O 302443 0302444 O 302445 0302446 O 302447 0302448 0302449 O 302450 O 302451 O 302452 0302453 0302454 O 302455 O 302456 O 302457 O 302458 O 302459 O 302460 0302461 0302462 O 302463 0302464 0302465 O 302466 0302467 O 302468 May 22, 2001 NAME WILLHOFF, PATSY WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC WATERWORKS CAR WASH WILSON, MARGARET F WELLINGTON HOMES WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR WALGREEN COMPANY WILLIAMSON, LESLIE K W C G, INC WILSON, STEVEN WODTKE, SHERRI WIGGINS, D B, P E XEROX CORPORATION ZBROROWKSI CONSTRUCTION REDDIE, BARRIS THOMAS, JAMES SR MILLER, JOSEPH WODTKE, RUSSELL LICARI, LINDA ROYAL, THOMAS SCHREIBER, D WADE, HANK BURGOON BERGER CONST HOLIDAY BUILDERS MC INERNEY, ROY BASTIEN, RALPH PROCTOR CONST HABITAT FOR HUMANITY BANOV ARCHITETURE & CONST SABONJOHN, JAMES CONTRAVEST CONST CO SHREVE, SANDY CASSADY, DEVON 0 CONNORS, LAURA BURGOON BERGER SE ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURES HOLIDAY BUILDERS MANNING, HUGH FLEISHER, DOUGLAS DENMARK, TOM AND BURGOON BERGER CONST CO ALLEN, ROXANNE STEWART, DAVID FLETCHER, JEFF FREEMAN, DIANE AND UBILLA, JOSE GERARDO ANDO BUILDING CORP GHO VERO BEACH INC MGB CONSTRUCTION INC MOLITORIS, CHRISTINA M TUCKER, BRUCE AND RAYMO INC PROVIDENCE INTERNATIONAL INC BROGNANO, WILLIAM CAVIT CONSTRUCTION INC BEHRENS, THOM T VANHEMELRIJCK, LISA AND 11 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 130.00 208.10 59.00 120.64 500.00 1,911.00 13.31 140.00 4,820.59 51.50 504.70 2,270.00 1,166.42 500.00 290.96 873.10 506.24 591.94 906.08 582.98 31.15 4.93 11.93 9.59 9.64 26.24 14.17 100.00 91.45 3.60 26.78 53.24 22.87 18.86 6.33 7.79 38.58 15.61 39.76 2.07 130.74 29.95 65.88 46.43 36.27 41.87 2.18 113.97 38.30 97.41 20.94 80.97 42.82 38.26 36.05 11.92 56.66 q p • • CHECK NUMBER O 302412 0302413 O 302414 O 302415 0302416 0302417 0302418 O 302419 O 302420 O 302421 O 302422 0302423 O 302424 0302425 O 302426 O 302427 0302428 0302429 O 302430 O 302431 O 302432 0302433 O 302434 O 302435 O 302436 O 302437 O 302438 O 302439 0302440 O 302441 O 302442 O 302443 0302444 O 302445 0302446 O 302447 0302448 0302449 O 302450 O 302451 O 302452 0302453 0302454 O 302455 O 302456 O 302457 O 302458 O 302459 O 302460 0302461 0302462 O 302463 0302464 0302465 O 302466 0302467 O 302468 May 22, 2001 NAME WILLHOFF, PATSY WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC WATERWORKS CAR WASH WILSON, MARGARET F WELLINGTON HOMES WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR WALGREEN COMPANY WILLIAMSON, LESLIE K W C G, INC WILSON, STEVEN WODTKE, SHERRI WIGGINS, D B, P E XEROX CORPORATION ZBROROWKSI CONSTRUCTION REDDIE, BARRIS THOMAS, JAMES SR MILLER, JOSEPH WODTKE, RUSSELL LICARI, LINDA ROYAL, THOMAS SCHREIBER, D WADE, HANK BURGOON BERGER CONST HOLIDAY BUILDERS MC INERNEY, ROY BASTIEN, RALPH PROCTOR CONST HABITAT FOR HUMANITY BANOV ARCHITETURE & CONST SABONJOHN, JAMES CONTRAVEST CONST CO SHREVE, SANDY CASSADY, DEVON 0 CONNORS, LAURA BURGOON BERGER SE ALLIANCE OF FORECLOSURES HOLIDAY BUILDERS MANNING, HUGH FLEISHER, DOUGLAS DENMARK, TOM AND BURGOON BERGER CONST CO ALLEN, ROXANNE STEWART, DAVID FLETCHER, JEFF FREEMAN, DIANE AND UBILLA, JOSE GERARDO ANDO BUILDING CORP GHO VERO BEACH INC MGB CONSTRUCTION INC MOLITORIS, CHRISTINA M TUCKER, BRUCE AND RAYMO INC PROVIDENCE INTERNATIONAL INC BROGNANO, WILLIAM CAVIT CONSTRUCTION INC BEHRENS, THOM T VANHEMELRIJCK, LISA AND 11 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 CHECK AMOUNT 130.00 208.10 59.00 120.64 500.00 1,911.00 13.31 140.00 4,820.59 51.50 504.70 2,270.00 1,166.42 500.00 290.96 873.10 506.24 591.94 906.08 582.98 31.15 4.93 11.93 9.59 9.64 26.24 14.17 100.00 91.45 3.60 26.78 53.24 22.87 18.86 6.33 7.79 38.58 15.61 39.76 2.07 130.74 29.95 65.88 46.43 36.27 41.87 2.18 113.97 38.30 97.41 20.94 80.97 42.82 38.26 36.05 11.92 56.66 q p CHECK NUMBER 0302469 O 302470 O 302471 O 302472 0302473 0302474 0302475 0302476 0302477 0302478 0302479 0302480 0302481 0302482 0302483 0302484 0302485 O 302486 0302487 0302488 O 302489 0302490 0302491 0302492. 0302493 0302494 0302495 0302496 0302497 0302498 0302499 O 302500 O 302501 O 302502 0302503 May 22, 2001 NAME PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES FINCH, KIM INDIAN RIVER LAND TRUST MARLIN DEV & CONST MGMT INC BOYD, MICHAEL SEA OAKS INVESTMENT LTD INDIAN RIVER CUSTOM HOMES INC ROBERTS, THOMAS C BORZNER, ANDREW C ZBOROWSKI, JOHN BOUNDS, THOMAS S HOMESTYLE HOAGIES LARSEN, WILLIAM L CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES FONTANA, DIANE BURGOR, BEVERLY J D ALBORA, JOHN IV GRABACH, LORA GLADE, PHILIP R AND JOHNN, RICHARD AND CHITTY, HAROLD W DEGROAT, MATTHEW BASDEN, CHRIS REXFORD, INC BLUMSTEIN, ROBERT M VAN VALKENBURGH, DELORES AND GERSON, JAIME DITCHDIGGERS INC AHMED, MAJDI MOHMED KOZICH, JOHN E MITTENTHAL, DAVID PACE, JAMES G III PETION, TELANGE BROWN, SHAWNA K GILLARD, JOSEPHINE 12 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 UK CHECK AMOUNT 10.08 9.03 679.04 152.38 35.32 103.62 50.38 22.53 53.65 36.63 26.53 30.69 5.35 431.38 49.46 58.42 8.44 16.63 81.61 26.78 21.01 4.61 43.68 68.04 45.15 77.46 55.67 319.51 10.62 23.85 44.92 45.00 66.01 62.23 35.02 2,460,566.63 CHECK NUMBER 0302469 O 302470 O 302471 O 302472 0302473 0302474 0302475 0302476 0302477 0302478 0302479 0302480 0302481 0302482 0302483 0302484 0302485 O 302486 0302487 0302488 O 302489 0302490 0302491 0302492. 0302493 0302494 0302495 0302496 0302497 0302498 0302499 O 302500 O 302501 O 302502 0302503 May 22, 2001 NAME PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES FINCH, KIM INDIAN RIVER LAND TRUST MARLIN DEV & CONST MGMT INC BOYD, MICHAEL SEA OAKS INVESTMENT LTD INDIAN RIVER CUSTOM HOMES INC ROBERTS, THOMAS C BORZNER, ANDREW C ZBOROWSKI, JOHN BOUNDS, THOMAS S HOMESTYLE HOAGIES LARSEN, WILLIAM L CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES FONTANA, DIANE BURGOR, BEVERLY J D ALBORA, JOHN IV GRABACH, LORA GLADE, PHILIP R AND JOHNN, RICHARD AND CHITTY, HAROLD W DEGROAT, MATTHEW BASDEN, CHRIS REXFORD, INC BLUMSTEIN, ROBERT M VAN VALKENBURGH, DELORES AND GERSON, JAIME DITCHDIGGERS INC AHMED, MAJDI MOHMED KOZICH, JOHN E MITTENTHAL, DAVID PACE, JAMES G III PETION, TELANGE BROWN, SHAWNA K GILLARD, JOSEPHINE 12 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 UK CHECK AMOUNT 10.08 9.03 679.04 152.38 35.32 103.62 50.38 22.53 53.65 36.63 26.53 30.69 5.35 431.38 49.46 58.42 8.44 16.63 81.61 26.78 21.01 4.61 43.68 68.04 45.15 77.46 55.67 319.51 10.62 23.85 44.92 45.00 66.01 62.23 35.02 2,460,566.63 CHECK NUMBER 0302469 O 302470 O 302471 O 302472 0302473 0302474 0302475 0302476 0302477 0302478 0302479 0302480 0302481 0302482 0302483 0302484 0302485 O 302486 0302487 0302488 O 302489 0302490 0302491 0302492. 0302493 0302494 0302495 0302496 0302497 0302498 0302499 O 302500 O 302501 O 302502 0302503 May 22, 2001 NAME PASSAGE ISLAND HOMES FINCH, KIM INDIAN RIVER LAND TRUST MARLIN DEV & CONST MGMT INC BOYD, MICHAEL SEA OAKS INVESTMENT LTD INDIAN RIVER CUSTOM HOMES INC ROBERTS, THOMAS C BORZNER, ANDREW C ZBOROWSKI, JOHN BOUNDS, THOMAS S HOMESTYLE HOAGIES LARSEN, WILLIAM L CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES FONTANA, DIANE BURGOR, BEVERLY J D ALBORA, JOHN IV GRABACH, LORA GLADE, PHILIP R AND JOHNN, RICHARD AND CHITTY, HAROLD W DEGROAT, MATTHEW BASDEN, CHRIS REXFORD, INC BLUMSTEIN, ROBERT M VAN VALKENBURGH, DELORES AND GERSON, JAIME DITCHDIGGERS INC AHMED, MAJDI MOHMED KOZICH, JOHN E MITTENTHAL, DAVID PACE, JAMES G III PETION, TELANGE BROWN, SHAWNA K GILLARD, JOSEPHINE 12 CHECK DATE 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 2001-05-10 UK CHECK AMOUNT 10.08 9.03 679.04 152.38 35.32 103.62 50.38 22.53 53.65 36.63 26.53 30.69 5.35 431.38 49.46 58.42 8.44 16.63 81.61 26.78 21.01 4.61 43.68 68.04 45.15 77.46 55.67 319.51 10.62 23.85 44.92 45.00 66.01 62.23 35.02 2,460,566.63 • • 7.B. Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman - Adam Kubik The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: May 16, 2001 Subject: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE VICE-CHAH&IAN From. Kimberly Massung Executive Aide to the Commission At the Utilities Advisory Committee meeting held on May 3, 2001, Adam Kubik was unianimously elected Vice -Chairman for a one year term. flim NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. 7.C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 The Board reviewed a memo of May 11, 2001: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird Assistant County Administrator FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager Description and Conditions The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: May 22, 2001 13 EK • • 7.B. Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman - Adam Kubik The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: May 16, 2001 Subject: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE VICE-CHAH&IAN From. Kimberly Massung Executive Aide to the Commission At the Utilities Advisory Committee meeting held on May 3, 2001, Adam Kubik was unianimously elected Vice -Chairman for a one year term. flim NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. 7.C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 The Board reviewed a memo of May 11, 2001: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird Assistant County Administrator FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager Description and Conditions The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: May 22, 2001 13 EK • • 7.B. Utilities Advisory Committee Vice -Chairman - Adam Kubik The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: Members of the Board of County Commissioners Date: May 16, 2001 Subject: UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE VICE-CHAH&IAN From. Kimberly Massung Executive Aide to the Commission At the Utilities Advisory Committee meeting held on May 3, 2001, Adam Kubik was unianimously elected Vice -Chairman for a one year term. flim NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. 7.C. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 The Board reviewed a memo of May 11, 2001: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird Assistant County Administrator FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager Description and Conditions The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: May 22, 2001 13 EK 1. Indian River County libraries have received a total of $19,855 in donations for books, supplies and a new copier. The attached entry appropriates funding. 2. The Federal Transit Administration has awarded a Section 5307 Grant to Indian River County in the amount of $548,964. This grant provides funding for the local public transportation system. The attached entry appropriates funding. 3. Indian River County has received cost sharing grants from state agencies for the acquisition of environmental lands purchased with Environmental Land Acquisition Bond funds. The attached entry appropriates these funds. 4. Vanous software licenses need to be purchased this year. The attached entry appropriates funding for this purpose. 5. On October 10, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved a Derelict Vessel Removal Program Grant totaling $11,460 from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The attached entry appropriates these grant funds. 6. Some additional sporting clay machines and other improvements are needed at the Gun Range. The attached entry appropriates funding from Optional Sales Tax. These funds are available from other projects financed by Optional Sales Tax for which the cost was less than the amount onginally budgeted. 7. Information Technology support billings for Circuit Court and County Court have increased substantially this year. The attached entry appropriates funding from Court Facility Fees. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Budget Amendment 018, as recommended in the memorandum. May 22, 2001 14 BK 1 i8 PS 70 1. Indian River County libraries have received a total of $19,855 in donations for books, supplies and a new copier. The attached entry appropriates funding. 2. The Federal Transit Administration has awarded a Section 5307 Grant to Indian River County in the amount of $548,964. This grant provides funding for the local public transportation system. The attached entry appropriates funding. 3. Indian River County has received cost sharing grants from state agencies for the acquisition of environmental lands purchased with Environmental Land Acquisition Bond funds. The attached entry appropriates these funds. 4. Vanous software licenses need to be purchased this year. The attached entry appropriates funding for this purpose. 5. On October 10, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved a Derelict Vessel Removal Program Grant totaling $11,460 from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The attached entry appropriates these grant funds. 6. Some additional sporting clay machines and other improvements are needed at the Gun Range. The attached entry appropriates funding from Optional Sales Tax. These funds are available from other projects financed by Optional Sales Tax for which the cost was less than the amount onginally budgeted. 7. Information Technology support billings for Circuit Court and County Court have increased substantially this year. The attached entry appropriates funding from Court Facility Fees. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Budget Amendment 018, as recommended in the memorandum. May 22, 2001 14 BK 1 i8 PS 70 1. Indian River County libraries have received a total of $19,855 in donations for books, supplies and a new copier. The attached entry appropriates funding. 2. The Federal Transit Administration has awarded a Section 5307 Grant to Indian River County in the amount of $548,964. This grant provides funding for the local public transportation system. The attached entry appropriates funding. 3. Indian River County has received cost sharing grants from state agencies for the acquisition of environmental lands purchased with Environmental Land Acquisition Bond funds. The attached entry appropriates these funds. 4. Vanous software licenses need to be purchased this year. The attached entry appropriates funding for this purpose. 5. On October 10, 2000, the Board of Commissioners approved a Derelict Vessel Removal Program Grant totaling $11,460 from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. The attached entry appropriates these grant funds. 6. Some additional sporting clay machines and other improvements are needed at the Gun Range. The attached entry appropriates funding from Optional Sales Tax. These funds are available from other projects financed by Optional Sales Tax for which the cost was less than the amount onginally budgeted. 7. Information Technology support billings for Circuit Court and County Court have increased substantially this year. The attached entry appropriates funding from Court Facility Fees. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Budget Amendment 018, as recommended in the memorandum. May 22, 2001 14 BK 1 i8 PS 70 • TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E Brown Budget Manager BUDGET AMENDMENT. 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 Entry Number Fund/Def}artment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Donations - Main Library Books 001-000-366-103.00 $13,916 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Donations - Main Library 001-000-366-095.00 $5,939 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Office Supplies 001-109-571-035.11 $1,000 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Books 001-109-571-035.45 $8,216 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Leased Books 001-109-571-035.49 $5,700 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Office Furniture & Equipment 001-109-571-066.41 $4,939 $0 2. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Section 5307 Public Transportation Grant 001-000-331-041.00 $548,964 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Community Transportation Coordinator 001-110-541-088.23 $548,964 $0 3. REVENUES LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Florida Communities Trust Cost Share 125-000-334-039.00 $862,635 $0 LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Cash Forward 125-000-389-040.00 $170,000 $0 LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Interest 125-000-361-010.00 $10,000 $0 EXPENSES LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Land Purchases 125-146-539-066.11 $1,042,635 $0 May 22, 2001 15 BK 271 • • TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E Brown Budget Manager BUDGET AMENDMENT. 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 Entry Number Fund/Def}artment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Donations - Main Library Books 001-000-366-103.00 $13,916 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Donations - Main Library 001-000-366-095.00 $5,939 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Office Supplies 001-109-571-035.11 $1,000 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Books 001-109-571-035.45 $8,216 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Leased Books 001-109-571-035.49 $5,700 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Office Furniture & Equipment 001-109-571-066.41 $4,939 $0 2. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Section 5307 Public Transportation Grant 001-000-331-041.00 $548,964 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Community Transportation Coordinator 001-110-541-088.23 $548,964 $0 3. REVENUES LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Florida Communities Trust Cost Share 125-000-334-039.00 $862,635 $0 LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Cash Forward 125-000-389-040.00 $170,000 $0 LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Interest 125-000-361-010.00 $10,000 $0 EXPENSES LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Land Purchases 125-146-539-066.11 $1,042,635 $0 May 22, 2001 15 BK 271 • • TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E Brown Budget Manager BUDGET AMENDMENT. 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 Entry Number Fund/Def}artment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Donations - Main Library Books 001-000-366-103.00 $13,916 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Donations - Main Library 001-000-366-095.00 $5,939 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Office Supplies 001-109-571-035.11 $1,000 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Books 001-109-571-035.45 $8,216 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Leased Books 001-109-571-035.49 $5,700 $0 GENERAL FUND/ Main Library/ Office Furniture & Equipment 001-109-571-066.41 $4,939 $0 2. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Section 5307 Public Transportation Grant 001-000-331-041.00 $548,964 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Community Transportation Coordinator 001-110-541-088.23 $548,964 $0 3. REVENUES LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Florida Communities Trust Cost Share 125-000-334-039.00 $862,635 $0 LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Cash Forward 125-000-389-040.00 $170,000 $0 LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Interest 125-000-361-010.00 $10,000 $0 EXPENSES LAND ACQUISITION FUND/ Land Purchases 125-146-539-066.11 $1,042,635 $0 May 22, 2001 15 BK 271 • TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager Lg BUDGET AMENDMENT* 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 Entry Number Fund/Dedaitment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 4. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Cash Forward 001-000-389-040.00 $67,343 $0 TRANSPORTATION/ Cash Forward 111-000-389 040.00 $15,802 $0 UTILITIES/ Cash Forward 471-000-389 040.00 $13,168 $0 FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Interest 501-000-361-010.00 $1,317 $0 GOLF COURSE/ Interest 418-000-361-010.00 $988 $0 RISK MANAGEMENT/ Interest 502-000-361-010.00 $988 $0 BUILDING DIVISION/ Interest 441-000-361-010.00 $5,268 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Computer Services/ Computer Software 001-241-513-035.12 $67,343 $0 M.S.T.U./ Planning/ Software 004-205-515-035.12 $8,888 $0 M.S.T.U./ Telecom./ Software 004-234-537-035.12 $329 $0 M.S.T.U./ Reserve for Contingencies 004-199-581-099.91 $0 $9,217 TRANSPOR. FUND/ R & B/Software 111-214-541-035.12 $1,975 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Public Works/ Computer Software 111-243-519-035.12 $3,621 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Engineering/ Computer Software 111-244-541-035.12 $5,597 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Traffic Engineenng/ Computer Software 111-245-541-035.12 $4,609 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ Fire/Software 114-120-522-035.12 $10,205 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ALS/Software 114-253-526-035.12 $6,913 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ Fire/ Conting. 114-120-522-099.91 $0 $10,205 EMERGENCY SVCS / ALS/ Conting. 114-253-526-099.91 $0 $6,913 SOLID WASTE/ Computer Software 411-217-534-035.12 $3,292 $0 SOLID WASTE/ Cash Forward 411-217-534-099.92 $0 $3,292 UTILITIES/ Computer Software 471-235-536-035.12 $13,168 $0 FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Software 501-242-591-035.12 $1,317 $0 GOLF COURSE/Computer Software 418-236-572-035.12 $988 $0 RISK MANAGEMENT/ Software 502-246-513-035.12 $988 $0 BUILDING DIVISION/ Software 441-233-524-035.12 $5,268 $0 May 22, 2001 16 OK TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager Lg BUDGET AMENDMENT* 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 Entry Number Fund/Dedaitment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 4. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Cash Forward 001-000-389-040.00 $67,343 $0 TRANSPORTATION/ Cash Forward 111-000-389 040.00 $15,802 $0 UTILITIES/ Cash Forward 471-000-389 040.00 $13,168 $0 FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Interest 501-000-361-010.00 $1,317 $0 GOLF COURSE/ Interest 418-000-361-010.00 $988 $0 RISK MANAGEMENT/ Interest 502-000-361-010.00 $988 $0 BUILDING DIVISION/ Interest 441-000-361-010.00 $5,268 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Computer Services/ Computer Software 001-241-513-035.12 $67,343 $0 M.S.T.U./ Planning/ Software 004-205-515-035.12 $8,888 $0 M.S.T.U./ Telecom./ Software 004-234-537-035.12 $329 $0 M.S.T.U./ Reserve for Contingencies 004-199-581-099.91 $0 $9,217 TRANSPOR. FUND/ R & B/Software 111-214-541-035.12 $1,975 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Public Works/ Computer Software 111-243-519-035.12 $3,621 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Engineering/ Computer Software 111-244-541-035.12 $5,597 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Traffic Engineenng/ Computer Software 111-245-541-035.12 $4,609 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ Fire/Software 114-120-522-035.12 $10,205 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ALS/Software 114-253-526-035.12 $6,913 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ Fire/ Conting. 114-120-522-099.91 $0 $10,205 EMERGENCY SVCS / ALS/ Conting. 114-253-526-099.91 $0 $6,913 SOLID WASTE/ Computer Software 411-217-534-035.12 $3,292 $0 SOLID WASTE/ Cash Forward 411-217-534-099.92 $0 $3,292 UTILITIES/ Computer Software 471-235-536-035.12 $13,168 $0 FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Software 501-242-591-035.12 $1,317 $0 GOLF COURSE/Computer Software 418-236-572-035.12 $988 $0 RISK MANAGEMENT/ Software 502-246-513-035.12 $988 $0 BUILDING DIVISION/ Software 441-233-524-035.12 $5,268 $0 May 22, 2001 16 OK TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager Lg BUDGET AMENDMENT* 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 Entry Number Fund/Dedaitment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 4. REVENUES GENERAL FUND/ Cash Forward 001-000-389-040.00 $67,343 $0 TRANSPORTATION/ Cash Forward 111-000-389 040.00 $15,802 $0 UTILITIES/ Cash Forward 471-000-389 040.00 $13,168 $0 FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Interest 501-000-361-010.00 $1,317 $0 GOLF COURSE/ Interest 418-000-361-010.00 $988 $0 RISK MANAGEMENT/ Interest 502-000-361-010.00 $988 $0 BUILDING DIVISION/ Interest 441-000-361-010.00 $5,268 $0 EXPENSES GENERAL FUND/ Computer Services/ Computer Software 001-241-513-035.12 $67,343 $0 M.S.T.U./ Planning/ Software 004-205-515-035.12 $8,888 $0 M.S.T.U./ Telecom./ Software 004-234-537-035.12 $329 $0 M.S.T.U./ Reserve for Contingencies 004-199-581-099.91 $0 $9,217 TRANSPOR. FUND/ R & B/Software 111-214-541-035.12 $1,975 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Public Works/ Computer Software 111-243-519-035.12 $3,621 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Engineering/ Computer Software 111-244-541-035.12 $5,597 $0 TRANSPOR. FUND/ Traffic Engineenng/ Computer Software 111-245-541-035.12 $4,609 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ Fire/Software 114-120-522-035.12 $10,205 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ALS/Software 114-253-526-035.12 $6,913 $0 EMERGENCY SVCS./ Fire/ Conting. 114-120-522-099.91 $0 $10,205 EMERGENCY SVCS / ALS/ Conting. 114-253-526-099.91 $0 $6,913 SOLID WASTE/ Computer Software 411-217-534-035.12 $3,292 $0 SOLID WASTE/ Cash Forward 411-217-534-099.92 $0 $3,292 UTILITIES/ Computer Software 471-235-536-035.12 $13,168 $0 FLEET MANAGEMENT/ Software 501-242-591-035.12 $1,317 $0 GOLF COURSE/Computer Software 418-236-572-035.12 $988 $0 RISK MANAGEMENT/ Software 502-246-513-035.12 $988 $0 BUILDING DIVISION/ Software 441-233-524-035.12 $5,268 $0 May 22, 2001 16 OK • • TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager BUDGET AMENDMENT: 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 May 22, 2001 17 BV 0 SPG 273 Entry Number Fund/D9partment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 5. REVENUES EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ Derelict Vessel Grant 114-000-334-392.00 $11,460 $0 EXPENSES EMERGENCY SERVICES DIST./ Fire/ Professional Services 114-120-522-033.19 $11,460 $0 6. REVENUES GUN RANGE CONSTRUCTION/ Fund Transfers In 312-000-381-020.00 $192,500 $0 EXPENSES OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Public Works/ Stormwater Improvements 315-243-538-068.11 $0 $100,000 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Recreation Buildings 315-210-572-066.24 $0 $92,500 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Fund Transfers Out 315-199-581-099.21 $192,500 $0 GUN RANGE CONSTRUCTION/ Other Improvements 312-108-575-066.51 $192,500 $0 7. REVENUES COURT FACILITY FUND/ Court Facility Fees 106-000-348-450.00 $10,750 $0 COURT FACILITY FUND/ Interest Earnings 106-000-361-010.00 $2,500 $0 EXPENSES COURT FACILITY FUND/ PC Maintenance 106-901-605-036.83 $13,250 $0 May 22, 2001 17 BV 0 SPG 273 • • TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager BUDGET AMENDMENT: 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 May 22, 2001 17 BV 0 SPG 273 Entry Number Fund/D9partment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 5. REVENUES EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ Derelict Vessel Grant 114-000-334-392.00 $11,460 $0 EXPENSES EMERGENCY SERVICES DIST./ Fire/ Professional Services 114-120-522-033.19 $11,460 $0 6. REVENUES GUN RANGE CONSTRUCTION/ Fund Transfers In 312-000-381-020.00 $192,500 $0 EXPENSES OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Public Works/ Stormwater Improvements 315-243-538-068.11 $0 $100,000 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Recreation Buildings 315-210-572-066.24 $0 $92,500 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Fund Transfers Out 315-199-581-099.21 $192,500 $0 GUN RANGE CONSTRUCTION/ Other Improvements 312-108-575-066.51 $192,500 $0 7. REVENUES COURT FACILITY FUND/ Court Facility Fees 106-000-348-450.00 $10,750 $0 COURT FACILITY FUND/ Interest Earnings 106-000-361-010.00 $2,500 $0 EXPENSES COURT FACILITY FUND/ PC Maintenance 106-901-605-036.83 $13,250 $0 May 22, 2001 17 BV 0 SPG 273 • • TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Jason E. Brown Budget Manager BUDGET AMENDMENT: 018 DATE: May 22, 2001 May 22, 2001 17 BV 0 SPG 273 Entry Number Fund/D9partment/ Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 5. REVENUES EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT/ Derelict Vessel Grant 114-000-334-392.00 $11,460 $0 EXPENSES EMERGENCY SERVICES DIST./ Fire/ Professional Services 114-120-522-033.19 $11,460 $0 6. REVENUES GUN RANGE CONSTRUCTION/ Fund Transfers In 312-000-381-020.00 $192,500 $0 EXPENSES OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Public Works/ Stormwater Improvements 315-243-538-068.11 $0 $100,000 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Recreation Buildings 315-210-572-066.24 $0 $92,500 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/ Fund Transfers Out 315-199-581-099.21 $192,500 $0 GUN RANGE CONSTRUCTION/ Other Improvements 312-108-575-066.51 $192,500 $0 7. REVENUES COURT FACILITY FUND/ Court Facility Fees 106-000-348-450.00 $10,750 $0 COURT FACILITY FUND/ Interest Earnings 106-000-361-010.00 $2,500 $0 EXPENSES COURT FACILITY FUND/ PC Maintenance 106-901-605-036.83 $13,250 $0 May 22, 2001 17 BV 0 SPG 273 7.D. Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement - B & B Halliday, Inc. - Riverview Mobile Villas (Micco) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001: DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: MAY 11, 2001 JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STEVEN J. DOYLE, P.E., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES JOYCE H. DAUGHERTY, STAFF ASSISTANT IV J DOMESTIC WASTEWATER RESIDUAL AGREEMENT B & B HALLIDAY, INC. BACKGROUND: B & B Halliday, Inc., owns and operates a domestic wastewater treatment facility permitted as the Riverview Mobile Villas, located at 8600 US Highway # 1, Micco, Florida Attached herewith is an Agreement for Treatment and Disposal of Domestic Wastewater Residuals. ANALYSIS: The County operates and maintains a publicly -owned Residual Management Facility, (dewatering facility), at the Central Regional WWTF, Florida Permit Number FLA -010434-001 which is capable of accepting domestic wastewater residuals from outside sources. The facility has been given approval, and is operating under Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit, in compliance with Flonda Administrative Code, (FAC), Chapter 62-640, to properly treat and dispose of domestic wastewater residuals. The Customer, (B & B Halliday, Inc.), will engage a licensed, insured hauler to bring the wastewater residuals from the Riverview Mobile Villas to the Central Regional WWTF for treatment. River Mobile Villas will be charged the prevailing rates as shown on the Schedule of Water and Sewer Rates, Fees, and Charges, attached to the Agreement and labeled `Exhibit A". RECOMMENDATIONS: The Staff of the Department of Utilities Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement as presented. and authorize the Chairman to execute the same. \jhd Attachments May 22, 2001 18 BF( PG 2 7 4 7.D. Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement - B & B Halliday, Inc. - Riverview Mobile Villas (Micco) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001: DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: MAY 11, 2001 JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STEVEN J. DOYLE, P.E., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES JOYCE H. DAUGHERTY, STAFF ASSISTANT IV J DOMESTIC WASTEWATER RESIDUAL AGREEMENT B & B HALLIDAY, INC. BACKGROUND: B & B Halliday, Inc., owns and operates a domestic wastewater treatment facility permitted as the Riverview Mobile Villas, located at 8600 US Highway # 1, Micco, Florida Attached herewith is an Agreement for Treatment and Disposal of Domestic Wastewater Residuals. ANALYSIS: The County operates and maintains a publicly -owned Residual Management Facility, (dewatering facility), at the Central Regional WWTF, Florida Permit Number FLA -010434-001 which is capable of accepting domestic wastewater residuals from outside sources. The facility has been given approval, and is operating under Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit, in compliance with Flonda Administrative Code, (FAC), Chapter 62-640, to properly treat and dispose of domestic wastewater residuals. The Customer, (B & B Halliday, Inc.), will engage a licensed, insured hauler to bring the wastewater residuals from the Riverview Mobile Villas to the Central Regional WWTF for treatment. River Mobile Villas will be charged the prevailing rates as shown on the Schedule of Water and Sewer Rates, Fees, and Charges, attached to the Agreement and labeled `Exhibit A". RECOMMENDATIONS: The Staff of the Department of Utilities Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement as presented. and authorize the Chairman to execute the same. \jhd Attachments May 22, 2001 18 BF( PG 2 7 4 7.D. Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement - B & B Halliday, Inc. - Riverview Mobile Villas (Micco) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001: DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: MAY 11, 2001 JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR STEVEN J. DOYLE, P.E., ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES JOYCE H. DAUGHERTY, STAFF ASSISTANT IV J DOMESTIC WASTEWATER RESIDUAL AGREEMENT B & B HALLIDAY, INC. BACKGROUND: B & B Halliday, Inc., owns and operates a domestic wastewater treatment facility permitted as the Riverview Mobile Villas, located at 8600 US Highway # 1, Micco, Florida Attached herewith is an Agreement for Treatment and Disposal of Domestic Wastewater Residuals. ANALYSIS: The County operates and maintains a publicly -owned Residual Management Facility, (dewatering facility), at the Central Regional WWTF, Florida Permit Number FLA -010434-001 which is capable of accepting domestic wastewater residuals from outside sources. The facility has been given approval, and is operating under Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) permit, in compliance with Flonda Administrative Code, (FAC), Chapter 62-640, to properly treat and dispose of domestic wastewater residuals. The Customer, (B & B Halliday, Inc.), will engage a licensed, insured hauler to bring the wastewater residuals from the Riverview Mobile Villas to the Central Regional WWTF for treatment. River Mobile Villas will be charged the prevailing rates as shown on the Schedule of Water and Sewer Rates, Fees, and Charges, attached to the Agreement and labeled `Exhibit A". RECOMMENDATIONS: The Staff of the Department of Utilities Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement as presented. and authorize the Chairman to execute the same. \jhd Attachments May 22, 2001 18 BF( PG 2 7 4 • • ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams. the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement with B & B Halliday, Inc , as recommended in the memorandum. AGREEMENT IS ON FILL; IN 'HU' OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO FIII BOARD 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE FOR CABLE TV - FALCON CABLE MEDIA (CHARTER CABLE, LLC) TO TCI CABLEVISION OF MISSOURI, INC. (AT&T BROADBAND) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 2001: DATE: TO: THROUGH* THROUGH* FROM: SUBJECT: May 15, 2001 Honorable Board of County Commissioners James E. Chandler County Administrator Thomas W. Frame, Director Department of General Services (ea et Terry L Smith, Telecommunications Manager Department of General Services Application for Transfer of Franchise - Charter to AT&T BACKGROUND Since 1998, Indian River County has been asked to approve the transfer of TCI to AT&T Broadband and Falcon to Charter. In a continuation of the regionalization of the major providers in the Cable Television industry, Charter Communications has asked the County to approve the transfer of ownership of their operation in Indian River County to AT&T Broadband. This request is interesting in that, if approved, the County will have one licensed CATV provider instead of two, and that one provider will be operating two systems within the county that are at differgnt levels in technology and may have different mandatory operational requirements. May 22, 2001 19 r tr r)r ?�i � �o �. • • ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams. the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement with B & B Halliday, Inc , as recommended in the memorandum. AGREEMENT IS ON FILL; IN 'HU' OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO FIII BOARD 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE FOR CABLE TV - FALCON CABLE MEDIA (CHARTER CABLE, LLC) TO TCI CABLEVISION OF MISSOURI, INC. (AT&T BROADBAND) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 2001: DATE: TO: THROUGH* THROUGH* FROM: SUBJECT: May 15, 2001 Honorable Board of County Commissioners James E. Chandler County Administrator Thomas W. Frame, Director Department of General Services (ea et Terry L Smith, Telecommunications Manager Department of General Services Application for Transfer of Franchise - Charter to AT&T BACKGROUND Since 1998, Indian River County has been asked to approve the transfer of TCI to AT&T Broadband and Falcon to Charter. In a continuation of the regionalization of the major providers in the Cable Television industry, Charter Communications has asked the County to approve the transfer of ownership of their operation in Indian River County to AT&T Broadband. This request is interesting in that, if approved, the County will have one licensed CATV provider instead of two, and that one provider will be operating two systems within the county that are at differgnt levels in technology and may have different mandatory operational requirements. May 22, 2001 19 r tr r)r ?�i � �o �. • • ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams. the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the Domestic Wastewater Residual Agreement with B & B Halliday, Inc , as recommended in the memorandum. AGREEMENT IS ON FILL; IN 'HU' OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO FIII BOARD 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE FOR CABLE TV - FALCON CABLE MEDIA (CHARTER CABLE, LLC) TO TCI CABLEVISION OF MISSOURI, INC. (AT&T BROADBAND) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 2001: DATE: TO: THROUGH* THROUGH* FROM: SUBJECT: May 15, 2001 Honorable Board of County Commissioners James E. Chandler County Administrator Thomas W. Frame, Director Department of General Services (ea et Terry L Smith, Telecommunications Manager Department of General Services Application for Transfer of Franchise - Charter to AT&T BACKGROUND Since 1998, Indian River County has been asked to approve the transfer of TCI to AT&T Broadband and Falcon to Charter. In a continuation of the regionalization of the major providers in the Cable Television industry, Charter Communications has asked the County to approve the transfer of ownership of their operation in Indian River County to AT&T Broadband. This request is interesting in that, if approved, the County will have one licensed CATV provider instead of two, and that one provider will be operating two systems within the county that are at differgnt levels in technology and may have different mandatory operational requirements. May 22, 2001 19 r tr r)r ?�i � �o �. When the request for transfer was received, Indian River County Staff arranged a meeting with the other Franchising Authorities in the County that would be dealing with this same request (Fellsmere and Sebastian). At the meeting, some common concerns were identified and it was agreed that these concerns should be discussed with Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband before presenting the transfer request to the approving governmental bodies. Such a meeting was arranged by County Staff and on April 3, 2001, representatives of AT&T Broadband, Charter Communications, the Town of Fellsmere, the City of Sebastian,. the Town of Palm Bay, a Southern Brevard County property owners association, and Indian River County met at Sebastian City Hall The questions raised at that meeting or as a result of that meeting were sent to AT&T Broadband since most of the questions had to do with how issues would be handled after the transfer. That written request and the subsequent response are included in the backup. A letter was also sent to Charter Communications concerning some missing information in the transfer request and an outstanding issue having to do with poor response to service problems. That letter and the Charter Communications response are also included in the backup. ANALYSIS Indian River County Ordinance 82-7, Section 9, in dealing with transfer requests, states that approval by the Commission may not be unreasonably withheld. FCC form 394 has long been the standard for demonstrating the transferee's legal technical and financial qualifications. A copy of that information has been submitted and made available for review in the Commission office. AT&T Broadband is already a licensed CATV operator in Indian River County, and that license allows AT&T Broadband to provide service throughout the County. One could argue that the approval of a transfer is not needed in this case; however, even though AT&T Broadband is already authorized to provide CATV service throughout the County, they have not been approved as the owner of the headend and system that now exists generally in the northern part of the County and is currently operated by Charter This distinguishing point (2 separate systems) may dictate to some extent how AT&T Broadband will be allowed to operate in the County. Staff recognizes that the service levels provided by the UA/TCl/AT&T operation in the southern part of the County have been considered very good. Customer satisfaction surveys conducted by the operator have shown that the system in the southern part of the County is far above the industry average. Customer satisfaction for those receiving service from the Jones/Falcon/Charter system in the northern part of the County is low. This area has suffered with old plant and a lack of resources capital and personnel, for many years. Only recently as a result of the system rebuild to 860 MHz, have there been signs of improvement. The large commitment of capital by Charter Communications probably would have eventually resulted in acceptable levels in North County. While a rebuilt 860MHz system under the direction of the AT&T Broadband team with a proven track record of good customer service might seem to be the best possible situation, there is some reason for concern. AT&T Broadband has delayed building into some new areas in Indian River County due to capital restraints. The rebuild of the AT&T Broadband system in St. Lucie County was to have started last year, but has not yet commenced Staff also received reports that the rebuild of the Davie Florida system has not been completed. Staff questions the recent track record of AT&T Broadband in meeting its commitments Since the arrangement between Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband calls for the completion of the system rebuild before the transfer, the question of the current ability of AT&T Broadband to complete a rebuild may not be pertinent. May 22, 2001 20 01/ Ui When the request for transfer was received, Indian River County Staff arranged a meeting with the other Franchising Authorities in the County that would be dealing with this same request (Fellsmere and Sebastian). At the meeting, some common concerns were identified and it was agreed that these concerns should be discussed with Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband before presenting the transfer request to the approving governmental bodies. Such a meeting was arranged by County Staff and on April 3, 2001, representatives of AT&T Broadband, Charter Communications, the Town of Fellsmere, the City of Sebastian,. the Town of Palm Bay, a Southern Brevard County property owners association, and Indian River County met at Sebastian City Hall The questions raised at that meeting or as a result of that meeting were sent to AT&T Broadband since most of the questions had to do with how issues would be handled after the transfer. That written request and the subsequent response are included in the backup. A letter was also sent to Charter Communications concerning some missing information in the transfer request and an outstanding issue having to do with poor response to service problems. That letter and the Charter Communications response are also included in the backup. ANALYSIS Indian River County Ordinance 82-7, Section 9, in dealing with transfer requests, states that approval by the Commission may not be unreasonably withheld. FCC form 394 has long been the standard for demonstrating the transferee's legal technical and financial qualifications. A copy of that information has been submitted and made available for review in the Commission office. AT&T Broadband is already a licensed CATV operator in Indian River County, and that license allows AT&T Broadband to provide service throughout the County. One could argue that the approval of a transfer is not needed in this case; however, even though AT&T Broadband is already authorized to provide CATV service throughout the County, they have not been approved as the owner of the headend and system that now exists generally in the northern part of the County and is currently operated by Charter This distinguishing point (2 separate systems) may dictate to some extent how AT&T Broadband will be allowed to operate in the County. Staff recognizes that the service levels provided by the UA/TCl/AT&T operation in the southern part of the County have been considered very good. Customer satisfaction surveys conducted by the operator have shown that the system in the southern part of the County is far above the industry average. Customer satisfaction for those receiving service from the Jones/Falcon/Charter system in the northern part of the County is low. This area has suffered with old plant and a lack of resources capital and personnel, for many years. Only recently as a result of the system rebuild to 860 MHz, have there been signs of improvement. The large commitment of capital by Charter Communications probably would have eventually resulted in acceptable levels in North County. While a rebuilt 860MHz system under the direction of the AT&T Broadband team with a proven track record of good customer service might seem to be the best possible situation, there is some reason for concern. AT&T Broadband has delayed building into some new areas in Indian River County due to capital restraints. The rebuild of the AT&T Broadband system in St. Lucie County was to have started last year, but has not yet commenced Staff also received reports that the rebuild of the Davie Florida system has not been completed. Staff questions the recent track record of AT&T Broadband in meeting its commitments Since the arrangement between Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband calls for the completion of the system rebuild before the transfer, the question of the current ability of AT&T Broadband to complete a rebuild may not be pertinent. May 22, 2001 20 01/ Ui When the request for transfer was received, Indian River County Staff arranged a meeting with the other Franchising Authorities in the County that would be dealing with this same request (Fellsmere and Sebastian). At the meeting, some common concerns were identified and it was agreed that these concerns should be discussed with Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband before presenting the transfer request to the approving governmental bodies. Such a meeting was arranged by County Staff and on April 3, 2001, representatives of AT&T Broadband, Charter Communications, the Town of Fellsmere, the City of Sebastian,. the Town of Palm Bay, a Southern Brevard County property owners association, and Indian River County met at Sebastian City Hall The questions raised at that meeting or as a result of that meeting were sent to AT&T Broadband since most of the questions had to do with how issues would be handled after the transfer. That written request and the subsequent response are included in the backup. A letter was also sent to Charter Communications concerning some missing information in the transfer request and an outstanding issue having to do with poor response to service problems. That letter and the Charter Communications response are also included in the backup. ANALYSIS Indian River County Ordinance 82-7, Section 9, in dealing with transfer requests, states that approval by the Commission may not be unreasonably withheld. FCC form 394 has long been the standard for demonstrating the transferee's legal technical and financial qualifications. A copy of that information has been submitted and made available for review in the Commission office. AT&T Broadband is already a licensed CATV operator in Indian River County, and that license allows AT&T Broadband to provide service throughout the County. One could argue that the approval of a transfer is not needed in this case; however, even though AT&T Broadband is already authorized to provide CATV service throughout the County, they have not been approved as the owner of the headend and system that now exists generally in the northern part of the County and is currently operated by Charter This distinguishing point (2 separate systems) may dictate to some extent how AT&T Broadband will be allowed to operate in the County. Staff recognizes that the service levels provided by the UA/TCl/AT&T operation in the southern part of the County have been considered very good. Customer satisfaction surveys conducted by the operator have shown that the system in the southern part of the County is far above the industry average. Customer satisfaction for those receiving service from the Jones/Falcon/Charter system in the northern part of the County is low. This area has suffered with old plant and a lack of resources capital and personnel, for many years. Only recently as a result of the system rebuild to 860 MHz, have there been signs of improvement. The large commitment of capital by Charter Communications probably would have eventually resulted in acceptable levels in North County. While a rebuilt 860MHz system under the direction of the AT&T Broadband team with a proven track record of good customer service might seem to be the best possible situation, there is some reason for concern. AT&T Broadband has delayed building into some new areas in Indian River County due to capital restraints. The rebuild of the AT&T Broadband system in St. Lucie County was to have started last year, but has not yet commenced Staff also received reports that the rebuild of the Davie Florida system has not been completed. Staff questions the recent track record of AT&T Broadband in meeting its commitments Since the arrangement between Charter Communications and AT&T Broadband calls for the completion of the system rebuild before the transfer, the question of the current ability of AT&T Broadband to complete a rebuild may not be pertinent. May 22, 2001 20 01/ Ui • • There is a significant difference in the rate structure and channel line-up in North and South County. This situation will not likely go away immediately and may continue to be a source of customer dissatisfaction in the North County. While this would be a good time for AT&T Broadband to start toward rate parity, demanding such a move as a condition for the approval of the transfer does not appear to Staff to be legitimate under current law. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolution subject to the terms of the agreement between AT&T Broadband and Charter Communications as presented in the Form 394 submitted with the request for transfer, and subject to AT&T Broadband's commitment to meet all conditions of existing County ordinances governing the provision of Cable Television Service in Indian River County. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. The Chairman asked for a motion to continue the public hearing in accordance with the Board's earlier determination to do so. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) continued the public hearing on this matter to June 5, 2001. It was determined that the notice as published in the Press Journal would cover the new hearing date. 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 - TRANSMIT THOMAS S. HAMMOND'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE '10 ACRES FROM M-2 TO CII AND REZONE THOSE ±10 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO IL (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD May 22, 2001 21 nu 1 OR i i • • There is a significant difference in the rate structure and channel line-up in North and South County. This situation will not likely go away immediately and may continue to be a source of customer dissatisfaction in the North County. While this would be a good time for AT&T Broadband to start toward rate parity, demanding such a move as a condition for the approval of the transfer does not appear to Staff to be legitimate under current law. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolution subject to the terms of the agreement between AT&T Broadband and Charter Communications as presented in the Form 394 submitted with the request for transfer, and subject to AT&T Broadband's commitment to meet all conditions of existing County ordinances governing the provision of Cable Television Service in Indian River County. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. The Chairman asked for a motion to continue the public hearing in accordance with the Board's earlier determination to do so. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) continued the public hearing on this matter to June 5, 2001. It was determined that the notice as published in the Press Journal would cover the new hearing date. 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 - TRANSMIT THOMAS S. HAMMOND'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE '10 ACRES FROM M-2 TO CII AND REZONE THOSE ±10 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO IL (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD May 22, 2001 21 nu 1 OR i i • • There is a significant difference in the rate structure and channel line-up in North and South County. This situation will not likely go away immediately and may continue to be a source of customer dissatisfaction in the North County. While this would be a good time for AT&T Broadband to start toward rate parity, demanding such a move as a condition for the approval of the transfer does not appear to Staff to be legitimate under current law. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached resolution subject to the terms of the agreement between AT&T Broadband and Charter Communications as presented in the Form 394 submitted with the request for transfer, and subject to AT&T Broadband's commitment to meet all conditions of existing County ordinances governing the provision of Cable Television Service in Indian River County. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There were none. The Chairman asked for a motion to continue the public hearing in accordance with the Board's earlier determination to do so. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) continued the public hearing on this matter to June 5, 2001. It was determined that the notice as published in the Press Journal would cover the new hearing date. 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 - TRANSMIT THOMAS S. HAMMOND'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE '10 ACRES FROM M-2 TO CII AND REZONE THOSE ±10 ACRES FROM RS -6 TO IL (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD May 22, 2001 21 nu 1 OR i i Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001 using a Power PointR to enhance his presentation (on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board): TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator DE' R t LENT HEAD CONCURRENCE i Robert 1. Keating, AICP; •ommunity 9 evelopment Director Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning S -1" John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning 7 lL THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE• May 11, 2001 Thomas S. Hammond's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±10 acres from M-2 to CI and to Rezone those ±10 acres from RS -6 to IL. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-01-0217 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 22. 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±10 acres from M-2. Medium - Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I. Commercial/Industrial: and to rezone those ±10 acres from RS -6. Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to IL. Light Industrial District. Depicted in Figures 1 and 2, the subject property is located ±950 feet east of 43r° Avenue on the south side of 4151 Street. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning district necessary to allow the expansion of the industrial park located south of the site. May 22, 2001 22 278 Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001 using a Power PointR to enhance his presentation (on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board): TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator DE' R t LENT HEAD CONCURRENCE i Robert 1. Keating, AICP; •ommunity 9 evelopment Director Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning S -1" John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning 7 lL THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE• May 11, 2001 Thomas S. Hammond's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±10 acres from M-2 to CI and to Rezone those ±10 acres from RS -6 to IL. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-01-0217 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 22. 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±10 acres from M-2. Medium - Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I. Commercial/Industrial: and to rezone those ±10 acres from RS -6. Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to IL. Light Industrial District. Depicted in Figures 1 and 2, the subject property is located ±950 feet east of 43r° Avenue on the south side of 4151 Street. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning district necessary to allow the expansion of the industrial park located south of the site. May 22, 2001 22 278 Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001 using a Power PointR to enhance his presentation (on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board): TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator DE' R t LENT HEAD CONCURRENCE i Robert 1. Keating, AICP; •ommunity 9 evelopment Director Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning S -1" John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning 7 lL THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE• May 11, 2001 Thomas S. Hammond's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±10 acres from M-2 to CI and to Rezone those ±10 acres from RS -6 to IL. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-01-0217 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 22. 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate ±10 acres from M-2. Medium - Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I. Commercial/Industrial: and to rezone those ±10 acres from RS -6. Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to IL. Light Industrial District. Depicted in Figures 1 and 2, the subject property is located ±950 feet east of 43r° Avenue on the south side of 4151 Street. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning district necessary to allow the expansion of the industrial park located south of the site. May 22, 2001 22 278 • • On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use designation amendment. On May 17. 2001, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. Figure 1: Location and Land Use Designation of the Subject Property May 22, 2001 23 ti 01 I t O 1. • • On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use designation amendment. On May 17. 2001, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. Figure 1: Location and Land Use Designation of the Subject Property May 22, 2001 23 ti 01 I t O 1. • • On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use designation amendment. On May 17. 2001, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. Figure 1: Location and Land Use Designation of the Subject Property May 22, 2001 23 ti 01 I t O 1. Figure 2: Location and Zoning of the Subject Property Existing Land Use Pattern Both the subject property, and land to the north and northwest, across 415` Street. are zoned RS -6 and consist of citrus groves. Northeast of the subject property, on the north side of 4151 Street. land is zoned RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre), and contains single-family residences. a multiple -family complex. and a Church Abutting the subject site on the east is a citrus grove and packinghouse. That land is zoned CG, General Commercial. South and southeast of the subject site is the Gateway Center Industrial Subdivision. That land is zoned IL. To the southwest of the subject property. land is within the City of Vero Beach. That land, zoned ALI-A2. Airport Light Industrial -A2, consists of large wooded areas. Portions of the ALI-A2 district May 22, 2001 24 ,u Figure 2: Location and Zoning of the Subject Property Existing Land Use Pattern Both the subject property, and land to the north and northwest, across 415` Street. are zoned RS -6 and consist of citrus groves. Northeast of the subject property, on the north side of 4151 Street. land is zoned RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre), and contains single-family residences. a multiple -family complex. and a Church Abutting the subject site on the east is a citrus grove and packinghouse. That land is zoned CG, General Commercial. South and southeast of the subject site is the Gateway Center Industrial Subdivision. That land is zoned IL. To the southwest of the subject property. land is within the City of Vero Beach. That land, zoned ALI-A2. Airport Light Industrial -A2, consists of large wooded areas. Portions of the ALI-A2 district May 22, 2001 24 ,u Figure 2: Location and Zoning of the Subject Property Existing Land Use Pattern Both the subject property, and land to the north and northwest, across 415` Street. are zoned RS -6 and consist of citrus groves. Northeast of the subject property, on the north side of 4151 Street. land is zoned RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre), and contains single-family residences. a multiple -family complex. and a Church Abutting the subject site on the east is a citrus grove and packinghouse. That land is zoned CG, General Commercial. South and southeast of the subject site is the Gateway Center Industrial Subdivision. That land is zoned IL. To the southwest of the subject property. land is within the City of Vero Beach. That land, zoned ALI-A2. Airport Light Industrial -A2, consists of large wooded areas. Portions of the ALI-A2 district May 22, 2001 24 ,u • • east of the site. although not adjacent to the site. contain environmentally important xeric scrub and prime aquifer recharge areas. For that reason. the City is studying what. if anv. uses should be allowed within that district. Land abutting the subject site on the west is zoned RS -6 and contains the Indian River County Shenff s Administration Complex and the County Jail. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and land to the north. across 41" Street. are designated M-2. Medium -Density Residential -2. on the county future land use map. The M-2 designation permits residential densities up to 10 units/acre. Properties to the east and south of the subject area are designated C/I. Commercial/Industrial a land use designation which permits commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land to the southwest of the subject site. in the City of Vero Beach. is designated CV. Conservation. Land abutting the subject property on the west is designated PUB. Public Facilities. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan. No wetlands nor native upland plant communities exist on site. The site is not within a 100 year floodplain. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Centralized potable water service is available to the site from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater service is available to the site from the Central County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Transportation System Abutting the site on the north is 41" Street. Classified as an urban minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, 41 ` Street is a two lane road. The public road right-of-way width varies between 70 feet and 100 feet. No improvements are scheduled for the portion of 41" Street that abuts the subject area. The site is bounded on the south by 40' Street, a two lane road with 60 feet of right-of-way. ANALYSIS In this section. an analysis of the reasonableness of the land use amendment request will be presented. Specifically this section will include the following: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan: and • an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. May 22, 2001 25 • • east of the site. although not adjacent to the site. contain environmentally important xeric scrub and prime aquifer recharge areas. For that reason. the City is studying what. if anv. uses should be allowed within that district. Land abutting the subject site on the west is zoned RS -6 and contains the Indian River County Shenff s Administration Complex and the County Jail. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and land to the north. across 41" Street. are designated M-2. Medium -Density Residential -2. on the county future land use map. The M-2 designation permits residential densities up to 10 units/acre. Properties to the east and south of the subject area are designated C/I. Commercial/Industrial a land use designation which permits commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land to the southwest of the subject site. in the City of Vero Beach. is designated CV. Conservation. Land abutting the subject property on the west is designated PUB. Public Facilities. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan. No wetlands nor native upland plant communities exist on site. The site is not within a 100 year floodplain. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Centralized potable water service is available to the site from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater service is available to the site from the Central County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Transportation System Abutting the site on the north is 41" Street. Classified as an urban minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, 41 ` Street is a two lane road. The public road right-of-way width varies between 70 feet and 100 feet. No improvements are scheduled for the portion of 41" Street that abuts the subject area. The site is bounded on the south by 40' Street, a two lane road with 60 feet of right-of-way. ANALYSIS In this section. an analysis of the reasonableness of the land use amendment request will be presented. Specifically this section will include the following: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan: and • an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. May 22, 2001 25 • • east of the site. although not adjacent to the site. contain environmentally important xeric scrub and prime aquifer recharge areas. For that reason. the City is studying what. if anv. uses should be allowed within that district. Land abutting the subject site on the west is zoned RS -6 and contains the Indian River County Shenff s Administration Complex and the County Jail. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and land to the north. across 41" Street. are designated M-2. Medium -Density Residential -2. on the county future land use map. The M-2 designation permits residential densities up to 10 units/acre. Properties to the east and south of the subject area are designated C/I. Commercial/Industrial a land use designation which permits commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land to the southwest of the subject site. in the City of Vero Beach. is designated CV. Conservation. Land abutting the subject property on the west is designated PUB. Public Facilities. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan. No wetlands nor native upland plant communities exist on site. The site is not within a 100 year floodplain. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Centralized potable water service is available to the site from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater service is available to the site from the Central County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Transportation System Abutting the site on the north is 41" Street. Classified as an urban minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, 41 ` Street is a two lane road. The public road right-of-way width varies between 70 feet and 100 feet. No improvements are scheduled for the portion of 41" Street that abuts the subject area. The site is bounded on the south by 40' Street, a two lane road with 60 feet of right-of-way. ANALYSIS In this section. an analysis of the reasonableness of the land use amendment request will be presented. Specifically this section will include the following: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan: and • an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. May 22, 2001 25 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 minimum development standards for: Transportation. Potable Water. Wastewater, Solid Waste. Stormwater 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. 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment and 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 land use designation. For commercial/industrial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests. the most intense use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Proposed Land Use Designation: 4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Current Land Use Designation: ±10 acres M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) C/I, Commercial/Industrial 100 Single -Family Units 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: 100,000 sq. Ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual). Transportation As part of the concurrency review process the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. A TIA 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 land use designation, and assigns those trips to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910 09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadwav segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more project tnps. whichever is less May 22, 2001 26 UA 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 minimum development standards for: Transportation. Potable Water. Wastewater, Solid Waste. Stormwater 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. 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment and 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 land use designation. For commercial/industrial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests. the most intense use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Proposed Land Use Designation: 4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Current Land Use Designation: ±10 acres M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) C/I, Commercial/Industrial 100 Single -Family Units 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: 100,000 sq. Ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual). Transportation As part of the concurrency review process the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. A TIA 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 land use designation, and assigns those trips to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910 09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadwav segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more project tnps. whichever is less May 22, 2001 26 UA 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 minimum development standards for: Transportation. Potable Water. Wastewater, Solid Waste. Stormwater 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. 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment and 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 land use designation. For commercial/industrial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests. the most intense use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Proposed Land Use Designation: 4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Current Land Use Designation: ±10 acres M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) C/I, Commercial/Industrial 100 Single -Family Units 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: 100,000 sq. Ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual). Transportation As part of the concurrency review process the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. A TIA 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 land use designation, and assigns those trips to impacted roads. Impacted roads are defined in section 910 09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadwav segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more project tnps. whichever is less May 22, 2001 26 UA • • According to the approved TIA. the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be lowered by the traffic generated by development of a 100,000 square foot shopping center on the subject property. Attachment 4 of this staff report contains a more detailed transportation concurrency analysis. Water A retail commercial use of 100.000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 30 Equivalvent Residential Units (ERU). or 7.500 gallons/day. This is based upon a level-ot-service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the site from the North Count} Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 1 500.000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment. development of the subject property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 30 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 7 500 gallons/day. The subject property is served by the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant which has a remaining capacity of approximately 1 100.000 gallons/day. Therefore. the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 100.000 square foot commercial development on the subject site. solid waste generation will be approximately 500 waste generation units (WGU) annually. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit Measurement equivalent to one ton (2.000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate of one cubic yard for every 1.200 pounds of compacted solid waste generated. the 100.000 square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 833 cubic yards of waste/year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of more than 820.000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a three 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 land use designation. Stormwater Management All 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 be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of 2 inches in a 24 hour period. which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate. May 22, 2001 27 01.1 Uf1 t Ib U • • According to the approved TIA. the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be lowered by the traffic generated by development of a 100,000 square foot shopping center on the subject property. Attachment 4 of this staff report contains a more detailed transportation concurrency analysis. Water A retail commercial use of 100.000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 30 Equivalvent Residential Units (ERU). or 7.500 gallons/day. This is based upon a level-ot-service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the site from the North Count} Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 1 500.000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment. development of the subject property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 30 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 7 500 gallons/day. The subject property is served by the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant which has a remaining capacity of approximately 1 100.000 gallons/day. Therefore. the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 100.000 square foot commercial development on the subject site. solid waste generation will be approximately 500 waste generation units (WGU) annually. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit Measurement equivalent to one ton (2.000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate of one cubic yard for every 1.200 pounds of compacted solid waste generated. the 100.000 square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 833 cubic yards of waste/year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of more than 820.000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a three 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 land use designation. Stormwater Management All 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 be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of 2 inches in a 24 hour period. which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate. May 22, 2001 27 01.1 Uf1 t Ib U • • According to the approved TIA. the existing level of service on impacted roadways would not be lowered by the traffic generated by development of a 100,000 square foot shopping center on the subject property. Attachment 4 of this staff report contains a more detailed transportation concurrency analysis. Water A retail commercial use of 100.000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 30 Equivalvent Residential Units (ERU). or 7.500 gallons/day. This is based upon a level-ot-service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the site from the North Count} Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 1 500.000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment. development of the subject property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 30 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 7 500 gallons/day. The subject property is served by the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant which has a remaining capacity of approximately 1 100.000 gallons/day. Therefore. the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 100.000 square foot commercial development on the subject site. solid waste generation will be approximately 500 waste generation units (WGU) annually. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit Measurement equivalent to one ton (2.000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate of one cubic yard for every 1.200 pounds of compacted solid waste generated. the 100.000 square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 833 cubic yards of waste/year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of more than 820.000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a three 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 land use designation. Stormwater Management All 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 be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of 2 inches in a 24 hour period. which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate. May 22, 2001 27 01.1 Uf1 t Ib U 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 8.5 acres. The maximum runoff volume. based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD 2 inch discharge requirement, would be approximately 321 320 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 239.720 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 35 cubic feet/second. Based upon the County Engineering Division's analysis. the stormwater management level of service standard would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of 2 inches in 24 hours, and requiring retention of the 239,720 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed drainage review will be conducted during the development approval process. Recreation Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential development. Therefore, this Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezoning request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements. Concurrencv Summary Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities. including stormwater management. roads, solid waste. wastewater. and water. have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject properties under the proposed land use designation. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the County Code. the 'Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S. Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation. and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals. objectives and poiicies 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 plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies: May 22, 2001 28 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 8.5 acres. The maximum runoff volume. based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD 2 inch discharge requirement, would be approximately 321 320 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 239.720 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 35 cubic feet/second. Based upon the County Engineering Division's analysis. the stormwater management level of service standard would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of 2 inches in 24 hours, and requiring retention of the 239,720 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed drainage review will be conducted during the development approval process. Recreation Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential development. Therefore, this Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezoning request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements. Concurrencv Summary Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities. including stormwater management. roads, solid waste. wastewater. and water. have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject properties under the proposed land use designation. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the County Code. the 'Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S. Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation. and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals. objectives and poiicies 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 plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies: May 22, 2001 28 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 8.5 acres. The maximum runoff volume. based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD 2 inch discharge requirement, would be approximately 321 320 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 239.720 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 35 cubic feet/second. Based upon the County Engineering Division's analysis. the stormwater management level of service standard would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of 2 inches in 24 hours, and requiring retention of the 239,720 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed drainage review will be conducted during the development approval process. Recreation Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential development. Therefore, this Comprehensive Plan amendment/rezoning request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements. Concurrencv Summary Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities. including stormwater management. roads, solid waste. wastewater. and water. have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject properties under the proposed land use designation. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the County Code. the 'Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S. Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation. and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals. objectives and poiicies 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 plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies: May 22, 2001 28 • Future Land Use Policy 14.3 The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency w ith the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan: • an oversight in the approved plan: • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject properly; or • a swap or a reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites. Staff's position is that this land use amendment request meets Policy 14.3's third criterion. When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned commercial/industrial zoned properties to commercial nodes These nodes were designated various sizes to reflect commercial demand and were established in certain areas to incorporate lands deemed suitable for commercial development. The subject property was considered for inclusion in the node at that time. When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject property was not included in the node for the following reasons: • There was already sufficient land designated commercial/industrial to accommodate projected demand and • Given the size and shape of the subject property, residential development was determined to be feasible. For these reasons, staffs position is that there was no mistake nor oversight in the Comprehensive Plan. There have. however, been two changes in circumstances affecting the subject property. The most important change relates to the ±18.7 acre tract of land abutting the subject properly on the east. That land was given a residential land use designation and a residential zoning district when the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990. In 1998. however. the tract east of the subject property was redesignated to C/I and rezoned to CG. That action resulted in the subject properly having non-residential uses on three sides. Those non- residential uses were the Sheriffs Complex and Jail (institutional) on the west. an industrial subdivision (industrial) on the south, and commercially zoned land to east Combined with the arterial road on the north, the airport, and other nearby commercial/industrial uses, the impacts on any potential residential use were significant At that time. the county realized that the owner of the subject property would eventually make a similar request. Therefore. the redesignation of the adjacent land to the east of the subject property substantially impacts the subject property. and meets Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3's third criterion. There is also another change in circumstances that substantially impacts the subject property. That change relates to the county s airport zoning regulations (Section 911.17) which were adopted, pursuant to Chapters 163 and 333 of the Honda Statutes, on March 18, 1993. Those regulations establish a noise impact overlay zone. Prior to building permit issuance, developers of proposed May 22, 2001 29 Du O !i l i l:1 I L f.: li • • Future Land Use Policy 14.3 The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency w ith the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan: • an oversight in the approved plan: • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject properly; or • a swap or a reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites. Staff's position is that this land use amendment request meets Policy 14.3's third criterion. When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned commercial/industrial zoned properties to commercial nodes These nodes were designated various sizes to reflect commercial demand and were established in certain areas to incorporate lands deemed suitable for commercial development. The subject property was considered for inclusion in the node at that time. When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject property was not included in the node for the following reasons: • There was already sufficient land designated commercial/industrial to accommodate projected demand and • Given the size and shape of the subject property, residential development was determined to be feasible. For these reasons, staffs position is that there was no mistake nor oversight in the Comprehensive Plan. There have. however, been two changes in circumstances affecting the subject property. The most important change relates to the ±18.7 acre tract of land abutting the subject properly on the east. That land was given a residential land use designation and a residential zoning district when the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990. In 1998. however. the tract east of the subject property was redesignated to C/I and rezoned to CG. That action resulted in the subject properly having non-residential uses on three sides. Those non- residential uses were the Sheriffs Complex and Jail (institutional) on the west. an industrial subdivision (industrial) on the south, and commercially zoned land to east Combined with the arterial road on the north, the airport, and other nearby commercial/industrial uses, the impacts on any potential residential use were significant At that time. the county realized that the owner of the subject property would eventually make a similar request. Therefore. the redesignation of the adjacent land to the east of the subject property substantially impacts the subject property. and meets Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3's third criterion. There is also another change in circumstances that substantially impacts the subject property. That change relates to the county s airport zoning regulations (Section 911.17) which were adopted, pursuant to Chapters 163 and 333 of the Honda Statutes, on March 18, 1993. Those regulations establish a noise impact overlay zone. Prior to building permit issuance, developers of proposed May 22, 2001 29 Du O !i l i l:1 I L f.: li • • Future Land Use Policy 14.3 The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency w ith the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan: • an oversight in the approved plan: • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject properly; or • a swap or a reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites. Staff's position is that this land use amendment request meets Policy 14.3's third criterion. When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned commercial/industrial zoned properties to commercial nodes These nodes were designated various sizes to reflect commercial demand and were established in certain areas to incorporate lands deemed suitable for commercial development. The subject property was considered for inclusion in the node at that time. When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject property was not included in the node for the following reasons: • There was already sufficient land designated commercial/industrial to accommodate projected demand and • Given the size and shape of the subject property, residential development was determined to be feasible. For these reasons, staffs position is that there was no mistake nor oversight in the Comprehensive Plan. There have. however, been two changes in circumstances affecting the subject property. The most important change relates to the ±18.7 acre tract of land abutting the subject properly on the east. That land was given a residential land use designation and a residential zoning district when the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990. In 1998. however. the tract east of the subject property was redesignated to C/I and rezoned to CG. That action resulted in the subject properly having non-residential uses on three sides. Those non- residential uses were the Sheriffs Complex and Jail (institutional) on the west. an industrial subdivision (industrial) on the south, and commercially zoned land to east Combined with the arterial road on the north, the airport, and other nearby commercial/industrial uses, the impacts on any potential residential use were significant At that time. the county realized that the owner of the subject property would eventually make a similar request. Therefore. the redesignation of the adjacent land to the east of the subject property substantially impacts the subject property. and meets Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3's third criterion. There is also another change in circumstances that substantially impacts the subject property. That change relates to the county s airport zoning regulations (Section 911.17) which were adopted, pursuant to Chapters 163 and 333 of the Honda Statutes, on March 18, 1993. Those regulations establish a noise impact overlay zone. Prior to building permit issuance, developers of proposed May 22, 2001 29 Du O !i l i l:1 I L f.: li • residences within noise impact zones must show that those impacts will be mitigated through one of the following means: • Verifying in writing that proposed buildings are designed to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a noise reduction level of 20 to 25 decibels; or • Executing and recording an aviation easement An aviation easement is a legal document that grants to the owner/operator of a nearby airport a right to continue to operate the airport under the current conditions, despite potential nuisance effects upon uses that are being established in close proximity to the airport. Because approximately 80% of the subject property is located within a noise impact zone, these regulations apply to the site. Staff's position is that due to unique circumstances of the subject property, these regulations adversely impact the site to the extent that the site is not feasible for residential development. Those circumstances are related to the residential development potential of the site The most feasible residential development scenario for the subject property involves lower cost or affordable housing. That is due to the following factors: • The site is designated for up to 10 units/acre, the county's most dense residential land use designation; • The site is located in an area of the county with a high proportion of low and very low income households; and • The site is located near several employment centers that generate a demand for nearby affordable housing Those employment centers include The Vero Beach Municipal Airport. The Sheriffs Administration/County Jail Complex. Dodgertown, Indian River Memorial Hospital, the Gifford Commercial/Industrial Node, and the SR 60/58`h Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. Even though the added cost associated with development within noise impact zones is not significant. that cost may be enough to impact the feasibility of an affordable housing project. Therefore, the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For the above reasons. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Policy 1.15 This policy defines the areas that are suitable for a commercial/industrial land use designation. Suitable areas must be within the urban service area and near existing urban centers. The subject property is within the urban service area and is near several urban centers (e.g. Gifford. the City of Vero Beach, Dodgenown and the Indian River Mall). For those reasons, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.15. Future Land Use Policy 1.18 Policy 1.18 requires that commercial/industrial nodes be located along roads with functional classifications appropriate to the level of activity. Being bordered on the north by 41' Street. an May 22, 2001 30 BK residences within noise impact zones must show that those impacts will be mitigated through one of the following means: • Verifying in writing that proposed buildings are designed to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a noise reduction level of 20 to 25 decibels; or • Executing and recording an aviation easement An aviation easement is a legal document that grants to the owner/operator of a nearby airport a right to continue to operate the airport under the current conditions, despite potential nuisance effects upon uses that are being established in close proximity to the airport. Because approximately 80% of the subject property is located within a noise impact zone, these regulations apply to the site. Staff's position is that due to unique circumstances of the subject property, these regulations adversely impact the site to the extent that the site is not feasible for residential development. Those circumstances are related to the residential development potential of the site The most feasible residential development scenario for the subject property involves lower cost or affordable housing. That is due to the following factors: • The site is designated for up to 10 units/acre, the county's most dense residential land use designation; • The site is located in an area of the county with a high proportion of low and very low income households; and • The site is located near several employment centers that generate a demand for nearby affordable housing Those employment centers include The Vero Beach Municipal Airport. The Sheriffs Administration/County Jail Complex. Dodgertown, Indian River Memorial Hospital, the Gifford Commercial/Industrial Node, and the SR 60/58`h Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. Even though the added cost associated with development within noise impact zones is not significant. that cost may be enough to impact the feasibility of an affordable housing project. Therefore, the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For the above reasons. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Policy 1.15 This policy defines the areas that are suitable for a commercial/industrial land use designation. Suitable areas must be within the urban service area and near existing urban centers. The subject property is within the urban service area and is near several urban centers (e.g. Gifford. the City of Vero Beach, Dodgenown and the Indian River Mall). For those reasons, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.15. Future Land Use Policy 1.18 Policy 1.18 requires that commercial/industrial nodes be located along roads with functional classifications appropriate to the level of activity. Being bordered on the north by 41' Street. an May 22, 2001 30 BK residences within noise impact zones must show that those impacts will be mitigated through one of the following means: • Verifying in writing that proposed buildings are designed to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a noise reduction level of 20 to 25 decibels; or • Executing and recording an aviation easement An aviation easement is a legal document that grants to the owner/operator of a nearby airport a right to continue to operate the airport under the current conditions, despite potential nuisance effects upon uses that are being established in close proximity to the airport. Because approximately 80% of the subject property is located within a noise impact zone, these regulations apply to the site. Staff's position is that due to unique circumstances of the subject property, these regulations adversely impact the site to the extent that the site is not feasible for residential development. Those circumstances are related to the residential development potential of the site The most feasible residential development scenario for the subject property involves lower cost or affordable housing. That is due to the following factors: • The site is designated for up to 10 units/acre, the county's most dense residential land use designation; • The site is located in an area of the county with a high proportion of low and very low income households; and • The site is located near several employment centers that generate a demand for nearby affordable housing Those employment centers include The Vero Beach Municipal Airport. The Sheriffs Administration/County Jail Complex. Dodgertown, Indian River Memorial Hospital, the Gifford Commercial/Industrial Node, and the SR 60/58`h Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. Even though the added cost associated with development within noise impact zones is not significant. that cost may be enough to impact the feasibility of an affordable housing project. Therefore, the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For the above reasons. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Policy 1.15 This policy defines the areas that are suitable for a commercial/industrial land use designation. Suitable areas must be within the urban service area and near existing urban centers. The subject property is within the urban service area and is near several urban centers (e.g. Gifford. the City of Vero Beach, Dodgenown and the Indian River Mall). For those reasons, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.15. Future Land Use Policy 1.18 Policy 1.18 requires that commercial/industrial nodes be located along roads with functional classifications appropriate to the level of activity. Being bordered on the north by 41' Street. an May 22, 2001 30 BK • • urban minor arterial roadway. the subject property has adequate access to accommodate any commercial/industrial uses. Additionally, 41' Street has the appropriate functional classification and capacity to accommodate traffic that may be generated by a commerciaUindustrial land use. For those reasons. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.18. Future Land Use Policy 1.22 Policy 1.22 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed. or approved for development, with non-agricultural and non-residential uses. unless otherwise warranted The intent of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 is to establish specific criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria. decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70% standard. then, is a measure of whether a node needs to be expanded. According to the Count's CommerciaUlndustrial Data Source. the subject node is 36% developed As stated in Policy 1.22. however, a node that is less than 70% developed may be considered for expansion if otherwise warranted. Policy 1.22 states that otherwise warranted may include but not be limited to changes in circumstances affecting property adjacent to a node. As described above. the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that reason. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.22. Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan While the referenced objectives and policies are particularly applicable to this request. other Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason. staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis staff determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staffs position is that commercialindustrial development on the subject property would result in fewer incompatibilities than residential development on the site. Because the site is bordered on the south and east by CR designated land, the request is for the continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. Residential development on the subject property would be particularly impacted by noise and traffic generated by adjacent and nearby uses such as the airport the jail, and industrial uses to the south and east. In contrast to residential development on the site, the industrial and institutional uses surrounding the subject property would have little impact on commercial or industrial development on the subject property. Although site design features such as additional buffering may partially mitigate impacts on residential projects the added costs of those features may render a project unfeasible. This is especially relevant to affordable and lower cost housing projects which are most feasible for the subject property. The primary impacts of C/I development on the subject site would be on the residentially designated parcels to the north of the subject property. Those parcels can be divided into two types. The first type is the four single-family houses on approximately 1 acre wooded lots located along the north side of 41" Street and east of the subject property's east boundary Any impact on those parcels would be somewhat mitigated by the wooded condition of the lots. physical separation provided by road and canal right-of-way and the site design of the subject property. May 22, 2001 31 i1 I i U G7 • • urban minor arterial roadway. the subject property has adequate access to accommodate any commercial/industrial uses. Additionally, 41' Street has the appropriate functional classification and capacity to accommodate traffic that may be generated by a commerciaUindustrial land use. For those reasons. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.18. Future Land Use Policy 1.22 Policy 1.22 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed. or approved for development, with non-agricultural and non-residential uses. unless otherwise warranted The intent of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 is to establish specific criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria. decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70% standard. then, is a measure of whether a node needs to be expanded. According to the Count's CommerciaUlndustrial Data Source. the subject node is 36% developed As stated in Policy 1.22. however, a node that is less than 70% developed may be considered for expansion if otherwise warranted. Policy 1.22 states that otherwise warranted may include but not be limited to changes in circumstances affecting property adjacent to a node. As described above. the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that reason. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.22. Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan While the referenced objectives and policies are particularly applicable to this request. other Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason. staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis staff determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staffs position is that commercialindustrial development on the subject property would result in fewer incompatibilities than residential development on the site. Because the site is bordered on the south and east by CR designated land, the request is for the continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. Residential development on the subject property would be particularly impacted by noise and traffic generated by adjacent and nearby uses such as the airport the jail, and industrial uses to the south and east. In contrast to residential development on the site, the industrial and institutional uses surrounding the subject property would have little impact on commercial or industrial development on the subject property. Although site design features such as additional buffering may partially mitigate impacts on residential projects the added costs of those features may render a project unfeasible. This is especially relevant to affordable and lower cost housing projects which are most feasible for the subject property. The primary impacts of C/I development on the subject site would be on the residentially designated parcels to the north of the subject property. Those parcels can be divided into two types. The first type is the four single-family houses on approximately 1 acre wooded lots located along the north side of 41" Street and east of the subject property's east boundary Any impact on those parcels would be somewhat mitigated by the wooded condition of the lots. physical separation provided by road and canal right-of-way and the site design of the subject property. May 22, 2001 31 i1 I i U G7 • • urban minor arterial roadway. the subject property has adequate access to accommodate any commercial/industrial uses. Additionally, 41' Street has the appropriate functional classification and capacity to accommodate traffic that may be generated by a commerciaUindustrial land use. For those reasons. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.18. Future Land Use Policy 1.22 Policy 1.22 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed. or approved for development, with non-agricultural and non-residential uses. unless otherwise warranted The intent of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 is to establish specific criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria. decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70% standard. then, is a measure of whether a node needs to be expanded. According to the Count's CommerciaUlndustrial Data Source. the subject node is 36% developed As stated in Policy 1.22. however, a node that is less than 70% developed may be considered for expansion if otherwise warranted. Policy 1.22 states that otherwise warranted may include but not be limited to changes in circumstances affecting property adjacent to a node. As described above. the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that reason. the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.22. Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan While the referenced objectives and policies are particularly applicable to this request. other Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason. staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis staff determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staffs position is that commercialindustrial development on the subject property would result in fewer incompatibilities than residential development on the site. Because the site is bordered on the south and east by CR designated land, the request is for the continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. Residential development on the subject property would be particularly impacted by noise and traffic generated by adjacent and nearby uses such as the airport the jail, and industrial uses to the south and east. In contrast to residential development on the site, the industrial and institutional uses surrounding the subject property would have little impact on commercial or industrial development on the subject property. Although site design features such as additional buffering may partially mitigate impacts on residential projects the added costs of those features may render a project unfeasible. This is especially relevant to affordable and lower cost housing projects which are most feasible for the subject property. The primary impacts of C/I development on the subject site would be on the residentially designated parcels to the north of the subject property. Those parcels can be divided into two types. The first type is the four single-family houses on approximately 1 acre wooded lots located along the north side of 41" Street and east of the subject property's east boundary Any impact on those parcels would be somewhat mitigated by the wooded condition of the lots. physical separation provided by road and canal right-of-way and the site design of the subject property. May 22, 2001 31 i1 I i U G7 The second type of parcels that could be impacted by C/I development on the subject property is the two 20 acre groves directly north of the subject property. That land is big enough to accommodate any buffers needed to mitigate impacts of development of the subject property. Another way in which C/I development on the subject property would impact surrounding property relates to the Shenff s Department and Jail Complex abutting the site on the west. Development on the subject property impacts the Sheriffs Department and Jail Complex because the subject property is the only land that is contiguous to the existing Complex and is available for expansion of the Complex For that reason, Planning staff has coordinated with Sheriff s Department staff regarding this request. The Sheriffs Department staff indicates that they are communicating with the applicant. For these reasons, staff feels that C/I development on the subject property would be compatible with surrounding uses. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Staffs position is that. since the subject property 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. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land use designation and requested zoning district are compatible with the surrounding area. consistent with the goals. objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. and meet all applicable concurrencv criteria. Finally the subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for industrial uses. The request meets all applicable criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request to change the site's land use designation and zoning district. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary Page 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application 3. Rezoning Application 4. Detailed Transportation Concurrency Analysis 5. Approved Minutes of the April 5, 2001. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 6. Transmittal Resolution May 22, 2001 32 nv l� t 8 The second type of parcels that could be impacted by C/I development on the subject property is the two 20 acre groves directly north of the subject property. That land is big enough to accommodate any buffers needed to mitigate impacts of development of the subject property. Another way in which C/I development on the subject property would impact surrounding property relates to the Shenff s Department and Jail Complex abutting the site on the west. Development on the subject property impacts the Sheriffs Department and Jail Complex because the subject property is the only land that is contiguous to the existing Complex and is available for expansion of the Complex For that reason, Planning staff has coordinated with Sheriff s Department staff regarding this request. The Sheriffs Department staff indicates that they are communicating with the applicant. For these reasons, staff feels that C/I development on the subject property would be compatible with surrounding uses. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Staffs position is that. since the subject property 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. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land use designation and requested zoning district are compatible with the surrounding area. consistent with the goals. objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. and meet all applicable concurrencv criteria. Finally the subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for industrial uses. The request meets all applicable criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request to change the site's land use designation and zoning district. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary Page 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application 3. Rezoning Application 4. Detailed Transportation Concurrency Analysis 5. Approved Minutes of the April 5, 2001. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 6. Transmittal Resolution May 22, 2001 32 nv l� t 8 The second type of parcels that could be impacted by C/I development on the subject property is the two 20 acre groves directly north of the subject property. That land is big enough to accommodate any buffers needed to mitigate impacts of development of the subject property. Another way in which C/I development on the subject property would impact surrounding property relates to the Shenff s Department and Jail Complex abutting the site on the west. Development on the subject property impacts the Sheriffs Department and Jail Complex because the subject property is the only land that is contiguous to the existing Complex and is available for expansion of the Complex For that reason, Planning staff has coordinated with Sheriff s Department staff regarding this request. The Sheriffs Department staff indicates that they are communicating with the applicant. For these reasons, staff feels that C/I development on the subject property would be compatible with surrounding uses. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Staffs position is that. since the subject property 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. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land use designation and requested zoning district are compatible with the surrounding area. consistent with the goals. objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. and meet all applicable concurrencv criteria. Finally the subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for industrial uses. The request meets all applicable criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request to change the site's land use designation and zoning district. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Summary Page 2. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application 3. Rezoning Application 4. Detailed Transportation Concurrency Analysis 5. Approved Minutes of the April 5, 2001. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 6. Transmittal Resolution May 22, 2001 32 nv l� t 8 • • The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, credited staff with a very thorough report. He wanted to point out that there is no residential use on the south side of 41', east of 43' The only enclave that remains is a 10 acre sliver. The property is within the airport noise overlay zone. There are plans for a high-end industrial park. This makes good sense all around. The property is located inside the urban services area. He asked for questions; there were none. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) adopted Resolution No. 2001-051 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 051 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 2001 amendment submittal window, and May 22, 2001 33 • • The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, credited staff with a very thorough report. He wanted to point out that there is no residential use on the south side of 41', east of 43' The only enclave that remains is a 10 acre sliver. The property is within the airport noise overlay zone. There are plans for a high-end industrial park. This makes good sense all around. The property is located inside the urban services area. He asked for questions; there were none. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) adopted Resolution No. 2001-051 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 051 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 2001 amendment submittal window, and May 22, 2001 33 • • The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, credited staff with a very thorough report. He wanted to point out that there is no residential use on the south side of 41', east of 43' The only enclave that remains is a 10 acre sliver. The property is within the airport noise overlay zone. There are plans for a high-end industrial park. This makes good sense all around. The property is located inside the urban services area. He asked for questions; there were none. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) adopted Resolution No. 2001-051 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 051 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 2001 amendment submittal window, and May 22, 2001 33 WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan amendment request on April 5, 2001, after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on May 22, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is approved for transmittal to the State of Honda Department of Community Affairs: Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial, for ±10 acres located ±950 feet east of 43' Avenue, on the south side of 41 ` Street to Indian River County, Florida The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Stanbri doe and seconded by Commissioner Ti Dpi n and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: May 22, 2001 Chairman Caroline D Ginn Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin 34 Aye Aye Aye Absent Aye WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan amendment request on April 5, 2001, after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on May 22, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is approved for transmittal to the State of Honda Department of Community Affairs: Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial, for ±10 acres located ±950 feet east of 43' Avenue, on the south side of 41 ` Street to Indian River County, Florida The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Stanbri doe and seconded by Commissioner Ti Dpi n and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: May 22, 2001 Chairman Caroline D Ginn Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin 34 Aye Aye Aye Absent Aye WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan amendment request on April 5, 2001, after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on May 22, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is approved for transmittal to the State of Honda Department of Community Affairs: Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial, for ±10 acres located ±950 feet east of 43' Avenue, on the south side of 41 ` Street to Indian River County, Florida The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Stanbri doe and seconded by Commissioner Ti Dpi n and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: May 22, 2001 Chairman Caroline D Ginn Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin 34 Aye Aye Aye Absent Aye • • RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 22'' day of May 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: .Lec_sc c: !(C Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman ATTEST: Je rey-K. Barton, Clerk /.�'�, APPROVED AS TO FO M AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY II. Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development director n 1n Ave Ct Approved Date Adrnirt <' fy 4 RM. Legal Nnalriarnal 6udgett4/ ro/ Dept. ,narre Risk Mgr. Mel 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 - TRANSMIT J. LUTHER GROVES AND THE FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE ±15.46 ACRES FROM M-1 TO CII AND REZONE THOSE ±15.46 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG AND REDESIGNATE ±16.79 ACRES FROM C/I TO M-1 AND TO REZONE THOSE ±16.79 ACRES FROM CL TO RM -8 (LEGISLATIVE) May 22, 2001 PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FO THE BOARD 35 U t # J 1-0 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 22'' day of May 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: .Lec_sc c: !(C Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman ATTEST: Je rey-K. Barton, Clerk /.�'�, APPROVED AS TO FO M AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY II. Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development director n 1n Ave Ct Approved Date Adrnirt <' fy 4 RM. Legal Nnalriarnal 6udgett4/ ro/ Dept. ,narre Risk Mgr. Mel 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 - TRANSMIT J. LUTHER GROVES AND THE FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE ±15.46 ACRES FROM M-1 TO CII AND REZONE THOSE ±15.46 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG AND REDESIGNATE ±16.79 ACRES FROM C/I TO M-1 AND TO REZONE THOSE ±16.79 ACRES FROM CL TO RM -8 (LEGISLATIVE) May 22, 2001 PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FO THE BOARD 35 U t # J 1-0 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2001-051 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 22'' day of May 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: .Lec_sc c: !(C Caroline D. Ginn, Chairman ATTEST: Je rey-K. Barton, Clerk /.�'�, APPROVED AS TO FO M AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY II. Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development director n 1n Ave Ct Approved Date Adrnirt <' fy 4 RM. Legal Nnalriarnal 6udgett4/ ro/ Dept. ,narre Risk Mgr. Mel 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 - TRANSMIT J. LUTHER GROVES AND THE FAIRWAYS AT GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE ±15.46 ACRES FROM M-1 TO CII AND REZONE THOSE ±15.46 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG AND REDESIGNATE ±16.79 ACRES FROM C/I TO M-1 AND TO REZONE THOSE ±16.79 ACRES FROM CL TO RM -8 (LEGISLATIVE) May 22, 2001 PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK FO THE BOARD 35 U t # J 1-0 Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001 using a Power Point® to enhance his presentation (on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board): TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator E T HEAD CONCURRENCE ob rt M. Keating, A CP munity D THROUGH* Sasan Rohani. AICP; Chief, Long - FROM: DATE: May 11, 2001 REN elopment Director e Planning $ // John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning J. Luther Groves. Inc. and Fairways at Grand Harbor, Ltd., Request to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±15.46 Acres From M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone Those ±15.46 Acres from RM -6 to CG; And to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±16.79 Acres From CII to M-1 and to Rezone Those ±16 79 Acres From CL to RM -8 PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-01-0220 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of Mav 22. 2001. May 22, 2001 36 Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001 using a Power Point® to enhance his presentation (on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board): TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator E T HEAD CONCURRENCE ob rt M. Keating, A CP munity D THROUGH* Sasan Rohani. AICP; Chief, Long - FROM: DATE: May 11, 2001 REN elopment Director e Planning $ // John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning J. Luther Groves. Inc. and Fairways at Grand Harbor, Ltd., Request to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±15.46 Acres From M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone Those ±15.46 Acres from RM -6 to CG; And to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±16.79 Acres From CII to M-1 and to Rezone Those ±16 79 Acres From CL to RM -8 PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-01-0220 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of Mav 22. 2001. May 22, 2001 36 Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001 using a Power Point® to enhance his presentation (on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board): TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator E T HEAD CONCURRENCE ob rt M. Keating, A CP munity D THROUGH* Sasan Rohani. AICP; Chief, Long - FROM: DATE: May 11, 2001 REN elopment Director e Planning $ // John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning J. Luther Groves. Inc. and Fairways at Grand Harbor, Ltd., Request to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±15.46 Acres From M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone Those ±15.46 Acres from RM -6 to CG; And to Amend The Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate ±16.79 Acres From CII to M-1 and to Rezone Those ±16 79 Acres From CL to RM -8 PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2001-01-0220 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of Mav 22. 2001. May 22, 2001 36 • DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to redesignate ±15.46 acres from M-1. Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I. Commercial/Industrial. while simultaneously redesignating a nearby ±16.79 acre tract from C/I to M-1. Unlike commercial/industrial node expansion requests. the proposed amendment will not increase the amount of C/I designated land and will not increase land use density/intensity. Rather, this amendment will reconfigure the US 1 (571" Street to 491" Street) Commercial/Industrial Node. Figure 1: Location and Land Use Designation of Subject Properly 1 11� MIC wt) OUR PUT gal S ni \wn..a m FAIRWAYS Ar "Alt HOW �:SISaki '.1 n ._, 1 \; f` `%M r • May 22, 2001 37 • 43 0 1 1 1 ) rt 15 -::1 1-6 • • DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to redesignate ±15.46 acres from M-1. Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I. Commercial/Industrial. while simultaneously redesignating a nearby ±16.79 acre tract from C/I to M-1. Unlike commercial/industrial node expansion requests. the proposed amendment will not increase the amount of C/I designated land and will not increase land use density/intensity. Rather, this amendment will reconfigure the US 1 (571" Street to 491" Street) Commercial/Industrial Node. Figure 1: Location and Land Use Designation of Subject Properly 1 11� MIC wt) OUR PUT gal S ni \wn..a m FAIRWAYS Ar "Alt HOW �:SISaki '.1 n ._, 1 \; f` `%M r • May 22, 2001 37 • 43 0 1 1 1 ) rt 15 -::1 1-6 • • DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to redesignate ±15.46 acres from M-1. Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I. Commercial/Industrial. while simultaneously redesignating a nearby ±16.79 acre tract from C/I to M-1. Unlike commercial/industrial node expansion requests. the proposed amendment will not increase the amount of C/I designated land and will not increase land use density/intensity. Rather, this amendment will reconfigure the US 1 (571" Street to 491" Street) Commercial/Industrial Node. Figure 1: Location and Land Use Designation of Subject Properly 1 11� MIC wt) OUR PUT gal S ni \wn..a m FAIRWAYS Ar "Alt HOW �:SISaki '.1 n ._, 1 \; f` `%M r • May 22, 2001 37 • 43 0 1 1 1 ) rt 15 -::1 1-6 • Figure 2: Location and Zoning of Subject Property 1 i{z�,.•YrSi.tvF •r :`' X, Figure 2: Location and Zoning of Subject Property 1 i{z�,.•YrSi.tvF •r :`' X, Figure 2: Location and Zoning of Subject Property 1 i{z�,.•YrSi.tvF •r :`' X, Figure 3: Location and Land Use Designation of Subject Property Figure 3: Location and Land Use Designation of Subject Property Figure 3: Location and Land Use Designation of Subject Property Figure 4. Location and Zoning of Subject Property 2 The ±15.46 acre property to be redesignated from M-1 to C/I is depicted on a land use designation map in Figure 1. and on a zoning map in Figure 2. This property is located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53rd Street and will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The request involves rezoning Subject Property 1 from RM -6 Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CG, General Commercial District. The ±16.79 acre property to be redesignated from C/I to M-1 is located ±1,550 feet south of 53`d Street. on the east side of US 1. That property will be referred to as Subject Property 2. Figures 3 and 4 depict Subject Property 2 on land use designation and zoning maps, respectively. The request also involves rezoning Subject Property 2 from CL, Limited Commercial District, to RM -8. Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre) May 22, 2001 40 Figure 4. Location and Zoning of Subject Property 2 The ±15.46 acre property to be redesignated from M-1 to C/I is depicted on a land use designation map in Figure 1. and on a zoning map in Figure 2. This property is located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53rd Street and will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The request involves rezoning Subject Property 1 from RM -6 Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CG, General Commercial District. The ±16.79 acre property to be redesignated from C/I to M-1 is located ±1,550 feet south of 53`d Street. on the east side of US 1. That property will be referred to as Subject Property 2. Figures 3 and 4 depict Subject Property 2 on land use designation and zoning maps, respectively. The request also involves rezoning Subject Property 2 from CL, Limited Commercial District, to RM -8. Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre) May 22, 2001 40 Figure 4. Location and Zoning of Subject Property 2 The ±15.46 acre property to be redesignated from M-1 to C/I is depicted on a land use designation map in Figure 1. and on a zoning map in Figure 2. This property is located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53rd Street and will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The request involves rezoning Subject Property 1 from RM -6 Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CG, General Commercial District. The ±16.79 acre property to be redesignated from C/I to M-1 is located ±1,550 feet south of 53`d Street. on the east side of US 1. That property will be referred to as Subject Property 2. Figures 3 and 4 depict Subject Property 2 on land use designation and zoning maps, respectively. The request also involves rezoning Subject Property 2 from CL, Limited Commercial District, to RM -8. Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre) May 22, 2001 40 There are two purposes for this request. The first purpose is to allow commercial development on Subject Property 1. The other purpose of this request is to more accurately reflect the current and future uses of Subject Property 2 on the Future Land Use Map. On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed land use designation amendment and rezoning. On May 17, 2001, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. Existing Land Use Pattern There is a mix of uses in this area of the county. The west side of US 1. between the North Relief Canal and 49'" Street. contains vacant cleared land, woods. industrial buildings. and a convenience store at the northwest corner of 53rd Street and US 1. Except for the convenience store. which is zoned CG, that land is zoned IL. Light Industrial. The east side of US 1. between the North Relief Canal and 53rd Street, is zoned CG and consists of a driving range. A small (one-third of an acre) parcel at the southeast corner of 53rd Street and US 1 is also zoned CG and contains a store. Land from 53' Street south to Subject Property 2. and east of US 1. (including Subject Property 1) is zoned RM -6. The northern part of that area contains old groves. while the southern part contains a wooded area. Subject Property 2 is zoned CL but contains the Fairways multiple -family residential development. Normally, a residential use is permitted only as an accessory use in the CL district. The Fairways, however. is pan of the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Through the development order of the Grand Harbor DRI, residential developments are permitted on non - residentially designated land within the Grand Harbor DRI Project Area. The rest of the Grand Harbor Development is south and east of Subject Property 2. Future Land Use Pattern Subject Property 2 and properties between US 1 and Old Dixie Highway are designated C/I. Commercial/Industrial. on the county's future land use map. There are two other C/I designated properties in this part of the county: ±0.31 acres at the southeast corner of US 1 and 53 ° Street. and 15 acres along the east side of US 1 between the 53rd Street and the North Relief Canal. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. The remaining land east of US 1 and south of the North Relief Canal. including Subject Property 1. is designated M-1. The M -I designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. Environment Both sites have been disturbed. Neither site contains any wetlands or other environmentally sensitive habitat. No flood hazard areas exist on either site. Utilities and Services Potable water distribution lines extend along US 1 to both subject sites from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater collection lines extend along US 1 from the Central County Wastewater Treatment Plant to Subject Property 2. Wastewater lines are planned to extend to Subject Property 1 soon May 22, 2001 BK 1 1 8 PG 297 There are two purposes for this request. The first purpose is to allow commercial development on Subject Property 1. The other purpose of this request is to more accurately reflect the current and future uses of Subject Property 2 on the Future Land Use Map. On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed land use designation amendment and rezoning. On May 17, 2001, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. Existing Land Use Pattern There is a mix of uses in this area of the county. The west side of US 1. between the North Relief Canal and 49'" Street. contains vacant cleared land, woods. industrial buildings. and a convenience store at the northwest corner of 53rd Street and US 1. Except for the convenience store. which is zoned CG, that land is zoned IL. Light Industrial. The east side of US 1. between the North Relief Canal and 53rd Street, is zoned CG and consists of a driving range. A small (one-third of an acre) parcel at the southeast corner of 53rd Street and US 1 is also zoned CG and contains a store. Land from 53' Street south to Subject Property 2. and east of US 1. (including Subject Property 1) is zoned RM -6. The northern part of that area contains old groves. while the southern part contains a wooded area. Subject Property 2 is zoned CL but contains the Fairways multiple -family residential development. Normally, a residential use is permitted only as an accessory use in the CL district. The Fairways, however. is pan of the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Through the development order of the Grand Harbor DRI, residential developments are permitted on non - residentially designated land within the Grand Harbor DRI Project Area. The rest of the Grand Harbor Development is south and east of Subject Property 2. Future Land Use Pattern Subject Property 2 and properties between US 1 and Old Dixie Highway are designated C/I. Commercial/Industrial. on the county's future land use map. There are two other C/I designated properties in this part of the county: ±0.31 acres at the southeast corner of US 1 and 53 ° Street. and 15 acres along the east side of US 1 between the 53rd Street and the North Relief Canal. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. The remaining land east of US 1 and south of the North Relief Canal. including Subject Property 1. is designated M-1. The M -I designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. Environment Both sites have been disturbed. Neither site contains any wetlands or other environmentally sensitive habitat. No flood hazard areas exist on either site. Utilities and Services Potable water distribution lines extend along US 1 to both subject sites from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater collection lines extend along US 1 from the Central County Wastewater Treatment Plant to Subject Property 2. Wastewater lines are planned to extend to Subject Property 1 soon May 22, 2001 BK 1 1 8 PG 297 There are two purposes for this request. The first purpose is to allow commercial development on Subject Property 1. The other purpose of this request is to more accurately reflect the current and future uses of Subject Property 2 on the Future Land Use Map. On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed land use designation amendment and rezoning. On May 17, 2001, the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC) considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. Existing Land Use Pattern There is a mix of uses in this area of the county. The west side of US 1. between the North Relief Canal and 49'" Street. contains vacant cleared land, woods. industrial buildings. and a convenience store at the northwest corner of 53rd Street and US 1. Except for the convenience store. which is zoned CG, that land is zoned IL. Light Industrial. The east side of US 1. between the North Relief Canal and 53rd Street, is zoned CG and consists of a driving range. A small (one-third of an acre) parcel at the southeast corner of 53rd Street and US 1 is also zoned CG and contains a store. Land from 53' Street south to Subject Property 2. and east of US 1. (including Subject Property 1) is zoned RM -6. The northern part of that area contains old groves. while the southern part contains a wooded area. Subject Property 2 is zoned CL but contains the Fairways multiple -family residential development. Normally, a residential use is permitted only as an accessory use in the CL district. The Fairways, however. is pan of the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Through the development order of the Grand Harbor DRI, residential developments are permitted on non - residentially designated land within the Grand Harbor DRI Project Area. The rest of the Grand Harbor Development is south and east of Subject Property 2. Future Land Use Pattern Subject Property 2 and properties between US 1 and Old Dixie Highway are designated C/I. Commercial/Industrial. on the county's future land use map. There are two other C/I designated properties in this part of the county: ±0.31 acres at the southeast corner of US 1 and 53 ° Street. and 15 acres along the east side of US 1 between the 53rd Street and the North Relief Canal. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. The remaining land east of US 1 and south of the North Relief Canal. including Subject Property 1. is designated M-1. The M -I designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. Environment Both sites have been disturbed. Neither site contains any wetlands or other environmentally sensitive habitat. No flood hazard areas exist on either site. Utilities and Services Potable water distribution lines extend along US 1 to both subject sites from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater collection lines extend along US 1 from the Central County Wastewater Treatment Plant to Subject Property 2. Wastewater lines are planned to extend to Subject Property 1 soon May 22, 2001 BK 1 1 8 PG 297 Transportation System Subject Property 1 abuts US 1, which is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. The segment of US 1 that is adjacent to Subject Property 1 is a four lane road with 120 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of US 1. Subject Property 1 is bounded on the north Road on the future roadway thoroughfare Subject Property 1 is a two lane road with by 53`d Street. Classified as an Urban Principal Arterial plan map, the segment of 53rd Street that is adjacent to 120 feet to 150 feet of public road right-of-way. Indian River Boulevard forms the eastern border of and provides access to Subject Property 2. That segment of Indian River Boulevard, classified as an Urban Principal Arterial Road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, is a four lane road way with 200 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of Indian River Boulevard. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. Plan Amendment Review Standards Unlike most land use designation amendment requests. this request does not involve an increase in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a commercial/industrial node reconfiguration and a ±1.33 acre decrease in node size, rather than an expansion of a node. For this reason. the subject request can be characterized differently from most plan amendments. Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As such. the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis. The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request. Instead of proposing a density or intensity increase, the subject amendment involves only a locational shift in future land uses and an overall decrease in land use intensity. These different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan. a high standard of review is justified For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and that many variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. May 22, 2001 42 BK • i E 8 Ft 8 AN Transportation System Subject Property 1 abuts US 1, which is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. The segment of US 1 that is adjacent to Subject Property 1 is a four lane road with 120 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of US 1. Subject Property 1 is bounded on the north Road on the future roadway thoroughfare Subject Property 1 is a two lane road with by 53`d Street. Classified as an Urban Principal Arterial plan map, the segment of 53rd Street that is adjacent to 120 feet to 150 feet of public road right-of-way. Indian River Boulevard forms the eastern border of and provides access to Subject Property 2. That segment of Indian River Boulevard, classified as an Urban Principal Arterial Road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, is a four lane road way with 200 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of Indian River Boulevard. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. Plan Amendment Review Standards Unlike most land use designation amendment requests. this request does not involve an increase in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a commercial/industrial node reconfiguration and a ±1.33 acre decrease in node size, rather than an expansion of a node. For this reason. the subject request can be characterized differently from most plan amendments. Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As such. the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis. The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request. Instead of proposing a density or intensity increase, the subject amendment involves only a locational shift in future land uses and an overall decrease in land use intensity. These different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan. a high standard of review is justified For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and that many variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. May 22, 2001 42 BK • i E 8 Ft 8 AN Transportation System Subject Property 1 abuts US 1, which is classified as a Rural Principal Arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. The segment of US 1 that is adjacent to Subject Property 1 is a four lane road with 120 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of US 1. Subject Property 1 is bounded on the north Road on the future roadway thoroughfare Subject Property 1 is a two lane road with by 53`d Street. Classified as an Urban Principal Arterial plan map, the segment of 53rd Street that is adjacent to 120 feet to 150 feet of public road right-of-way. Indian River Boulevard forms the eastern border of and provides access to Subject Property 2. That segment of Indian River Boulevard, classified as an Urban Principal Arterial Road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, is a four lane road way with 200 feet of public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of Indian River Boulevard. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of plan amendment review standards, this section will include the following: • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with surrounding areas; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on environmental quality. Plan Amendment Review Standards Unlike most land use designation amendment requests. this request does not involve an increase in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a commercial/industrial node reconfiguration and a ±1.33 acre decrease in node size, rather than an expansion of a node. For this reason. the subject request can be characterized differently from most plan amendments. Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As such. the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis. The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request. Instead of proposing a density or intensity increase, the subject amendment involves only a locational shift in future land uses and an overall decrease in land use intensity. These different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan. a high standard of review is justified For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and that many variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. May 22, 2001 42 BK • i E 8 Ft 8 AN In fact. in March 1998. the county amended its comprehensive plan to allow land use designation "swaps." At that time Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 was amended to specifically allow future land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. That change was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). which was found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation. were adopted by the county and found "in compliance" by DCA. Concurrency of Public Facilities Both sites comprising this request are 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 Stormwater 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. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. the comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed. For land use designation amendment and rezoning requests. this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment and rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject properly based upon the requested land use designation. For commercial/industrial land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 1, the commercial/industrial portion of the proposed amendment, is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±15.46 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: M-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 123 units 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 154,600 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6`h Edition ITE Manual) For residential land use amendment requests. the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the propene and the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 2, the. portion of the proposed amendment to be residentially designated. is as follows: May 22, 2001 43 BK 1 8PG299 f In fact. in March 1998. the county amended its comprehensive plan to allow land use designation "swaps." At that time Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 was amended to specifically allow future land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. That change was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). which was found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation. were adopted by the county and found "in compliance" by DCA. Concurrency of Public Facilities Both sites comprising this request are 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 Stormwater 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. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. the comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed. For land use designation amendment and rezoning requests. this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment and rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject properly based upon the requested land use designation. For commercial/industrial land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 1, the commercial/industrial portion of the proposed amendment, is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±15.46 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: M-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 123 units 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 154,600 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6`h Edition ITE Manual) For residential land use amendment requests. the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the propene and the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 2, the. portion of the proposed amendment to be residentially designated. is as follows: May 22, 2001 43 BK 1 8PG299 f In fact. in March 1998. the county amended its comprehensive plan to allow land use designation "swaps." At that time Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 was amended to specifically allow future land use map amendments that do not increase the county's overall land use density or intensity. That change was recommended in the county's adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). which was found sufficient by DCA. EAR based amendments, including that recommendation. were adopted by the county and found "in compliance" by DCA. Concurrency of Public Facilities Both sites comprising this request are 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 Stormwater 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. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. the comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed. For land use designation amendment and rezoning requests. this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment and rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject properly based upon the requested land use designation. For commercial/industrial land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 1, the commercial/industrial portion of the proposed amendment, is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±15.46 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: M-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 123 units 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 154,600 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6`h Edition ITE Manual) For residential land use amendment requests. the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the propene and the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 2, the. portion of the proposed amendment to be residentially designated. is as follows: May 22, 2001 43 BK 1 8PG299 f 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: ±16.79 acres C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node 167,900 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual) M-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 134 units If adopted, the combined maximum development potential of the sites would decrease The residential development potential would increase by 11 units, from 123 to 134. That increase. however, is more than offset by the 13,300 square foot decrease in the commercial development potential of the sites. For that reason, the proposed amendment is to reduce overall land use intensity. As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's LDRs, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation changes would decrease the overall development potential and land use intensity that the sites could accommodate. It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result of this land use designation amendment. As with all projects, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Subject Property 1 The following factors indicate that commercial/industrial development on Subject Property I would be compatible with surrounding areas. • The request is for the continuation of the existing land use designation pattern from the north and west. • The residentially designated properly to the east and southeast is under the same ownership as Subject Properly 1. Only the 208 foot long southern boundary_ of the site would actually abut residentially designated land not owned by the applicant. • County land development regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site design and by requiring commercial/industrial development to provide vegetative buffers. • Properly to the south and east is designated M-1 (up to 8 units/acre), one of the county's most intense residential land use designations. That property, which is zoned RM -6. Multiple - Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), is currently vacant. May 22, 2001 44 0 ti 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: ±16.79 acres C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node 167,900 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual) M-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 134 units If adopted, the combined maximum development potential of the sites would decrease The residential development potential would increase by 11 units, from 123 to 134. That increase. however, is more than offset by the 13,300 square foot decrease in the commercial development potential of the sites. For that reason, the proposed amendment is to reduce overall land use intensity. As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's LDRs, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation changes would decrease the overall development potential and land use intensity that the sites could accommodate. It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result of this land use designation amendment. As with all projects, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Subject Property 1 The following factors indicate that commercial/industrial development on Subject Property I would be compatible with surrounding areas. • The request is for the continuation of the existing land use designation pattern from the north and west. • The residentially designated properly to the east and southeast is under the same ownership as Subject Properly 1. Only the 208 foot long southern boundary_ of the site would actually abut residentially designated land not owned by the applicant. • County land development regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site design and by requiring commercial/industrial development to provide vegetative buffers. • Properly to the south and east is designated M-1 (up to 8 units/acre), one of the county's most intense residential land use designations. That property, which is zoned RM -6. Multiple - Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), is currently vacant. May 22, 2001 44 0 ti 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: ±16.79 acres C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node 167,900 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual) M-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 134 units If adopted, the combined maximum development potential of the sites would decrease The residential development potential would increase by 11 units, from 123 to 134. That increase. however, is more than offset by the 13,300 square foot decrease in the commercial development potential of the sites. For that reason, the proposed amendment is to reduce overall land use intensity. As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's LDRs, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation changes would decrease the overall development potential and land use intensity that the sites could accommodate. It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result of this land use designation amendment. As with all projects, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Subject Property 1 The following factors indicate that commercial/industrial development on Subject Property I would be compatible with surrounding areas. • The request is for the continuation of the existing land use designation pattern from the north and west. • The residentially designated properly to the east and southeast is under the same ownership as Subject Properly 1. Only the 208 foot long southern boundary_ of the site would actually abut residentially designated land not owned by the applicant. • County land development regulations somewhat mitigate potential impacts through site design and by requiring commercial/industrial development to provide vegetative buffers. • Properly to the south and east is designated M-1 (up to 8 units/acre), one of the county's most intense residential land use designations. That property, which is zoned RM -6. Multiple - Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), is currently vacant. May 22, 2001 44 0 ti • Generally, multiple -family development is more dense than single-family development and has more flexibility, in terms of site design that could mitigate impacts from adjacent commercial/industrial development, than single -fancily development. For those reasons, multiple -family projects are more compatible with commercial/industrial uses than single- family projects, and the RM -6 zoning district is an appropriate district for residential land that abuts commercial/industrial uses. Subject Property 2 The following factors indicate that residential development on Subject Property 2 would be compatible with surrounding areas. • Adjacent land to the north and south. and land to the east, across Indian River Boulevard. is residentially designated: therefore, the request is for the continuation of the existing land use designation pattern. • Site characteristics facilitate adequate buffers. The site has a 1.167 foot long border with CL. Limited Commercial District, zoned land to the west. Because most of that land is currently an undeveloped wooded area. a natural buffer is already in place for new development. Additionally the southern 696 feet (60%) of the subject property's western border is along a 70 foot wide drainage canal. Thus. only the northern 470 feet of the site actually abuts commercially zoned land. Unlike the southern portion of the site. the northern portion is wide and is more easily buffered by the owner of the subject property, if necessary. For these reasons. staff feels that the proposed land use amendment would not increase potential incompatibilities with surrounding areas Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential recreational. conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify 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 related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important. some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request These criteria are: May 22, 2001 • 45 BK H 8 DG 3 0 I • Generally, multiple -family development is more dense than single-family development and has more flexibility, in terms of site design that could mitigate impacts from adjacent commercial/industrial development, than single -fancily development. For those reasons, multiple -family projects are more compatible with commercial/industrial uses than single- family projects, and the RM -6 zoning district is an appropriate district for residential land that abuts commercial/industrial uses. Subject Property 2 The following factors indicate that residential development on Subject Property 2 would be compatible with surrounding areas. • Adjacent land to the north and south. and land to the east, across Indian River Boulevard. is residentially designated: therefore, the request is for the continuation of the existing land use designation pattern. • Site characteristics facilitate adequate buffers. The site has a 1.167 foot long border with CL. Limited Commercial District, zoned land to the west. Because most of that land is currently an undeveloped wooded area. a natural buffer is already in place for new development. Additionally the southern 696 feet (60%) of the subject property's western border is along a 70 foot wide drainage canal. Thus. only the northern 470 feet of the site actually abuts commercially zoned land. Unlike the southern portion of the site. the northern portion is wide and is more easily buffered by the owner of the subject property, if necessary. For these reasons. staff feels that the proposed land use amendment would not increase potential incompatibilities with surrounding areas Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential recreational. conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify 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 related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important. some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request These criteria are: May 22, 2001 • 45 BK H 8 DG 3 0 I • Generally, multiple -family development is more dense than single-family development and has more flexibility, in terms of site design that could mitigate impacts from adjacent commercial/industrial development, than single -fancily development. For those reasons, multiple -family projects are more compatible with commercial/industrial uses than single- family projects, and the RM -6 zoning district is an appropriate district for residential land that abuts commercial/industrial uses. Subject Property 2 The following factors indicate that residential development on Subject Property 2 would be compatible with surrounding areas. • Adjacent land to the north and south. and land to the east, across Indian River Boulevard. is residentially designated: therefore, the request is for the continuation of the existing land use designation pattern. • Site characteristics facilitate adequate buffers. The site has a 1.167 foot long border with CL. Limited Commercial District, zoned land to the west. Because most of that land is currently an undeveloped wooded area. a natural buffer is already in place for new development. Additionally the southern 696 feet (60%) of the subject property's western border is along a 70 foot wide drainage canal. Thus. only the northern 470 feet of the site actually abuts commercially zoned land. Unlike the southern portion of the site. the northern portion is wide and is more easily buffered by the owner of the subject property, if necessary. For these reasons. staff feels that the proposed land use amendment would not increase potential incompatibilities with surrounding areas Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment and rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential recreational. conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify 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 related decisions --including plan amendment and rezoning decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important. some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request These criteria are: May 22, 2001 • 45 BK H 8 DG 3 0 I • The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property; or • The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites and, that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map In this case, the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion. As specifically cited in the policy, the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites, and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. For those reasons, the proposed amendment meets the fourth criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Because the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14 Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14 state that the M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1. land use designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for urban and suburban scale residential development with densities up to 8 units/acre. Already containing residential development, and located within the urban service area, and near existing medium density residential development Subject Property 2 is appropriate for residential development with a density of up to 8 units/acre. The proposed amendment would allow that type of medium density residential development on Subject Property 2 Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the Commercial/Industrial land use designation should be within the urban service area, in areas that are suitable for urban scale development and intensities. Located at a the intersection of two major roads, within the urban service area. and with urban services available. Subject Property 1 is appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow commercial development on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use, service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics. The amount of C/I designated land is based on service area population. the existing land use pattern, and other demand characteristics. The proposed amendment will not increase the amount of C/I designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 May 22, 2001 46 B 2 • The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property; or • The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites and, that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map In this case, the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion. As specifically cited in the policy, the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites, and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. For those reasons, the proposed amendment meets the fourth criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Because the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14 Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14 state that the M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1. land use designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for urban and suburban scale residential development with densities up to 8 units/acre. Already containing residential development, and located within the urban service area, and near existing medium density residential development Subject Property 2 is appropriate for residential development with a density of up to 8 units/acre. The proposed amendment would allow that type of medium density residential development on Subject Property 2 Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the Commercial/Industrial land use designation should be within the urban service area, in areas that are suitable for urban scale development and intensities. Located at a the intersection of two major roads, within the urban service area. and with urban services available. Subject Property 1 is appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow commercial development on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use, service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics. The amount of C/I designated land is based on service area population. the existing land use pattern, and other demand characteristics. The proposed amendment will not increase the amount of C/I designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 May 22, 2001 46 B 2 • The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan; • The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property; or • The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites and, that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map In this case, the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion. As specifically cited in the policy, the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites, and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. For those reasons, the proposed amendment meets the fourth criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Because the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14 Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14 state that the M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1. land use designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for urban and suburban scale residential development with densities up to 8 units/acre. Already containing residential development, and located within the urban service area, and near existing medium density residential development Subject Property 2 is appropriate for residential development with a density of up to 8 units/acre. The proposed amendment would allow that type of medium density residential development on Subject Property 2 Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.13 and 1.14. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the Commercial/Industrial land use designation should be within the urban service area, in areas that are suitable for urban scale development and intensities. Located at a the intersection of two major roads, within the urban service area. and with urban services available. Subject Property 1 is appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow commercial development on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use, service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics. The amount of C/I designated land is based on service area population. the existing land use pattern, and other demand characteristics. The proposed amendment will not increase the amount of C/I designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 May 22, 2001 46 B 2 • Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed amendment does not increase in the amount of C/I designated land in the subject node. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22's 70% developed standard does not apply to this amendment. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 specifically allows the Board of County Commissioners to initiate a land use designation amendment to change C/I designated land to residentially designated land, provided that the following conditions exist: • The parcel has been redesignated to C/I. Commercial/Industrial. since comprehensive plan adoption on February 13. 1990; and • The parcel is currently designated C/I; and • More than two years have passed since approval of the ordinance redesignating the parcel to C/I; and • No construction activity has commenced on the parcel since approval of the ordinance redesignating the parcel to C/I. If the proposed amendment is adopted, and if no construction activity takes place on Subject Property 1 within the referenced time frames. Policy 1.24 would apply and the Board could initiate an amendment to change Subject Property 1 back to a residential designation. Summary of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan As part of the staff analysis. all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Neither subject property contains wetlands or any other environmentally sensitive habitat. Federal, state, and county environmental protection rules regulating impacts on adjacent and nearby environmentally sensitive lands apply to both subject properties. regardless of land use designation or zoning district. For these reasons. the proposed amendment is not anticipated to adversely impact environmental quality. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. compatible with all surrounding land uses and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of public services. The proposed change increases land use efficiency and facilitates economic development. For these reasons. staff supports the request. May 22, 2001 47 • BKIIuJ�3 03 • Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed amendment does not increase in the amount of C/I designated land in the subject node. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22's 70% developed standard does not apply to this amendment. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 specifically allows the Board of County Commissioners to initiate a land use designation amendment to change C/I designated land to residentially designated land, provided that the following conditions exist: • The parcel has been redesignated to C/I. Commercial/Industrial. since comprehensive plan adoption on February 13. 1990; and • The parcel is currently designated C/I; and • More than two years have passed since approval of the ordinance redesignating the parcel to C/I; and • No construction activity has commenced on the parcel since approval of the ordinance redesignating the parcel to C/I. If the proposed amendment is adopted, and if no construction activity takes place on Subject Property 1 within the referenced time frames. Policy 1.24 would apply and the Board could initiate an amendment to change Subject Property 1 back to a residential designation. Summary of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan As part of the staff analysis. all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Neither subject property contains wetlands or any other environmentally sensitive habitat. Federal, state, and county environmental protection rules regulating impacts on adjacent and nearby environmentally sensitive lands apply to both subject properties. regardless of land use designation or zoning district. For these reasons. the proposed amendment is not anticipated to adversely impact environmental quality. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. compatible with all surrounding land uses and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of public services. The proposed change increases land use efficiency and facilitates economic development. For these reasons. staff supports the request. May 22, 2001 47 • BKIIuJ�3 03 • Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed amendment does not increase in the amount of C/I designated land in the subject node. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22's 70% developed standard does not apply to this amendment. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 specifically allows the Board of County Commissioners to initiate a land use designation amendment to change C/I designated land to residentially designated land, provided that the following conditions exist: • The parcel has been redesignated to C/I. Commercial/Industrial. since comprehensive plan adoption on February 13. 1990; and • The parcel is currently designated C/I; and • More than two years have passed since approval of the ordinance redesignating the parcel to C/I; and • No construction activity has commenced on the parcel since approval of the ordinance redesignating the parcel to C/I. If the proposed amendment is adopted, and if no construction activity takes place on Subject Property 1 within the referenced time frames. Policy 1.24 would apply and the Board could initiate an amendment to change Subject Property 1 back to a residential designation. Summary of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan As part of the staff analysis. all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Neither subject property contains wetlands or any other environmentally sensitive habitat. Federal, state, and county environmental protection rules regulating impacts on adjacent and nearby environmentally sensitive lands apply to both subject properties. regardless of land use designation or zoning district. For these reasons. the proposed amendment is not anticipated to adversely impact environmental quality. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. compatible with all surrounding land uses and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of public services. The proposed change increases land use efficiency and facilitates economic development. For these reasons. staff supports the request. May 22, 2001 47 • BKIIuJ�3 03 RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted. staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Subject Property 1 Summary Page 2. Subject Property 2 Summary Page 3. Land Use Designation Amendment Application 4. Rezoning Application 5. Approved Minutes of the April 5. 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 6. Transmittal Resolution The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, appearing on behalf of the applicants, advised he was present to respond to any questions. He pointed out that the "swap provision" now in the Comprehensive Plan is good because it allows the market to play a role in deciding the best configuration for the nodes. It takes the commercial off Indian River Boulevard and puts it on US 1 which is more appropriate. He felt it was a net gain for everyone. He asked for an opportunity to speak after the next speaker. Steve Henderson, appearing on behalf of the Grand Harbor developer, wanted to go on record that, while Grand Harbor is not opposed to this request, they wanted to make sure that this swap will not create any greater burden on the Grand Harbor development. Grand Harbor is permitted so many square feet of commercial use within the development and he believed that Director Keating agreed that this is a function of traffic counts and not just land use designations. There is another possibility that under the Grand Harbor Development Order there are certain thresholds which if met would trigger a requirement for additional May 22, 2001 48 Bre 118PG3O RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted. staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Subject Property 1 Summary Page 2. Subject Property 2 Summary Page 3. Land Use Designation Amendment Application 4. Rezoning Application 5. Approved Minutes of the April 5. 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 6. Transmittal Resolution The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, appearing on behalf of the applicants, advised he was present to respond to any questions. He pointed out that the "swap provision" now in the Comprehensive Plan is good because it allows the market to play a role in deciding the best configuration for the nodes. It takes the commercial off Indian River Boulevard and puts it on US 1 which is more appropriate. He felt it was a net gain for everyone. He asked for an opportunity to speak after the next speaker. Steve Henderson, appearing on behalf of the Grand Harbor developer, wanted to go on record that, while Grand Harbor is not opposed to this request, they wanted to make sure that this swap will not create any greater burden on the Grand Harbor development. Grand Harbor is permitted so many square feet of commercial use within the development and he believed that Director Keating agreed that this is a function of traffic counts and not just land use designations. There is another possibility that under the Grand Harbor Development Order there are certain thresholds which if met would trigger a requirement for additional May 22, 2001 48 Bre 118PG3O RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted. staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Subject Property 1 Summary Page 2. Subject Property 2 Summary Page 3. Land Use Designation Amendment Application 4. Rezoning Application 5. Approved Minutes of the April 5. 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 6. Transmittal Resolution The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Bruce Barkett, appearing on behalf of the applicants, advised he was present to respond to any questions. He pointed out that the "swap provision" now in the Comprehensive Plan is good because it allows the market to play a role in deciding the best configuration for the nodes. It takes the commercial off Indian River Boulevard and puts it on US 1 which is more appropriate. He felt it was a net gain for everyone. He asked for an opportunity to speak after the next speaker. Steve Henderson, appearing on behalf of the Grand Harbor developer, wanted to go on record that, while Grand Harbor is not opposed to this request, they wanted to make sure that this swap will not create any greater burden on the Grand Harbor development. Grand Harbor is permitted so many square feet of commercial use within the development and he believed that Director Keating agreed that this is a function of traffic counts and not just land use designations. There is another possibility that under the Grand Harbor Development Order there are certain thresholds which if met would trigger a requirement for additional May 22, 2001 48 Bre 118PG3O • • traffic improvements, such as signalization at 53`d and US 1. Grand Harbor would not expect to have to bear the costs of those improvements if the thresholds are triggered by the development of the Luther property. Should that be required, there should be some form of responsibility on the part of the Luther property developer and not Grand Harbor. Director Keating responded that he has had several discussions with the Grand Harbor people in the last few weeks and, as Mr. Henderson indicated, he thought this would not have any affect on the amount of commercial allowed by their development order. With respect to Grand Harbor's requirement to signalize the 53" Street/US1 intersection, that is something that staff would look at if it occurs. He concurred with Mr Henderson there should be a sharing of costs. Vice Chairman Stanbridge commented that there is another development going in to the north of the North Relief Canal that also might have a bearing on that traffic. She thought the Luther project, the Grand Harbor project, and that project probably will end up sharing that cost. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) adopted Resolution No. 2001-052 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review. May 22, 2001 49 Br 110 i05 • • traffic improvements, such as signalization at 53`d and US 1. Grand Harbor would not expect to have to bear the costs of those improvements if the thresholds are triggered by the development of the Luther property. Should that be required, there should be some form of responsibility on the part of the Luther property developer and not Grand Harbor. Director Keating responded that he has had several discussions with the Grand Harbor people in the last few weeks and, as Mr. Henderson indicated, he thought this would not have any affect on the amount of commercial allowed by their development order. With respect to Grand Harbor's requirement to signalize the 53" Street/US1 intersection, that is something that staff would look at if it occurs. He concurred with Mr Henderson there should be a sharing of costs. Vice Chairman Stanbridge commented that there is another development going in to the north of the North Relief Canal that also might have a bearing on that traffic. She thought the Luther project, the Grand Harbor project, and that project probably will end up sharing that cost. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) adopted Resolution No. 2001-052 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review. May 22, 2001 49 Br 110 i05 • • traffic improvements, such as signalization at 53`d and US 1. Grand Harbor would not expect to have to bear the costs of those improvements if the thresholds are triggered by the development of the Luther property. Should that be required, there should be some form of responsibility on the part of the Luther property developer and not Grand Harbor. Director Keating responded that he has had several discussions with the Grand Harbor people in the last few weeks and, as Mr. Henderson indicated, he thought this would not have any affect on the amount of commercial allowed by their development order. With respect to Grand Harbor's requirement to signalize the 53" Street/US1 intersection, that is something that staff would look at if it occurs. He concurred with Mr Henderson there should be a sharing of costs. Vice Chairman Stanbridge commented that there is another development going in to the north of the North Relief Canal that also might have a bearing on that traffic. She thought the Luther project, the Grand Harbor project, and that project probably will end up sharing that cost. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) adopted Resolution No. 2001-052 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review. May 22, 2001 49 Br 110 i05 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and • WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 2001 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan amendment request on April 5, 2001, after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on May 22, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and ..WHEREAS. The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs: A. Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I, May 22, 2001 50 BK I rb306 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and • WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 2001 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan amendment request on April 5, 2001, after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on May 22, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and ..WHEREAS. The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs: A. Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I, May 22, 2001 50 BK I rb306 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and • WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 2001 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan amendment request on April 5, 2001, after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 7 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on May 22, 2001, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and ..WHEREAS. The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to advertise and hold a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs: A. Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I, May 22, 2001 50 BK I rb306 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 Commercial/Industrial. for ±15.46 acres located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53rd Street in Indian River County, Florida: and Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from CII. Commercial/Industrial. to M-1. Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to S units/acre), for ±16.79 acres located ±1,550 feet south of 53' Street, on the east side of US 1 in Indian River County, Florida. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Stanbri dge and seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Caroline D Ginn Aye Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 22"d day of May 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA BY: Caroline D. Ginn. Chairman t ref ATTEST: C ."74`-� frey K. Barton, Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIEN Y 011th i,_ y County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS 1 Litty V Robert . Keating, Community D velopment Director cd\u\v\j\lu\hammond 2001\transmital res.wpb May 22, 2001 tnt+n Fin 6s T Aoarovea pate Admin. Ar XX✓27� 4 z r 4 Legal /r( rl L I It Budge) r -,it Deo,. ' %.--- ' Fi l3k Mgr. May 22, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 Commercial/Industrial. for ±15.46 acres located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53rd Street in Indian River County, Florida: and Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from CII. Commercial/Industrial. to M-1. Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to S units/acre), for ±16.79 acres located ±1,550 feet south of 53' Street, on the east side of US 1 in Indian River County, Florida. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Stanbri dge and seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Caroline D Ginn Aye Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 22"d day of May 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA BY: Caroline D. Ginn. Chairman t ref ATTEST: C ."74`-� frey K. Barton, Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIEN Y 011th i,_ y County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS 1 Litty V Robert . Keating, Community D velopment Director cd\u\v\j\lu\hammond 2001\transmital res.wpb May 22, 2001 tnt+n Fin 6s T Aoarovea pate Admin. Ar XX✓27� 4 z r 4 Legal /r( rl L I It Budge) r -,it Deo,. ' %.--- ' Fi l3k Mgr. May 22, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 2001-052 Commercial/Industrial. for ±15.46 acres located near the southeast corner of US 1 and 53rd Street in Indian River County, Florida: and Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from CII. Commercial/Industrial. to M-1. Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to S units/acre), for ±16.79 acres located ±1,550 feet south of 53' Street, on the east side of US 1 in Indian River County, Florida. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Stanbri dge and seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Caroline D Ginn Aye Vice -Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 22"d day of May 2001 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA BY: Caroline D. Ginn. Chairman t ref ATTEST: C ."74`-� frey K. Barton, Cler APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIEN Y 011th i,_ y County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS 1 Litty V Robert . Keating, Community D velopment Director cd\u\v\j\lu\hammond 2001\transmital res.wpb May 22, 2001 tnt+n Fin 6s T Aoarovea pate Admin. Ar XX✓27� 4 z r 4 Legal /r( rl L I It Budge) r -,it Deo,. ' %.--- ' Fi l3k Mgr. May 22, 2001 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REVISE THE "CULTURAL" OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator DlEP aTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE 1 is As Robert M. Keating, AICP; Community Development Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: May 11, 2001 RE' County Initiated Request to Amend The Recreation and Open Space Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 2001-01-0109 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 22, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On February 13, 1990. Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. On March 17, 1998, as part of [he Evaluation and Appraisal Process, that plan was substantially updated. The plan must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires. For that reason the county has initiated this amendment. Although the Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan currently contains an Objective and a policy related to arts and culture the Board of County Commissioners. on April 11, 2000 instructed staff to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment to create a cultural element for the comprehensive plan. Since that time, staff has worked with the Cultural Council, which is the county's designated Local Arts Agency, on several aspects of this project. The development of a new element requires several phases, including an inventory of existing conditions and facilities. For a cultural element, facilities could include auditoriums, theaters (indoor and outdoor), museums. galleries. and classrooms. Conditions could include an inventory of arts May 22, 2001 52 un1 E 308 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REVISE THE "CULTURAL" OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator DlEP aTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE 1 is As Robert M. Keating, AICP; Community Development Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: May 11, 2001 RE' County Initiated Request to Amend The Recreation and Open Space Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 2001-01-0109 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 22, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On February 13, 1990. Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. On March 17, 1998, as part of [he Evaluation and Appraisal Process, that plan was substantially updated. The plan must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires. For that reason the county has initiated this amendment. Although the Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan currently contains an Objective and a policy related to arts and culture the Board of County Commissioners. on April 11, 2000 instructed staff to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment to create a cultural element for the comprehensive plan. Since that time, staff has worked with the Cultural Council, which is the county's designated Local Arts Agency, on several aspects of this project. The development of a new element requires several phases, including an inventory of existing conditions and facilities. For a cultural element, facilities could include auditoriums, theaters (indoor and outdoor), museums. galleries. and classrooms. Conditions could include an inventory of arts May 22, 2001 52 un1 E 308 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REVISE THE "CULTURAL" OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 11, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler; County Administrator DlEP aTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE 1 is As Robert M. Keating, AICP; Community Development Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel; Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: May 11, 2001 RE' County Initiated Request to Amend The Recreation and Open Space Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 2001-01-0109 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of May 22, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On February 13, 1990. Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. On March 17, 1998, as part of [he Evaluation and Appraisal Process, that plan was substantially updated. The plan must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires. For that reason the county has initiated this amendment. Although the Recreation and Open Space Element of the plan currently contains an Objective and a policy related to arts and culture the Board of County Commissioners. on April 11, 2000 instructed staff to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment to create a cultural element for the comprehensive plan. Since that time, staff has worked with the Cultural Council, which is the county's designated Local Arts Agency, on several aspects of this project. The development of a new element requires several phases, including an inventory of existing conditions and facilities. For a cultural element, facilities could include auditoriums, theaters (indoor and outdoor), museums. galleries. and classrooms. Conditions could include an inventory of arts May 22, 2001 52 un1 E 308 • organizations, the size of their membership, and how many people use the various facilities. This phase could also include a description of the condition of the facilities. Currently. an acceptable inventory of existing conditions and facilities is not available. The Cultural Council. however has offered to help develop one for the future. Recognizing that without an inventory of existing conditions and facilities a new element could not be developed. it was determined that as an interim step prior to the development of a new element. a new goal and two new objectives involving cultural activities could be added to the Recreation and Open Space Element. Those proposed changes to the comprehensive plan were processed for the July 2000 amendment submittal window. On September 28, 2000. the Planning and Zoning Comnussion held a public hearing and voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve that amendment. On November 7. 2000. the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing at which they considered the July 2000 cultural amendments. At that meeting several concerns were raised regarding the proposed amendments. Because of those concerns. the Board instructed staff not to transmit those amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Instead. the Board instructed staff to continue to work on the proposed cultural objectives and to reprocess them as part of the January 2001 plan amendment cycle. Planning staff has continued to work with the Board. the Cultural Council. and the general public to address the concerns raised at the November 7, 2000. meeting. Through that method a new amendment was drafted and submitted during the January 2001 plan amendment application submittal window. The subject revisions delete Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1, and create new Recreation and Open Space Objective 11 and Policies 11.1 to 11 6. The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown in Attachment 2. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by t!Iiouslia. while additions are shown as double underlined. On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to 6 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment with the addition. by reference. of definitions of cultural organizations. That recommendation has been incorporated into Attachment 1 On May 17. 2001. the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSACI considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. ANALYSIS This section will present an analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed amendment, followed by a discussion of the consistency of the proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan. ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT An objective and its policies form an "objective cluster." The proposed new objective cluster establishes a framework to guide county decisions about culture and the arts May 22, 2001 53 Bn 1 i 0 ,09 • • organizations, the size of their membership, and how many people use the various facilities. This phase could also include a description of the condition of the facilities. Currently. an acceptable inventory of existing conditions and facilities is not available. The Cultural Council. however has offered to help develop one for the future. Recognizing that without an inventory of existing conditions and facilities a new element could not be developed. it was determined that as an interim step prior to the development of a new element. a new goal and two new objectives involving cultural activities could be added to the Recreation and Open Space Element. Those proposed changes to the comprehensive plan were processed for the July 2000 amendment submittal window. On September 28, 2000. the Planning and Zoning Comnussion held a public hearing and voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve that amendment. On November 7. 2000. the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing at which they considered the July 2000 cultural amendments. At that meeting several concerns were raised regarding the proposed amendments. Because of those concerns. the Board instructed staff not to transmit those amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Instead. the Board instructed staff to continue to work on the proposed cultural objectives and to reprocess them as part of the January 2001 plan amendment cycle. Planning staff has continued to work with the Board. the Cultural Council. and the general public to address the concerns raised at the November 7, 2000. meeting. Through that method a new amendment was drafted and submitted during the January 2001 plan amendment application submittal window. The subject revisions delete Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1, and create new Recreation and Open Space Objective 11 and Policies 11.1 to 11 6. The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown in Attachment 2. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by t!Iiouslia. while additions are shown as double underlined. On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to 6 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment with the addition. by reference. of definitions of cultural organizations. That recommendation has been incorporated into Attachment 1 On May 17. 2001. the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSACI considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. ANALYSIS This section will present an analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed amendment, followed by a discussion of the consistency of the proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan. ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT An objective and its policies form an "objective cluster." The proposed new objective cluster establishes a framework to guide county decisions about culture and the arts May 22, 2001 53 Bn 1 i 0 ,09 • • organizations, the size of their membership, and how many people use the various facilities. This phase could also include a description of the condition of the facilities. Currently. an acceptable inventory of existing conditions and facilities is not available. The Cultural Council. however has offered to help develop one for the future. Recognizing that without an inventory of existing conditions and facilities a new element could not be developed. it was determined that as an interim step prior to the development of a new element. a new goal and two new objectives involving cultural activities could be added to the Recreation and Open Space Element. Those proposed changes to the comprehensive plan were processed for the July 2000 amendment submittal window. On September 28, 2000. the Planning and Zoning Comnussion held a public hearing and voted to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve that amendment. On November 7. 2000. the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing at which they considered the July 2000 cultural amendments. At that meeting several concerns were raised regarding the proposed amendments. Because of those concerns. the Board instructed staff not to transmit those amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Instead. the Board instructed staff to continue to work on the proposed cultural objectives and to reprocess them as part of the January 2001 plan amendment cycle. Planning staff has continued to work with the Board. the Cultural Council. and the general public to address the concerns raised at the November 7, 2000. meeting. Through that method a new amendment was drafted and submitted during the January 2001 plan amendment application submittal window. The subject revisions delete Recreation and Open Space Element Objective 11 and Policy 11.1, and create new Recreation and Open Space Objective 11 and Policies 11.1 to 11 6. The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown in Attachment 2. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by t!Iiouslia. while additions are shown as double underlined. On April 5. 2001. the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to 6 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed amendment with the addition. by reference. of definitions of cultural organizations. That recommendation has been incorporated into Attachment 1 On May 17. 2001. the Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSACI considered the proposed amendment. Planning staff will report the PSAC recommendation to the Board at the Board's May 22, 2001 meeting. ANALYSIS This section will present an analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed amendment, followed by a discussion of the consistency of the proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan. ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT An objective and its policies form an "objective cluster." The proposed new objective cluster establishes a framework to guide county decisions about culture and the arts May 22, 2001 53 Bn 1 i 0 ,09 • The proposed new objective is measurable and achievable. Directly related to achieving the objective. the proposed new policies are actions that the county can take to support arts and culture in the county It is important to note that the proposed policies do not support any particular organization. In fact, they are specifically worded to refer to all county cultural organizations. Finally, no changes to any existing policies or procedures are required to implement the proposed policies. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is reasonable. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff reviews each comprehensive plan amendment request for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. As per Section 800.07(1) of the county code, the 'comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S." 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 related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 however. is applicable to all plan amendment requests. For that reason. this section will begin with a discussion of how the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating any comprehensive plan text amendment request. the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment. These criteria are: • the proposed amendment corrects a mistake in the approved plan; • the proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the approved plan: or • the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances. In this instance. the subject amendment meets Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3's third criterion. the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances. That change in circumstances is the Board's initiative recognizing community desires and the benefits of arts and culture to the county's economy and quality of life. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 Economic Development Element Objectives 1 and 6, and Policy 6.1. The proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Objective 1 concerning lowering the county's unemployment rate and Economic Development Element Objective 6 concerning tourism development Several studies indicate that art and cultural programs have a large positive impact on local economies. Additionally, an active arts and cultural community is often cited as an amenity used to attract new businesses and industries. Economic Development Element Policy 6.1 specifically notes that cultural offerings attract tourism. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Objectives 1 and 6; and Economic Development Element Policy 6.1. May 22, 2001 54 The proposed new objective is measurable and achievable. Directly related to achieving the objective. the proposed new policies are actions that the county can take to support arts and culture in the county It is important to note that the proposed policies do not support any particular organization. In fact, they are specifically worded to refer to all county cultural organizations. Finally, no changes to any existing policies or procedures are required to implement the proposed policies. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is reasonable. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff reviews each comprehensive plan amendment request for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. As per Section 800.07(1) of the county code, the 'comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S." 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 related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 however. is applicable to all plan amendment requests. For that reason. this section will begin with a discussion of how the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating any comprehensive plan text amendment request. the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment. These criteria are: • the proposed amendment corrects a mistake in the approved plan; • the proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the approved plan: or • the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances. In this instance. the subject amendment meets Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3's third criterion. the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances. That change in circumstances is the Board's initiative recognizing community desires and the benefits of arts and culture to the county's economy and quality of life. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 Economic Development Element Objectives 1 and 6, and Policy 6.1. The proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Objective 1 concerning lowering the county's unemployment rate and Economic Development Element Objective 6 concerning tourism development Several studies indicate that art and cultural programs have a large positive impact on local economies. Additionally, an active arts and cultural community is often cited as an amenity used to attract new businesses and industries. Economic Development Element Policy 6.1 specifically notes that cultural offerings attract tourism. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Objectives 1 and 6; and Economic Development Element Policy 6.1. May 22, 2001 54 The proposed new objective is measurable and achievable. Directly related to achieving the objective. the proposed new policies are actions that the county can take to support arts and culture in the county It is important to note that the proposed policies do not support any particular organization. In fact, they are specifically worded to refer to all county cultural organizations. Finally, no changes to any existing policies or procedures are required to implement the proposed policies. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is reasonable. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Staff reviews each comprehensive plan amendment request for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. As per Section 800.07(1) of the county code, the 'comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S." 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 related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 however. is applicable to all plan amendment requests. For that reason. this section will begin with a discussion of how the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 In evaluating any comprehensive plan text amendment request. the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan text amendment. These criteria are: • the proposed amendment corrects a mistake in the approved plan; • the proposed amendment corrects an oversight in the approved plan: or • the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances. In this instance. the subject amendment meets Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3's third criterion. the proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances. That change in circumstances is the Board's initiative recognizing community desires and the benefits of arts and culture to the county's economy and quality of life. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3 Economic Development Element Objectives 1 and 6, and Policy 6.1. The proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Objective 1 concerning lowering the county's unemployment rate and Economic Development Element Objective 6 concerning tourism development Several studies indicate that art and cultural programs have a large positive impact on local economies. Additionally, an active arts and cultural community is often cited as an amenity used to attract new businesses and industries. Economic Development Element Policy 6.1 specifically notes that cultural offerings attract tourism. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Objectives 1 and 6; and Economic Development Element Policy 6.1. May 22, 2001 54 Consistency Summary As part of its consistency analysis. staff compared the proposed amendment to all applicable objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore. the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. CONCLUSION The proposed objective cluster establishes a framework to guide county decisions about culture and the arts. Containing methods for specifically defining and measuring cultural activities. the proposed objective is both measurable and achievable Structured to positively impact all county arts and cultural organizations. the proposed policies are county actions that are consistent with current policies and procedures. Based on the analysis. the proposed revisions are reasonable and consistent with the comprehensive plan. For those reasons, staff supports the request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Couunission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application 2. Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan 3. Approved Minutes of the April 5. 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Transmittal Resolution The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this hatter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) continued the public hearing on this matter to June 5, 2001. It was determined that the notice as published in the Press Journal would cover the new hearing date. May 22, 2001 Consistency Summary As part of its consistency analysis. staff compared the proposed amendment to all applicable objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore. the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. CONCLUSION The proposed objective cluster establishes a framework to guide county decisions about culture and the arts. Containing methods for specifically defining and measuring cultural activities. the proposed objective is both measurable and achievable Structured to positively impact all county arts and cultural organizations. the proposed policies are county actions that are consistent with current policies and procedures. Based on the analysis. the proposed revisions are reasonable and consistent with the comprehensive plan. For those reasons, staff supports the request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Couunission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application 2. Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan 3. Approved Minutes of the April 5. 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Transmittal Resolution The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this hatter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) continued the public hearing on this matter to June 5, 2001. It was determined that the notice as published in the Press Journal would cover the new hearing date. May 22, 2001 Consistency Summary As part of its consistency analysis. staff compared the proposed amendment to all applicable objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore. the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. CONCLUSION The proposed objective cluster establishes a framework to guide county decisions about culture and the arts. Containing methods for specifically defining and measuring cultural activities. the proposed objective is both measurable and achievable Structured to positively impact all county arts and cultural organizations. the proposed policies are county actions that are consistent with current policies and procedures. Based on the analysis. the proposed revisions are reasonable and consistent with the comprehensive plan. For those reasons, staff supports the request. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Couunission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the transmittal of this request to DCA for its review by approving the attached Transmittal Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Application 2. Proposed Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan 3. Approved Minutes of the April 5. 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Transmittal Resolution The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this hatter. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) continued the public hearing on this matter to June 5, 2001. It was determined that the notice as published in the Press Journal would cover the new hearing date. May 22, 2001 9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 - AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW EXISTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK UP TO ELECTRICAL POWER FOR REFRIGERATION (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV HEAD CONCURRENCE: 1 Robert M. Ketfng, AICP Community Development D ector FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director, Current Development DATE: May 16. 2001 SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK-UP TO ELECTRICAL POWER FOR REFRIGERATION It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of May 22. 2001. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of April 3, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners considered a request from Tim Timinsky for an exception to rules that regulate his vegetable stand located at the corner of Indian River Drive and U. S. 1. The regulation Mr. Timinsky wants to be excepted from is a prohibition on electrical hook-ups for transient merchant "temporary" fruit and vegetable stands. After discussion, the Board directed staff to process an amendment to the land development regulations (LDRs) that would allow transient merchants to hook-up their vegetable stands to provide for refrigeration of fruits and vegetables (see attachment #1). Staff has drafted and processed such an amendment proposal (see attachment #2). Professional Services Advisory Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission Actions: The proposed amendment was considered by the PSAC (Professional Services Advisory Committee) at its April 19. 2001 meeting At that meeting. a motion to deny (turn down) the May 22, 2001 56 131 1 18 PI i 2 9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 - AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW EXISTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK UP TO ELECTRICAL POWER FOR REFRIGERATION (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV HEAD CONCURRENCE: 1 Robert M. Ketfng, AICP Community Development D ector FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director, Current Development DATE: May 16. 2001 SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK-UP TO ELECTRICAL POWER FOR REFRIGERATION It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of May 22. 2001. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of April 3, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners considered a request from Tim Timinsky for an exception to rules that regulate his vegetable stand located at the corner of Indian River Drive and U. S. 1. The regulation Mr. Timinsky wants to be excepted from is a prohibition on electrical hook-ups for transient merchant "temporary" fruit and vegetable stands. After discussion, the Board directed staff to process an amendment to the land development regulations (LDRs) that would allow transient merchants to hook-up their vegetable stands to provide for refrigeration of fruits and vegetables (see attachment #1). Staff has drafted and processed such an amendment proposal (see attachment #2). Professional Services Advisory Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission Actions: The proposed amendment was considered by the PSAC (Professional Services Advisory Committee) at its April 19. 2001 meeting At that meeting. a motion to deny (turn down) the May 22, 2001 56 131 1 18 PI i 2 9.A.5. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 - AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW EXISTING FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK UP TO ELECTRICAL POWER FOR REFRIGERATION (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV HEAD CONCURRENCE: 1 Robert M. Ketfng, AICP Community Development D ector FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director, Current Development DATE: May 16. 2001 SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE LDR'S TO ALLOW FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STAND TRANSIENT MERCHANTS TO HOOK-UP TO ELECTRICAL POWER FOR REFRIGERATION It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of May 22. 2001. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting of April 3, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners considered a request from Tim Timinsky for an exception to rules that regulate his vegetable stand located at the corner of Indian River Drive and U. S. 1. The regulation Mr. Timinsky wants to be excepted from is a prohibition on electrical hook-ups for transient merchant "temporary" fruit and vegetable stands. After discussion, the Board directed staff to process an amendment to the land development regulations (LDRs) that would allow transient merchants to hook-up their vegetable stands to provide for refrigeration of fruits and vegetables (see attachment #1). Staff has drafted and processed such an amendment proposal (see attachment #2). Professional Services Advisory Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission Actions: The proposed amendment was considered by the PSAC (Professional Services Advisory Committee) at its April 19. 2001 meeting At that meeting. a motion to deny (turn down) the May 22, 2001 56 131 1 18 PI i 2 A proposal died for lack of a second. However. a motion to approve the proposal failed 2-5 (see attachment #3). Thus. the PSAC did not support the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC) considered the proposed amendment at its May 10, 2001 meeting and voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board approve the proposed amendment (see attachment #4). •Existing Regulations May 22, 2001 County Land Development Regulations section 972.04(4) pertains to transient merchant temporary use operations for sales of certain products traditionally sold at roadside stands. This code section classifies transient merchants as follows: Class "A" Class "B" - fruit and vegetable sales - seasonal sales such as Christmas tree and fireworks sales and other similar uses. in operation no more than 45 days during any calendar year on any given site: and Class "C" - satellite seafood sales (accessory to permanent retail seafood sales stores located in Indian River County ). Moreover. subsection 972.08(4)(b) specifically exempts certain uses from transient merchant regulations. those uses being: 1. curbside mobile ice cream sales involving frequent. intermittent stops; 2. merchandise deliveries. and 3. mobile prepared food services catering to employees at employment sites or patrons at permitted or otherwise legal special events. In commercial zoning districts merchants are allowed to sell products from permanent facilities upon site plan approval. building permit issuance, and a satisfactory certificate of occupancy inspection. Also within commercial districts. transient merchants are allowed to sell certain types of products from temporary facilities as previously described for Class "A", "B ' and "C" transient merchants, via a much simpler temporary use permit process. Class "A" transient merchant fruit and vegetable sales are allowed in agricultural zoning distracts as well. Therefore there are numerous areas where fruit and vegetables stands are allowed via the temporary use permit process. Prior to 1987, county regulations pertaining to roadside vendors were broad and general. In 1987, the regulations were evaluated and strengthened to provide stricter control of transient merchants. These revised regulations were adopted based upon extensive staff research and analysis as well as workshops and public hearings In 1992, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to, under certain conditions, allow the sale of seafood from special state -licensed vehicles having refrigeration and running water. These types of vehicles are not hooked -up to utilities. Satellite seafood sales (Class "C" transient merchants) are tied to permanent. local seafood shops and involve sales of a traditional county product: seafood. Ironically, after adoption of the Class "C" allowance. no person has ever used such a permit in the 9 years it has been "on the books". 57 BK i1 3 PG 3 i 3 • 3'3 A proposal died for lack of a second. However. a motion to approve the proposal failed 2-5 (see attachment #3). Thus. the PSAC did not support the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC) considered the proposed amendment at its May 10, 2001 meeting and voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board approve the proposed amendment (see attachment #4). •Existing Regulations May 22, 2001 County Land Development Regulations section 972.04(4) pertains to transient merchant temporary use operations for sales of certain products traditionally sold at roadside stands. This code section classifies transient merchants as follows: Class "A" Class "B" - fruit and vegetable sales - seasonal sales such as Christmas tree and fireworks sales and other similar uses. in operation no more than 45 days during any calendar year on any given site: and Class "C" - satellite seafood sales (accessory to permanent retail seafood sales stores located in Indian River County ). Moreover. subsection 972.08(4)(b) specifically exempts certain uses from transient merchant regulations. those uses being: 1. curbside mobile ice cream sales involving frequent. intermittent stops; 2. merchandise deliveries. and 3. mobile prepared food services catering to employees at employment sites or patrons at permitted or otherwise legal special events. In commercial zoning districts merchants are allowed to sell products from permanent facilities upon site plan approval. building permit issuance, and a satisfactory certificate of occupancy inspection. Also within commercial districts. transient merchants are allowed to sell certain types of products from temporary facilities as previously described for Class "A", "B ' and "C" transient merchants, via a much simpler temporary use permit process. Class "A" transient merchant fruit and vegetable sales are allowed in agricultural zoning distracts as well. Therefore there are numerous areas where fruit and vegetables stands are allowed via the temporary use permit process. Prior to 1987, county regulations pertaining to roadside vendors were broad and general. In 1987, the regulations were evaluated and strengthened to provide stricter control of transient merchants. These revised regulations were adopted based upon extensive staff research and analysis as well as workshops and public hearings In 1992, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to, under certain conditions, allow the sale of seafood from special state -licensed vehicles having refrigeration and running water. These types of vehicles are not hooked -up to utilities. Satellite seafood sales (Class "C" transient merchants) are tied to permanent. local seafood shops and involve sales of a traditional county product: seafood. Ironically, after adoption of the Class "C" allowance. no person has ever used such a permit in the 9 years it has been "on the books". 57 BK i1 3 PG 3 i 3 • 3'3 A proposal died for lack of a second. However. a motion to approve the proposal failed 2-5 (see attachment #3). Thus. the PSAC did not support the proposal. The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC) considered the proposed amendment at its May 10, 2001 meeting and voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board approve the proposed amendment (see attachment #4). •Existing Regulations May 22, 2001 County Land Development Regulations section 972.04(4) pertains to transient merchant temporary use operations for sales of certain products traditionally sold at roadside stands. This code section classifies transient merchants as follows: Class "A" Class "B" - fruit and vegetable sales - seasonal sales such as Christmas tree and fireworks sales and other similar uses. in operation no more than 45 days during any calendar year on any given site: and Class "C" - satellite seafood sales (accessory to permanent retail seafood sales stores located in Indian River County ). Moreover. subsection 972.08(4)(b) specifically exempts certain uses from transient merchant regulations. those uses being: 1. curbside mobile ice cream sales involving frequent. intermittent stops; 2. merchandise deliveries. and 3. mobile prepared food services catering to employees at employment sites or patrons at permitted or otherwise legal special events. In commercial zoning districts merchants are allowed to sell products from permanent facilities upon site plan approval. building permit issuance, and a satisfactory certificate of occupancy inspection. Also within commercial districts. transient merchants are allowed to sell certain types of products from temporary facilities as previously described for Class "A", "B ' and "C" transient merchants, via a much simpler temporary use permit process. Class "A" transient merchant fruit and vegetable sales are allowed in agricultural zoning distracts as well. Therefore there are numerous areas where fruit and vegetables stands are allowed via the temporary use permit process. Prior to 1987, county regulations pertaining to roadside vendors were broad and general. In 1987, the regulations were evaluated and strengthened to provide stricter control of transient merchants. These revised regulations were adopted based upon extensive staff research and analysis as well as workshops and public hearings In 1992, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to, under certain conditions, allow the sale of seafood from special state -licensed vehicles having refrigeration and running water. These types of vehicles are not hooked -up to utilities. Satellite seafood sales (Class "C" transient merchants) are tied to permanent. local seafood shops and involve sales of a traditional county product: seafood. Ironically, after adoption of the Class "C" allowance. no person has ever used such a permit in the 9 years it has been "on the books". 57 BK i1 3 PG 3 i 3 • 3'3 Fruit and vegetable stands (Class "A" transient merchants) are different. They remain penuittable largely because of their traditional nature and tie to the historic agricultural focus of the county. Sales of seasonal items such as Christmas trees and fireworks (Class "B" merchants) also have a long tradition of being allowed within the county and are limited to 45 days per year on any given site. In 1994, a citizen requested that the Board allow flowers. as well as fruits and vegetables, to be sold at transient merchant roadside stands. The Board voted unanimously to deny that request without any further consideration. •Existing Transient Merchant "Temporary" Fruit and Vegetable Stands Currently, there are 8 active transient merchant "temporary" fruit and vegetable stands in the unincorporated county. These are as follows: 1. Ttminsky: Indian River Drive and U.S. 1 2. Jong's: 99`h Street and U.S. 1 3. Kenneth Lewis: C.R. 512 and C.R. 510 4. Bobbi's: U.S. 1 and 45`h Street 5. Clara Lewis: S.R. 60 and 86`h Drive 6. Cracker Trail/Colson: U.S. 1 north of 8`h Street 7. Kahn: 27th Ave. S.W. and South Relief Canal 8. (Occasionally used) : 43rd Ave S.W.. north of 15` Street S.W. Each of these stands has been regulated as a transient merchant use from either its beginning or since 1987. None of these stands are currently allowed electrical hook-ups, although from time to time violations of the prohibition have required code enforcement action. ANALYSIS Transient merchant sites are held to a lower standard than permanent, site -planned stores from the standpoint of nuisances, hazards, traffic circulation and safety, drainage. and aesthetics. Moreover. transient merchants have substantial economic advantages over businesses required to locate in permanent structures at fixed locations on sites which have site plan approval for retail sales. As such. transient merchants. if loosely controlled, could proliferate. with resulting negative impacts. To offset the lower standard of development applied to transient merchants, restrictions have been applied to transient merchant operations that limit locational concentration (1,500 ft minimum separation distance between transient merchant operations), intensity (trailer size restrictions), and permanency of improvements (no utilities or electrical hook-ups). These restrictions have been applied for over a decade and are not new. •Timinsky Request It is staff's position now, as it was dunng the 1992 discussions about satellite seafood sales, the 1994 discussions about roadside flower sales, and the recent April 3' discussions, that easing transient merchant use restncnons (such as requested by Mr. Timinsky) would lead to expansion of such uses without corresponding improvements to bring such sites into compliance with county development standards The justification for allowing refrigeration at fruit and vegetable stands is a product -safety related concern that applies to all stands. May 22, 2001 58 Bl 1 31 Y' Fruit and vegetable stands (Class "A" transient merchants) are different. They remain penuittable largely because of their traditional nature and tie to the historic agricultural focus of the county. Sales of seasonal items such as Christmas trees and fireworks (Class "B" merchants) also have a long tradition of being allowed within the county and are limited to 45 days per year on any given site. In 1994, a citizen requested that the Board allow flowers. as well as fruits and vegetables, to be sold at transient merchant roadside stands. The Board voted unanimously to deny that request without any further consideration. •Existing Transient Merchant "Temporary" Fruit and Vegetable Stands Currently, there are 8 active transient merchant "temporary" fruit and vegetable stands in the unincorporated county. These are as follows: 1. Ttminsky: Indian River Drive and U.S. 1 2. Jong's: 99`h Street and U.S. 1 3. Kenneth Lewis: C.R. 512 and C.R. 510 4. Bobbi's: U.S. 1 and 45`h Street 5. Clara Lewis: S.R. 60 and 86`h Drive 6. Cracker Trail/Colson: U.S. 1 north of 8`h Street 7. Kahn: 27th Ave. S.W. and South Relief Canal 8. (Occasionally used) : 43rd Ave S.W.. north of 15` Street S.W. Each of these stands has been regulated as a transient merchant use from either its beginning or since 1987. None of these stands are currently allowed electrical hook-ups, although from time to time violations of the prohibition have required code enforcement action. ANALYSIS Transient merchant sites are held to a lower standard than permanent, site -planned stores from the standpoint of nuisances, hazards, traffic circulation and safety, drainage. and aesthetics. Moreover. transient merchants have substantial economic advantages over businesses required to locate in permanent structures at fixed locations on sites which have site plan approval for retail sales. As such. transient merchants. if loosely controlled, could proliferate. with resulting negative impacts. To offset the lower standard of development applied to transient merchants, restrictions have been applied to transient merchant operations that limit locational concentration (1,500 ft minimum separation distance between transient merchant operations), intensity (trailer size restrictions), and permanency of improvements (no utilities or electrical hook-ups). These restrictions have been applied for over a decade and are not new. •Timinsky Request It is staff's position now, as it was dunng the 1992 discussions about satellite seafood sales, the 1994 discussions about roadside flower sales, and the recent April 3' discussions, that easing transient merchant use restncnons (such as requested by Mr. Timinsky) would lead to expansion of such uses without corresponding improvements to bring such sites into compliance with county development standards The justification for allowing refrigeration at fruit and vegetable stands is a product -safety related concern that applies to all stands. May 22, 2001 58 Bl 1 31 Y' Fruit and vegetable stands (Class "A" transient merchants) are different. They remain penuittable largely because of their traditional nature and tie to the historic agricultural focus of the county. Sales of seasonal items such as Christmas trees and fireworks (Class "B" merchants) also have a long tradition of being allowed within the county and are limited to 45 days per year on any given site. In 1994, a citizen requested that the Board allow flowers. as well as fruits and vegetables, to be sold at transient merchant roadside stands. The Board voted unanimously to deny that request without any further consideration. •Existing Transient Merchant "Temporary" Fruit and Vegetable Stands Currently, there are 8 active transient merchant "temporary" fruit and vegetable stands in the unincorporated county. These are as follows: 1. Ttminsky: Indian River Drive and U.S. 1 2. Jong's: 99`h Street and U.S. 1 3. Kenneth Lewis: C.R. 512 and C.R. 510 4. Bobbi's: U.S. 1 and 45`h Street 5. Clara Lewis: S.R. 60 and 86`h Drive 6. Cracker Trail/Colson: U.S. 1 north of 8`h Street 7. Kahn: 27th Ave. S.W. and South Relief Canal 8. (Occasionally used) : 43rd Ave S.W.. north of 15` Street S.W. Each of these stands has been regulated as a transient merchant use from either its beginning or since 1987. None of these stands are currently allowed electrical hook-ups, although from time to time violations of the prohibition have required code enforcement action. ANALYSIS Transient merchant sites are held to a lower standard than permanent, site -planned stores from the standpoint of nuisances, hazards, traffic circulation and safety, drainage. and aesthetics. Moreover. transient merchants have substantial economic advantages over businesses required to locate in permanent structures at fixed locations on sites which have site plan approval for retail sales. As such. transient merchants. if loosely controlled, could proliferate. with resulting negative impacts. To offset the lower standard of development applied to transient merchants, restrictions have been applied to transient merchant operations that limit locational concentration (1,500 ft minimum separation distance between transient merchant operations), intensity (trailer size restrictions), and permanency of improvements (no utilities or electrical hook-ups). These restrictions have been applied for over a decade and are not new. •Timinsky Request It is staff's position now, as it was dunng the 1992 discussions about satellite seafood sales, the 1994 discussions about roadside flower sales, and the recent April 3' discussions, that easing transient merchant use restncnons (such as requested by Mr. Timinsky) would lead to expansion of such uses without corresponding improvements to bring such sites into compliance with county development standards The justification for allowing refrigeration at fruit and vegetable stands is a product -safety related concern that applies to all stands. May 22, 2001 58 Bl 1 31 Y' • However. if electrical hook-ups are allowed for transient merchants, it is staffs opinion that it will be difficult to limit electrical power to refrigeration use only. Staff notes that Mr. Timinsky's request to the Board was for electrical power for refngeration and "....radio. vacuum cleaner, and so forth". Thus, Mr. Timinsky wants electrical power for more than refrigeration use only. Staff also notes that fruit and vegetable stands have functioned for many years without refrigeration. If refrigeration and other standard retail site amenities are needed. then sites should be properly site planned and improved in the same manner as "permanent" retail development. This alternative was discussed by the PSAC at its April 19th meeting and seemed to some members to be a reasonable alternative to the proposed LDR amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposed amendment. ATTACHMENTS ( I ) Minutes from the April 3, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting (2) Proposed Amendment Ordinance (3) Draft Minutes from the April 19, 2001 Professional Services Advisory Committee Meeting (4) Draft Minutes from the May 10. 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood staff did not recommend this amendment because of a possible proliferation of fruit and vegetable stands throughout the county, and Director Boling remarked that it could be an inducement to others to go into that business. Vice Chairman Stanbridge and Commissioner Adams favored limiting this to those businesses in existence today or those continuously in the business for the past 3 or 5 years. Director Boling recounted that one stand has been in business since 1987 and others have been there a long time; most have existing electrical hookups on the property or nearby. He added that most of the properties are in commercial districts and electric could easily be brought to their stand. Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood staff still had concerns, and Director Boling agreed. They do not recommend the adoption of the amending ordinance. May 22, 2001 59 BIC Horb3I5 • • However. if electrical hook-ups are allowed for transient merchants, it is staffs opinion that it will be difficult to limit electrical power to refrigeration use only. Staff notes that Mr. Timinsky's request to the Board was for electrical power for refngeration and "....radio. vacuum cleaner, and so forth". Thus, Mr. Timinsky wants electrical power for more than refrigeration use only. Staff also notes that fruit and vegetable stands have functioned for many years without refrigeration. If refrigeration and other standard retail site amenities are needed. then sites should be properly site planned and improved in the same manner as "permanent" retail development. This alternative was discussed by the PSAC at its April 19th meeting and seemed to some members to be a reasonable alternative to the proposed LDR amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposed amendment. ATTACHMENTS ( I ) Minutes from the April 3, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting (2) Proposed Amendment Ordinance (3) Draft Minutes from the April 19, 2001 Professional Services Advisory Committee Meeting (4) Draft Minutes from the May 10. 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood staff did not recommend this amendment because of a possible proliferation of fruit and vegetable stands throughout the county, and Director Boling remarked that it could be an inducement to others to go into that business. Vice Chairman Stanbridge and Commissioner Adams favored limiting this to those businesses in existence today or those continuously in the business for the past 3 or 5 years. Director Boling recounted that one stand has been in business since 1987 and others have been there a long time; most have existing electrical hookups on the property or nearby. He added that most of the properties are in commercial districts and electric could easily be brought to their stand. Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood staff still had concerns, and Director Boling agreed. They do not recommend the adoption of the amending ordinance. May 22, 2001 59 BIC Horb3I5 • • However. if electrical hook-ups are allowed for transient merchants, it is staffs opinion that it will be difficult to limit electrical power to refrigeration use only. Staff notes that Mr. Timinsky's request to the Board was for electrical power for refngeration and "....radio. vacuum cleaner, and so forth". Thus, Mr. Timinsky wants electrical power for more than refrigeration use only. Staff also notes that fruit and vegetable stands have functioned for many years without refrigeration. If refrigeration and other standard retail site amenities are needed. then sites should be properly site planned and improved in the same manner as "permanent" retail development. This alternative was discussed by the PSAC at its April 19th meeting and seemed to some members to be a reasonable alternative to the proposed LDR amendment. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the proposed amendment. ATTACHMENTS ( I ) Minutes from the April 3, 2001 Board of County Commissioners meeting (2) Proposed Amendment Ordinance (3) Draft Minutes from the April 19, 2001 Professional Services Advisory Committee Meeting (4) Draft Minutes from the May 10. 2001 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood staff did not recommend this amendment because of a possible proliferation of fruit and vegetable stands throughout the county, and Director Boling remarked that it could be an inducement to others to go into that business. Vice Chairman Stanbridge and Commissioner Adams favored limiting this to those businesses in existence today or those continuously in the business for the past 3 or 5 years. Director Boling recounted that one stand has been in business since 1987 and others have been there a long time; most have existing electrical hookups on the property or nearby. He added that most of the properties are in commercial districts and electric could easily be brought to their stand. Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood staff still had concerns, and Director Boling agreed. They do not recommend the adoption of the amending ordinance. May 22, 2001 59 BIC Horb3I5 • The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Guy Barber, 1678 Highlands Avenue, spoke about the definition of"transient" which in his opinion did not fit these businesses. He felt it would be unfair competition with other business that have to comply with regulations. While he thought it should not be done, it would be better to add the grandfather provision to insure against new stands Brian Heady agreed with Mr Barber's remarks and urged the Board not to adopt the ordinance. Bobbie Burdick, part owner of Bobbie's at 45th and US#1. thought the existing stands should be grandfathered. She gave a history of their stand; the electric service has been there since 1977. Previously they had an arrangement for using coolers at Consuelo's, but that business is no longer there. She pointed out that without electricity there is no way to clean the shelves or the garbage cans because their water is from a well and the pump requires electricity. She also advised that "food stamps" are no longer stamps, but a debit card and electricity is required to process them. She asked the Board to consider grandfathering their stand. Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Lane, wondered about liability and payment of taxes by these stands. County Attorney Bangel saw no problem as to the County's liability or the taxes. Commissioner Adams understood the stands had to carry their own liability insurance and pointed out there is only sales tax is only collected on taxable items. Vice Chairman Stanbridge was assured that each stand had an occupational license, It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. May 22, 2001 60 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Guy Barber, 1678 Highlands Avenue, spoke about the definition of"transient" which in his opinion did not fit these businesses. He felt it would be unfair competition with other business that have to comply with regulations. While he thought it should not be done, it would be better to add the grandfather provision to insure against new stands Brian Heady agreed with Mr Barber's remarks and urged the Board not to adopt the ordinance. Bobbie Burdick, part owner of Bobbie's at 45th and US#1. thought the existing stands should be grandfathered. She gave a history of their stand; the electric service has been there since 1977. Previously they had an arrangement for using coolers at Consuelo's, but that business is no longer there. She pointed out that without electricity there is no way to clean the shelves or the garbage cans because their water is from a well and the pump requires electricity. She also advised that "food stamps" are no longer stamps, but a debit card and electricity is required to process them. She asked the Board to consider grandfathering their stand. Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Lane, wondered about liability and payment of taxes by these stands. County Attorney Bangel saw no problem as to the County's liability or the taxes. Commissioner Adams understood the stands had to carry their own liability insurance and pointed out there is only sales tax is only collected on taxable items. Vice Chairman Stanbridge was assured that each stand had an occupational license, It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. May 22, 2001 60 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Guy Barber, 1678 Highlands Avenue, spoke about the definition of"transient" which in his opinion did not fit these businesses. He felt it would be unfair competition with other business that have to comply with regulations. While he thought it should not be done, it would be better to add the grandfather provision to insure against new stands Brian Heady agreed with Mr Barber's remarks and urged the Board not to adopt the ordinance. Bobbie Burdick, part owner of Bobbie's at 45th and US#1. thought the existing stands should be grandfathered. She gave a history of their stand; the electric service has been there since 1977. Previously they had an arrangement for using coolers at Consuelo's, but that business is no longer there. She pointed out that without electricity there is no way to clean the shelves or the garbage cans because their water is from a well and the pump requires electricity. She also advised that "food stamps" are no longer stamps, but a debit card and electricity is required to process them. She asked the Board to consider grandfathering their stand. Jim Granse, 36 Pine Arbor Lane, wondered about liability and payment of taxes by these stands. County Attorney Bangel saw no problem as to the County's liability or the taxes. Commissioner Adams understood the stands had to carry their own liability insurance and pointed out there is only sales tax is only collected on taxable items. Vice Chairman Stanbridge was assured that each stand had an occupational license, It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. May 22, 2001 60 • MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve refrigeration for the existing fruit and vegetable stands. (Adopt the ordinance as per language below.*) Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood that the eight existing fruit and vegetable stands will be grandfathered. Director Boling understood the allowance would be only for the eight (8) existing transient merchant operations and some additional language might be required in the ordinance. He was advised that was correct. Deputy County Attorney Will Collins stated that it is not a situation of continuing a non -conforming use because they are not allowed electric at this point, so that is the change. The change is only proposed for those existing eight fruit/vegetable stands All that is necessary is to add to the language*: (4)(d)(2) Class A. transient merchants as defined herein may obtain electrical power for fruit and vegetablerefrigerationonly, subject to obtaining applicable building permits on the eight existing stands as of May 22, 2001. Commissioner Adams agreed that was her motion, and Vice Chairman Stanbridge concurred. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) (Adopted Ordinance No. 2001-013 regarding electrical hook-ups for fruit and vegetable stands, as stated above, amending Chapter 972 of the Land Development Regulations, Temporary Uses; and providing for repeal of conflicting provisions, codification, severability, and effective date.) May 22, 2001 61 Q v 3 • n Uil I i C) i t7 J l 7 • • MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve refrigeration for the existing fruit and vegetable stands. (Adopt the ordinance as per language below.*) Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood that the eight existing fruit and vegetable stands will be grandfathered. Director Boling understood the allowance would be only for the eight (8) existing transient merchant operations and some additional language might be required in the ordinance. He was advised that was correct. Deputy County Attorney Will Collins stated that it is not a situation of continuing a non -conforming use because they are not allowed electric at this point, so that is the change. The change is only proposed for those existing eight fruit/vegetable stands All that is necessary is to add to the language*: (4)(d)(2) Class A. transient merchants as defined herein may obtain electrical power for fruit and vegetablerefrigerationonly, subject to obtaining applicable building permits on the eight existing stands as of May 22, 2001. Commissioner Adams agreed that was her motion, and Vice Chairman Stanbridge concurred. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) (Adopted Ordinance No. 2001-013 regarding electrical hook-ups for fruit and vegetable stands, as stated above, amending Chapter 972 of the Land Development Regulations, Temporary Uses; and providing for repeal of conflicting provisions, codification, severability, and effective date.) May 22, 2001 61 Q v 3 • n Uil I i C) i t7 J l 7 • • MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve refrigeration for the existing fruit and vegetable stands. (Adopt the ordinance as per language below.*) Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood that the eight existing fruit and vegetable stands will be grandfathered. Director Boling understood the allowance would be only for the eight (8) existing transient merchant operations and some additional language might be required in the ordinance. He was advised that was correct. Deputy County Attorney Will Collins stated that it is not a situation of continuing a non -conforming use because they are not allowed electric at this point, so that is the change. The change is only proposed for those existing eight fruit/vegetable stands All that is necessary is to add to the language*: (4)(d)(2) Class A. transient merchants as defined herein may obtain electrical power for fruit and vegetablerefrigerationonly, subject to obtaining applicable building permits on the eight existing stands as of May 22, 2001. Commissioner Adams agreed that was her motion, and Vice Chairman Stanbridge concurred. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) (Adopted Ordinance No. 2001-013 regarding electrical hook-ups for fruit and vegetable stands, as stated above, amending Chapter 972 of the Land Development Regulations, Temporary Uses; and providing for repeal of conflicting provisions, codification, severability, and effective date.) May 22, 2001 61 Q v 3 • n Uil I i C) i t7 J l 7 • ORDINANCE NO. 2001-34 3 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING ELECTRICAL HOOK-UPS FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STANDS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS). CHAPTER 972, TEMPORARY USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Transient Merchant Regulations The Transient merchant regulations of land development regulations section 972.08(4) are hereby amended to read as follows: (4) The purpose and intent of allowing certain types of transient merchant operations is to allow roadside sale of products historically indigenous to Indian River County (eg. fruits and vegetables, seafood) or products historically available to celebrate holidays (Christmas trees for Christmas, fireworks for Independence Day or New Year's Day). Transient merchant operations may be allowed if the following requirements and standards are met (a) All transient merchant temporary use permits shall clearly define an expiration date. No permit shall be transferable, and no permit shall be good for a period of more than six (6) months. Renewal of a permit shall require reapplication. (1) Transient merchant classifications. All approvable transient merchant uses shall be limited to one of the following categories: Class A: Fruit and vegetable sales. Fruit and vegetable sales are allowed if items for sale consist of only fresh fruits or fresh vegetables in either their natural state or prepackaged individual containers when approved by the county public health authority. Class B: Seasonal sales such as Christmas tree and fireworks sales and other similar uses; use in May 22, 2001 62 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-34 3 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING ELECTRICAL HOOK-UPS FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STANDS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS). CHAPTER 972, TEMPORARY USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Transient Merchant Regulations The Transient merchant regulations of land development regulations section 972.08(4) are hereby amended to read as follows: (4) The purpose and intent of allowing certain types of transient merchant operations is to allow roadside sale of products historically indigenous to Indian River County (eg. fruits and vegetables, seafood) or products historically available to celebrate holidays (Christmas trees for Christmas, fireworks for Independence Day or New Year's Day). Transient merchant operations may be allowed if the following requirements and standards are met (a) All transient merchant temporary use permits shall clearly define an expiration date. No permit shall be transferable, and no permit shall be good for a period of more than six (6) months. Renewal of a permit shall require reapplication. (1) Transient merchant classifications. All approvable transient merchant uses shall be limited to one of the following categories: Class A: Fruit and vegetable sales. Fruit and vegetable sales are allowed if items for sale consist of only fresh fruits or fresh vegetables in either their natural state or prepackaged individual containers when approved by the county public health authority. Class B: Seasonal sales such as Christmas tree and fireworks sales and other similar uses; use in May 22, 2001 62 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-34 3 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REGARDING ELECTRICAL HOOK-UPS FOR FRUIT AND VEGETABLE STANDS, AMENDING THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS). CHAPTER 972, TEMPORARY USES; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Transient Merchant Regulations The Transient merchant regulations of land development regulations section 972.08(4) are hereby amended to read as follows: (4) The purpose and intent of allowing certain types of transient merchant operations is to allow roadside sale of products historically indigenous to Indian River County (eg. fruits and vegetables, seafood) or products historically available to celebrate holidays (Christmas trees for Christmas, fireworks for Independence Day or New Year's Day). Transient merchant operations may be allowed if the following requirements and standards are met (a) All transient merchant temporary use permits shall clearly define an expiration date. No permit shall be transferable, and no permit shall be good for a period of more than six (6) months. Renewal of a permit shall require reapplication. (1) Transient merchant classifications. All approvable transient merchant uses shall be limited to one of the following categories: Class A: Fruit and vegetable sales. Fruit and vegetable sales are allowed if items for sale consist of only fresh fruits or fresh vegetables in either their natural state or prepackaged individual containers when approved by the county public health authority. Class B: Seasonal sales such as Christmas tree and fireworks sales and other similar uses; use in May 22, 2001 62 • ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 operation no more than forty-five (45) days during any calendar year on any given site. Class C: Satellite seafood sales operations that: Are associated with, owned and operated by a legally established permanent retail seafood sales operation located in Indian River County; and Are operated from a vehicle that is state approved and licensed for seafood sales, whereby said vehicle is self-contained in regards to power, refrigeration, running water, and wastewater holding; and said vehicle has enclosed or screen -enclosed seafood display area; and Are located on property zoned commercial or industrial; and Are operated only during daylight hours, and are removed from the site during night-time hours; and Are approved and inspected by the county public health authority. A use that does not fall within either [any] of these categories shall not be considered an allowable transient merchant use. (2) Class A and Class C permits may be renewed every six (6) months upon written request by the applicant. (b) The following types of sales operations, for purposes o f zoning regulations, shall not be considered t ransient merchants: (1) Curbside mobile ice cream sales involving frequent, intermittent stops (2) Merchandise deliveries; (3) Mobile prepared food services catering to employees at employment sites or patrons at permitted or otherwise legal special events. Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; suut;if words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 63 PV ; Page 2 i9 • • ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 operation no more than forty-five (45) days during any calendar year on any given site. Class C: Satellite seafood sales operations that: Are associated with, owned and operated by a legally established permanent retail seafood sales operation located in Indian River County; and Are operated from a vehicle that is state approved and licensed for seafood sales, whereby said vehicle is self-contained in regards to power, refrigeration, running water, and wastewater holding; and said vehicle has enclosed or screen -enclosed seafood display area; and Are located on property zoned commercial or industrial; and Are operated only during daylight hours, and are removed from the site during night-time hours; and Are approved and inspected by the county public health authority. A use that does not fall within either [any] of these categories shall not be considered an allowable transient merchant use. (2) Class A and Class C permits may be renewed every six (6) months upon written request by the applicant. (b) The following types of sales operations, for purposes o f zoning regulations, shall not be considered t ransient merchants: (1) Curbside mobile ice cream sales involving frequent, intermittent stops (2) Merchandise deliveries; (3) Mobile prepared food services catering to employees at employment sites or patrons at permitted or otherwise legal special events. Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; suut;if words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 63 PV ; Page 2 i9 • • ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 operation no more than forty-five (45) days during any calendar year on any given site. Class C: Satellite seafood sales operations that: Are associated with, owned and operated by a legally established permanent retail seafood sales operation located in Indian River County; and Are operated from a vehicle that is state approved and licensed for seafood sales, whereby said vehicle is self-contained in regards to power, refrigeration, running water, and wastewater holding; and said vehicle has enclosed or screen -enclosed seafood display area; and Are located on property zoned commercial or industrial; and Are operated only during daylight hours, and are removed from the site during night-time hours; and Are approved and inspected by the county public health authority. A use that does not fall within either [any] of these categories shall not be considered an allowable transient merchant use. (2) Class A and Class C permits may be renewed every six (6) months upon written request by the applicant. (b) The following types of sales operations, for purposes o f zoning regulations, shall not be considered t ransient merchants: (1) Curbside mobile ice cream sales involving frequent, intermittent stops (2) Merchandise deliveries; (3) Mobile prepared food services catering to employees at employment sites or patrons at permitted or otherwise legal special events. Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; suut;if words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 63 PV ; Page 2 i9 • ORDINANCE N0. 2001-013 (c) No permanent structures may be utilized, only temporary pavilions may be utilized for transient merchant operations. All facilities used shall be self-contained and mobile or portable. No mobile homes or trailers that exceed two hundred (200) square feet inarea may be utilized by Class "A" merchants [see section 972.08(4)(A) for details on Class "A" Class "B" and Class "C" merchants]. Trailers may be used by Class "B" merchants. Class "C' merchants may only be operated from vehicles approved and licensed by the state for seafood sales. Class "A" and Class "B" merchants are further specified in section 972.08(3)(A)1. (d) No utilities connections (such as electrical, telephone, plumbing or septic tanks) shall be permitted with the following exceptions: (1) Class "B" transient merchants as defined herein may obtain temporary electrical power for sales operations, and (2) Class A transient merchants as ne de fid h were in existence andn herein that 1 may obtain electrical powerforfruity and 22, 2001 vegetable refrigeration only, subject to obtaining applicable building permits. (e) Any and all signs to be utilized on-site must conform to county sign regulations and shall be deemed to be temporary and not a structure, and must be removed upon expiration of the temporary use permit or upon vacation of the site. A sign permit, if required, must be obtained prior to issuance of a transient merchant temporary use permit. (f) Driveways shall access available to the site; may be used regardless roadway accessed. the lowest classification road however, existing driveway cuts of the classification of the (g) All driveways utilized shall be either existing ngimproved and permitted driveways drivewaysmeeting the crteriapecifedherein. New driveways ways (roads cuts) may be permitted by the county traffic engineer: 1. If traffic maneuverability and safety can be adequately handled by the new driveway location and design; and 2 If a state department of transportation driveway Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; iu„si, words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 64 Q 9 0V Page 3 ORDINANCE N0. 2001-013 (c) No permanent structures may be utilized, only temporary pavilions may be utilized for transient merchant operations. All facilities used shall be self-contained and mobile or portable. No mobile homes or trailers that exceed two hundred (200) square feet inarea may be utilized by Class "A" merchants [see section 972.08(4)(A) for details on Class "A" Class "B" and Class "C" merchants]. Trailers may be used by Class "B" merchants. Class "C' merchants may only be operated from vehicles approved and licensed by the state for seafood sales. Class "A" and Class "B" merchants are further specified in section 972.08(3)(A)1. (d) No utilities connections (such as electrical, telephone, plumbing or septic tanks) shall be permitted with the following exceptions: (1) Class "B" transient merchants as defined herein may obtain temporary electrical power for sales operations, and (2) Class A transient merchants as ne de fid h were in existence andn herein that 1 may obtain electrical powerforfruity and 22, 2001 vegetable refrigeration only, subject to obtaining applicable building permits. (e) Any and all signs to be utilized on-site must conform to county sign regulations and shall be deemed to be temporary and not a structure, and must be removed upon expiration of the temporary use permit or upon vacation of the site. A sign permit, if required, must be obtained prior to issuance of a transient merchant temporary use permit. (f) Driveways shall access available to the site; may be used regardless roadway accessed. the lowest classification road however, existing driveway cuts of the classification of the (g) All driveways utilized shall be either existing ngimproved and permitted driveways drivewaysmeeting the crteriapecifedherein. New driveways ways (roads cuts) may be permitted by the county traffic engineer: 1. If traffic maneuverability and safety can be adequately handled by the new driveway location and design; and 2 If a state department of transportation driveway Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; iu„si, words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 64 Q 9 0V Page 3 ORDINANCE N0. 2001-013 (c) No permanent structures may be utilized, only temporary pavilions may be utilized for transient merchant operations. All facilities used shall be self-contained and mobile or portable. No mobile homes or trailers that exceed two hundred (200) square feet inarea may be utilized by Class "A" merchants [see section 972.08(4)(A) for details on Class "A" Class "B" and Class "C" merchants]. Trailers may be used by Class "B" merchants. Class "C' merchants may only be operated from vehicles approved and licensed by the state for seafood sales. Class "A" and Class "B" merchants are further specified in section 972.08(3)(A)1. (d) No utilities connections (such as electrical, telephone, plumbing or septic tanks) shall be permitted with the following exceptions: (1) Class "B" transient merchants as defined herein may obtain temporary electrical power for sales operations, and (2) Class A transient merchants as ne de fid h were in existence andn herein that 1 may obtain electrical powerforfruity and 22, 2001 vegetable refrigeration only, subject to obtaining applicable building permits. (e) Any and all signs to be utilized on-site must conform to county sign regulations and shall be deemed to be temporary and not a structure, and must be removed upon expiration of the temporary use permit or upon vacation of the site. A sign permit, if required, must be obtained prior to issuance of a transient merchant temporary use permit. (f) Driveways shall access available to the site; may be used regardless roadway accessed. the lowest classification road however, existing driveway cuts of the classification of the (g) All driveways utilized shall be either existing ngimproved and permitted driveways drivewaysmeeting the crteriapecifedherein. New driveways ways (roads cuts) may be permitted by the county traffic engineer: 1. If traffic maneuverability and safety can be adequately handled by the new driveway location and design; and 2 If a state department of transportation driveway Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; iu„si, words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 64 Q 9 0V Page 3 • ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 permit or county right-of-way permit, whichever is applicable, is issued for the driveway. (h) During all sales hours, a minimum of four (4) temporary standard -sized parking spaces for Class "A" and Class "C" merchants, and a minimum of five (5) standard -sized parking spaces for Class "B" merchants, shall be provided on-site with all parking spaces and driveways clearly demarcated on-site with wheelstops. (i) No Class "A" transient merchant operation, as defined herein, shall be located within three thousand (3,000) lineal feet of another permitted "Class A" transient merchant operation. No Class "C" transient merchant operation, as defined herein, shall be located within three thousand (3,000) lineal feet of another permitted "Class C" transient merchant operation. (j) Any application shall include a sketch showing: (1) Site dimensions; (2) All required setback lines; (3) Location and dimensions of all temporary pavilions, driveways, entrances and exits, parking spaces and wheel stops; (4) Adjacent roads and road rights-of-way and easements; (5) Location and dimensions of all signs to be used. (6) For Class "C" merchants, copies of all required state and county licenses for the seafood sales operation. (k) Within thirty (30) days of temporary use permit expiration, all items related to the transient merchant operation shall be removed from the site and adjacent county right-of-way shall be restored, as may be required by the county engineering division. Prior to the issuance of any temporary use permit, a cash bond in the amount of two hundred dollars ($200.00) shall be submitted to the county to guarantee site clean-up This cash bond amount may be increased to an amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) if temporary alterations t o county right-of-way (eg. temporary driveway culverts and backfill) are required. If, after thirty (30) days o f permit expiration or abandonment of the site, the site or adjacent county rights-of-way have not been properly cleaned and restored by the applicant, the county may use the entire amount of submitted funds to pay for disposing of all transient merchant -related Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; 6lr words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 65 Ui\ Page 4 321 • • ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 permit or county right-of-way permit, whichever is applicable, is issued for the driveway. (h) During all sales hours, a minimum of four (4) temporary standard -sized parking spaces for Class "A" and Class "C" merchants, and a minimum of five (5) standard -sized parking spaces for Class "B" merchants, shall be provided on-site with all parking spaces and driveways clearly demarcated on-site with wheelstops. (i) No Class "A" transient merchant operation, as defined herein, shall be located within three thousand (3,000) lineal feet of another permitted "Class A" transient merchant operation. No Class "C" transient merchant operation, as defined herein, shall be located within three thousand (3,000) lineal feet of another permitted "Class C" transient merchant operation. (j) Any application shall include a sketch showing: (1) Site dimensions; (2) All required setback lines; (3) Location and dimensions of all temporary pavilions, driveways, entrances and exits, parking spaces and wheel stops; (4) Adjacent roads and road rights-of-way and easements; (5) Location and dimensions of all signs to be used. (6) For Class "C" merchants, copies of all required state and county licenses for the seafood sales operation. (k) Within thirty (30) days of temporary use permit expiration, all items related to the transient merchant operation shall be removed from the site and adjacent county right-of-way shall be restored, as may be required by the county engineering division. Prior to the issuance of any temporary use permit, a cash bond in the amount of two hundred dollars ($200.00) shall be submitted to the county to guarantee site clean-up This cash bond amount may be increased to an amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) if temporary alterations t o county right-of-way (eg. temporary driveway culverts and backfill) are required. If, after thirty (30) days o f permit expiration or abandonment of the site, the site or adjacent county rights-of-way have not been properly cleaned and restored by the applicant, the county may use the entire amount of submitted funds to pay for disposing of all transient merchant -related Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; 6lr words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 65 Ui\ Page 4 321 • • ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 permit or county right-of-way permit, whichever is applicable, is issued for the driveway. (h) During all sales hours, a minimum of four (4) temporary standard -sized parking spaces for Class "A" and Class "C" merchants, and a minimum of five (5) standard -sized parking spaces for Class "B" merchants, shall be provided on-site with all parking spaces and driveways clearly demarcated on-site with wheelstops. (i) No Class "A" transient merchant operation, as defined herein, shall be located within three thousand (3,000) lineal feet of another permitted "Class A" transient merchant operation. No Class "C" transient merchant operation, as defined herein, shall be located within three thousand (3,000) lineal feet of another permitted "Class C" transient merchant operation. (j) Any application shall include a sketch showing: (1) Site dimensions; (2) All required setback lines; (3) Location and dimensions of all temporary pavilions, driveways, entrances and exits, parking spaces and wheel stops; (4) Adjacent roads and road rights-of-way and easements; (5) Location and dimensions of all signs to be used. (6) For Class "C" merchants, copies of all required state and county licenses for the seafood sales operation. (k) Within thirty (30) days of temporary use permit expiration, all items related to the transient merchant operation shall be removed from the site and adjacent county right-of-way shall be restored, as may be required by the county engineering division. Prior to the issuance of any temporary use permit, a cash bond in the amount of two hundred dollars ($200.00) shall be submitted to the county to guarantee site clean-up This cash bond amount may be increased to an amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) if temporary alterations t o county right-of-way (eg. temporary driveway culverts and backfill) are required. If, after thirty (30) days o f permit expiration or abandonment of the site, the site or adjacent county rights-of-way have not been properly cleaned and restored by the applicant, the county may use the entire amount of submitted funds to pay for disposing of all transient merchant -related Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; 6lr words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 65 Ui\ Page 4 321 • ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 items remaining on a site or restoring adjacent county rights-of-way. Upon vacating and cleaning -up a site, an applicant may request in writing to the planning division for returnof the submitted funds. Permit. applicants will receive the submitted cash bond amount if: (1) The county has not used the funds under the conditions described above; and (2) The site is inspected by the county, and it is verified that the site has been cleaned -up and all t ransient -merchant -related items have been removed. In cases where the county has used the cash bond for site clean-up or restoration of adjacent county right-of-way, no subsequent t ransient merchant temporary use permit shall be issued to the same applicant whose vacated operation caused the cash bond default and ✓ esulting clean-up by the county. (1) No transient merchants shall operate within any public rights-of-way. No operations within easements shall be permitted unless specifically allowed by all parties having an interest in such easement. (m) Fees for required reviews and inspections performed by the county public health authority in administering provision of this chapter shall be established as approved by the board of county commissioners. 2. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of the Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 3. Codification The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions. 4. Severability If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holdings Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; uu6lr words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 66 PG 322 J Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 items remaining on a site or restoring adjacent county rights-of-way. Upon vacating and cleaning -up a site, an applicant may request in writing to the planning division for returnof the submitted funds. Permit. applicants will receive the submitted cash bond amount if: (1) The county has not used the funds under the conditions described above; and (2) The site is inspected by the county, and it is verified that the site has been cleaned -up and all t ransient -merchant -related items have been removed. In cases where the county has used the cash bond for site clean-up or restoration of adjacent county right-of-way, no subsequent t ransient merchant temporary use permit shall be issued to the same applicant whose vacated operation caused the cash bond default and ✓ esulting clean-up by the county. (1) No transient merchants shall operate within any public rights-of-way. No operations within easements shall be permitted unless specifically allowed by all parties having an interest in such easement. (m) Fees for required reviews and inspections performed by the county public health authority in administering provision of this chapter shall be established as approved by the board of county commissioners. 2. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of the Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 3. Codification The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions. 4. Severability If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holdings Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; uu6lr words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 66 PG 322 J Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 items remaining on a site or restoring adjacent county rights-of-way. Upon vacating and cleaning -up a site, an applicant may request in writing to the planning division for returnof the submitted funds. Permit. applicants will receive the submitted cash bond amount if: (1) The county has not used the funds under the conditions described above; and (2) The site is inspected by the county, and it is verified that the site has been cleaned -up and all t ransient -merchant -related items have been removed. In cases where the county has used the cash bond for site clean-up or restoration of adjacent county right-of-way, no subsequent t ransient merchant temporary use permit shall be issued to the same applicant whose vacated operation caused the cash bond default and ✓ esulting clean-up by the county. (1) No transient merchants shall operate within any public rights-of-way. No operations within easements shall be permitted unless specifically allowed by all parties having an interest in such easement. (m) Fees for required reviews and inspections performed by the county public health authority in administering provision of this chapter shall be established as approved by the board of county commissioners. 2. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All special Acts of the legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of the Indian River County which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. 3. Codification The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered to accomplish such intentions. 4. Severability If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holdings Coding: Underlined words are additions to existing LDR wording; uu6lr words are deletions from existing LDR wording. May 22, 2001 66 PG 322 J Page 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. 5. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 9th day of May 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 22nd day of May , 2001 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge and adopted by the following vote: The ordinance was adopted by a vote of: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin Commissioner Fran B. Adams Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 22nd day of May , 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Att(e J.Bar Clerk By: K. j . 11 Deputy Clerk Page 6 May 22, 2001 BK I PG 323 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. 5. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 9th day of May 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 22nd day of May , 2001 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge and adopted by the following vote: The ordinance was adopted by a vote of: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin Commissioner Fran B. Adams Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 22nd day of May , 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Att(e J.Bar Clerk By: K. j . 11 Deputy Clerk Page 6 May 22, 2001 BK I PG 323 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. 5. Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 9th day of May 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 22nd day of May , 2001 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams seconded by Commissioner Stanbridge and adopted by the following vote: The ordinance was adopted by a vote of: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin Commissioner Fran B. Adams Absent The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 22nd day of May , 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Att(e J.Bar Clerk By: K. j . 11 Deputy Clerk Page 6 May 22, 2001 BK I PG 323 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM William G. Collins Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Ordinance y Development\Users\CurDev\LDR\supplement #37\Proposed Changes to Fruit & Veggie - PZC Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 ORDINANCE ATTACHMENT •Existing and Permitted Transient Merchant `Temporary" Fruit and Vegetable Stands Staff has verified that the following Class and permitted on May 22, 2001: "A" transient merchants were in existence 1. Timinsky: Indian River Drive and U.S. 1 2. Jong's: 99'h Street and U.S. 1 3. Kenneth Lewis: C.R. 512 and C.R. 510 4. Bobbi's: U.S. 1 and 45'h Street 5. Clara Lewis: S.R. 60 and 86th Drive 6. Cracker Trail/Colson: U.S. 1 north of 8`h Street 7. Kahn: 271h Ave. S.W. and South Relief Canal 8. (Occasionally used): 43`d Ave. S.W., north of 1ST Street S.W. May 22, 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM William G. Collins Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Ordinance y Development\Users\CurDev\LDR\supplement #37\Proposed Changes to Fruit & Veggie - PZC Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 ORDINANCE ATTACHMENT •Existing and Permitted Transient Merchant `Temporary" Fruit and Vegetable Stands Staff has verified that the following Class and permitted on May 22, 2001: "A" transient merchants were in existence 1. Timinsky: Indian River Drive and U.S. 1 2. Jong's: 99'h Street and U.S. 1 3. Kenneth Lewis: C.R. 512 and C.R. 510 4. Bobbi's: U.S. 1 and 45'h Street 5. Clara Lewis: S.R. 60 and 86th Drive 6. Cracker Trail/Colson: U.S. 1 north of 8`h Street 7. Kahn: 271h Ave. S.W. and South Relief Canal 8. (Occasionally used): 43`d Ave. S.W., north of 1ST Street S.W. May 22, 2001 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM William G. Collins Deputy County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Ordinance y Development\Users\CurDev\LDR\supplement #37\Proposed Changes to Fruit & Veggie - PZC Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-013 ORDINANCE ATTACHMENT •Existing and Permitted Transient Merchant `Temporary" Fruit and Vegetable Stands Staff has verified that the following Class and permitted on May 22, 2001: "A" transient merchants were in existence 1. Timinsky: Indian River Drive and U.S. 1 2. Jong's: 99'h Street and U.S. 1 3. Kenneth Lewis: C.R. 512 and C.R. 510 4. Bobbi's: U.S. 1 and 45'h Street 5. Clara Lewis: S.R. 60 and 86th Drive 6. Cracker Trail/Colson: U.S. 1 north of 8`h Street 7. Kahn: 271h Ave. S.W. and South Relief Canal 8. (Occasionally used): 43`d Ave. S.W., north of 1ST Street S.W. May 22, 2001 • (CLERK'S NOTE' CHAIRMAN GINN MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT DETAILED AT THE END OF THESE MINUTES AND CALLED A SHORT RECESS AT 9:45 A.M. DURING THIS SHORT RECESS, ADMINISTRATOR CHANDLER TOOK HIS SEAT AND ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR BAIRD MOVED TO THE AUDIENCE THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:54 A.M.) 9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF SEBASTIAN - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES (PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE DAVIS PROPERTY) (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICL OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 7. 2001: May 22, 2001 TO: FROM: DATE: James E. Chandler County Administrator Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director Awt May 7, 2001 SUBJECT: City of Sebastian's Request for the County to Execute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of May 22, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS; Currently, the City of Sebastian is in the process of annexing the Davis property. That property is shown on the location map attached to this staff report (Attachment 1). Located just west of Schumann Lake, the eighty acre Davis property is a county enclave, completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian. For such enclave properties, the County's comprehensive plan encourages annexation by the municipality whose lands surround the enclave. 69 B{{ 1I o'i 5 • • (CLERK'S NOTE' CHAIRMAN GINN MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT DETAILED AT THE END OF THESE MINUTES AND CALLED A SHORT RECESS AT 9:45 A.M. DURING THIS SHORT RECESS, ADMINISTRATOR CHANDLER TOOK HIS SEAT AND ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR BAIRD MOVED TO THE AUDIENCE THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:54 A.M.) 9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF SEBASTIAN - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES (PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE DAVIS PROPERTY) (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICL OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 7. 2001: May 22, 2001 TO: FROM: DATE: James E. Chandler County Administrator Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director Awt May 7, 2001 SUBJECT: City of Sebastian's Request for the County to Execute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of May 22, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS; Currently, the City of Sebastian is in the process of annexing the Davis property. That property is shown on the location map attached to this staff report (Attachment 1). Located just west of Schumann Lake, the eighty acre Davis property is a county enclave, completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian. For such enclave properties, the County's comprehensive plan encourages annexation by the municipality whose lands surround the enclave. 69 B{{ 1I o'i 5 • • (CLERK'S NOTE' CHAIRMAN GINN MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT DETAILED AT THE END OF THESE MINUTES AND CALLED A SHORT RECESS AT 9:45 A.M. DURING THIS SHORT RECESS, ADMINISTRATOR CHANDLER TOOK HIS SEAT AND ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR BAIRD MOVED TO THE AUDIENCE THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 9:54 A.M.) 9.A.6. PUBLIC HEARING - CITY OF SEBASTIAN - INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PLANNING ACTIVITIES (PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE DAVIS PROPERTY) (LEGISLATIVE) PROOF OF PUBLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICL OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Community Development Director Robert M. Keating reviewed a Memorandum of May 7. 2001: May 22, 2001 TO: FROM: DATE: James E. Chandler County Administrator Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director Awt May 7, 2001 SUBJECT: City of Sebastian's Request for the County to Execute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning It is requested that the information provided herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of May 22, 2001. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS; Currently, the City of Sebastian is in the process of annexing the Davis property. That property is shown on the location map attached to this staff report (Attachment 1). Located just west of Schumann Lake, the eighty acre Davis property is a county enclave, completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian. For such enclave properties, the County's comprehensive plan encourages annexation by the municipality whose lands surround the enclave. 69 B{{ 1I o'i 5 • Designated L-2 (low density residential - up to 6 units per acre) on the County's comprehensive plan land use map, the Davis property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural, up to 1 unit per 5 acres. This agricultural zoning is consistent with the present use of the property as a grove and also constitutes a holding type zoning until the property is zoned for its end use Besides annexing the property, the City of Sebastian plans to change the property's land use plan designation and zoning to allow 8 units per acre. At this time, the City has not yet scheduled the Davis property annexation hearing, and does not intend to schedule the hearing until the state Department of Community Affairs has reviewed and provided comments on the City's proposal to change the land use designation for the property to 8 units per acre. Since the subject property is presently within the County's regulatory jurisdiction, the City cannot process a comprehensive plan amendment for the property unless the City and County execute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities. Attached to this staff report is a memo from the City of Sebastian Growth Management Director transmitting a proposed Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities and requesting that the County execute the agreement. According to state law, both the County and the City must hold public hearings pnor to executing the interlocal agreements. To meet that requirement, this item has been scheduled as a public hearing. ANALYSIS: Policy 13.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the County's comprehensive plan encourages municipalities to annex unincorporated county enclaves within their boundaries. This policy reflects the fact that enclave areas make provision of public services fragmented and disjointed. In this case, the Davis property is an enclave completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian. As with most enclave areas, this property should be annexed by the city whose land surrounds it. By executing the attached Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning, the Board of County Commissioners can encourage the annexation to occur. The principal effect of the Board's execution of the interlocal agreement will be to allow the City to process the referenced land use plan amendment before the property has been annexed. This will allow the owner of the subject property to know whether he will get his requested density before he commits to the annexation. Essentially, the interlocal agreement will affect only the timing of the City's proposed land use plan amendment for the Davis property. With the agreement, the amendment can be submitted and processed before the annexation. If the City waited until after the property was annexed to submit the land use plan amendment, no County approval or interlocal agreement would be required. Since the Davis property is completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian, there is no unincorporated area that would be impacted by the prospective land use change. In fact, execution of the interlocal agreement would have a positive effect by encouraging annexation of the Davis property, elimination of an enclave and implementation of County land use plan policy 13.3. For those reasons, staff supports the City's request for the County to execute the referenced agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to execute the attached Interlocal Agreement for John Planning Activities between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. May 22, 2001 70 or 1 l) •1 26 Designated L-2 (low density residential - up to 6 units per acre) on the County's comprehensive plan land use map, the Davis property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural, up to 1 unit per 5 acres. This agricultural zoning is consistent with the present use of the property as a grove and also constitutes a holding type zoning until the property is zoned for its end use Besides annexing the property, the City of Sebastian plans to change the property's land use plan designation and zoning to allow 8 units per acre. At this time, the City has not yet scheduled the Davis property annexation hearing, and does not intend to schedule the hearing until the state Department of Community Affairs has reviewed and provided comments on the City's proposal to change the land use designation for the property to 8 units per acre. Since the subject property is presently within the County's regulatory jurisdiction, the City cannot process a comprehensive plan amendment for the property unless the City and County execute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities. Attached to this staff report is a memo from the City of Sebastian Growth Management Director transmitting a proposed Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities and requesting that the County execute the agreement. According to state law, both the County and the City must hold public hearings pnor to executing the interlocal agreements. To meet that requirement, this item has been scheduled as a public hearing. ANALYSIS: Policy 13.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the County's comprehensive plan encourages municipalities to annex unincorporated county enclaves within their boundaries. This policy reflects the fact that enclave areas make provision of public services fragmented and disjointed. In this case, the Davis property is an enclave completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian. As with most enclave areas, this property should be annexed by the city whose land surrounds it. By executing the attached Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning, the Board of County Commissioners can encourage the annexation to occur. The principal effect of the Board's execution of the interlocal agreement will be to allow the City to process the referenced land use plan amendment before the property has been annexed. This will allow the owner of the subject property to know whether he will get his requested density before he commits to the annexation. Essentially, the interlocal agreement will affect only the timing of the City's proposed land use plan amendment for the Davis property. With the agreement, the amendment can be submitted and processed before the annexation. If the City waited until after the property was annexed to submit the land use plan amendment, no County approval or interlocal agreement would be required. Since the Davis property is completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian, there is no unincorporated area that would be impacted by the prospective land use change. In fact, execution of the interlocal agreement would have a positive effect by encouraging annexation of the Davis property, elimination of an enclave and implementation of County land use plan policy 13.3. For those reasons, staff supports the City's request for the County to execute the referenced agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to execute the attached Interlocal Agreement for John Planning Activities between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. May 22, 2001 70 or 1 l) •1 26 Designated L-2 (low density residential - up to 6 units per acre) on the County's comprehensive plan land use map, the Davis property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural, up to 1 unit per 5 acres. This agricultural zoning is consistent with the present use of the property as a grove and also constitutes a holding type zoning until the property is zoned for its end use Besides annexing the property, the City of Sebastian plans to change the property's land use plan designation and zoning to allow 8 units per acre. At this time, the City has not yet scheduled the Davis property annexation hearing, and does not intend to schedule the hearing until the state Department of Community Affairs has reviewed and provided comments on the City's proposal to change the land use designation for the property to 8 units per acre. Since the subject property is presently within the County's regulatory jurisdiction, the City cannot process a comprehensive plan amendment for the property unless the City and County execute an Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities. Attached to this staff report is a memo from the City of Sebastian Growth Management Director transmitting a proposed Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities and requesting that the County execute the agreement. According to state law, both the County and the City must hold public hearings pnor to executing the interlocal agreements. To meet that requirement, this item has been scheduled as a public hearing. ANALYSIS: Policy 13.3 of the Future Land Use Element of the County's comprehensive plan encourages municipalities to annex unincorporated county enclaves within their boundaries. This policy reflects the fact that enclave areas make provision of public services fragmented and disjointed. In this case, the Davis property is an enclave completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian. As with most enclave areas, this property should be annexed by the city whose land surrounds it. By executing the attached Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning, the Board of County Commissioners can encourage the annexation to occur. The principal effect of the Board's execution of the interlocal agreement will be to allow the City to process the referenced land use plan amendment before the property has been annexed. This will allow the owner of the subject property to know whether he will get his requested density before he commits to the annexation. Essentially, the interlocal agreement will affect only the timing of the City's proposed land use plan amendment for the Davis property. With the agreement, the amendment can be submitted and processed before the annexation. If the City waited until after the property was annexed to submit the land use plan amendment, no County approval or interlocal agreement would be required. Since the Davis property is completely surrounded by land within the City of Sebastian, there is no unincorporated area that would be impacted by the prospective land use change. In fact, execution of the interlocal agreement would have a positive effect by encouraging annexation of the Davis property, elimination of an enclave and implementation of County land use plan policy 13.3. For those reasons, staff supports the City's request for the County to execute the referenced agreement. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to execute the attached Interlocal Agreement for John Planning Activities between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. May 22, 2001 70 or 1 l) •1 26 Attachments. Location Map April 10, 2001 memorandum from Sebastian Growth Management Director Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities aran aeee eeeeNeeeEe Pigg peQielateeeeeeeee ►�$Siovoeo� j W!w Off.. w Ela d �v MU to my d eeeeesmeet uogauggau0is CI bCIAaoa■salaie4 •1 4.7. u7♦-:•) •r 4.7 ),tM L: CAsi .I'. 4I7.''iYi' (_3r t.:Pk • .. • oe,eeAesee"!d �e�eeeeeeess ; �oOliGYliviOl?a eeess�S . May 22, 2001 Attachments. Location Map April 10, 2001 memorandum from Sebastian Growth Management Director Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities aran aeee eeeeNeeeEe Pigg peQielateeeeeeeee ►�$Siovoeo� j W!w Off.. w Ela d �v MU to my d eeeeesmeet uogauggau0is CI bCIAaoa■salaie4 •1 4.7. u7♦-:•) •r 4.7 ),tM L: CAsi .I'. 4I7.''iYi' (_3r t.:Pk • .. • oe,eeAesee"!d �e�eeeeeeess ; �oOliGYliviOl?a eeess�S . May 22, 2001 Attachments. Location Map April 10, 2001 memorandum from Sebastian Growth Management Director Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities aran aeee eeeeNeeeEe Pigg peQielateeeeeeeee ►�$Siovoeo� j W!w Off.. w Ela d �v MU to my d eeeeesmeet uogauggau0is CI bCIAaoa■salaie4 •1 4.7. u7♦-:•) •r 4.7 ),tM L: CAsi .I'. 4I7.''iYi' (_3r t.:Pk • .. • oe,eeAesee"!d �e�eeeeeeess ; �oOliGYliviOl?a eeess�S . May 22, 2001 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Guy Barber inquired if this was the item on Cable TV; he was advised the public hearing on that item (9.A.1.) had been continued to June 5, 2001. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the proposed Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County, and authorized the Chairman to execute same. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND COPY OF SEBASTIAN'S RESOLUTION ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM None. 9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None. May 22, 2001 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Guy Barber inquired if this was the item on Cable TV; he was advised the public hearing on that item (9.A.1.) had been continued to June 5, 2001. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the proposed Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County, and authorized the Chairman to execute same. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND COPY OF SEBASTIAN'S RESOLUTION ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM None. 9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None. May 22, 2001 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Guy Barber inquired if this was the item on Cable TV; he was advised the public hearing on that item (9.A.1.) had been continued to June 5, 2001. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the proposed Interlocal Agreement for Joint Planning Activities between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County, and authorized the Chairman to execute same. INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND COPY OF SEBASTIAN'S RESOLUTION ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEM None. 9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None. May 22, 2001 • 10.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-053 DODGERTOWN - CONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING THE ESCROW TERMINATION DATE TO AUGUST 31, 2001 (EXTENSION AGREEMENT) - CITY OF VERO BEACH - DE GUARDIOLA DEVELOPMENT, INC. The Board reviewed letters of May 15, and May 16, 2001 TaNtPA NATIONS/IA/4K PLAZA 101 FEST KINNIDY BLVD SUITS 2100 TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602 TELSPHONS: (813)273-667' FACSIMILE: (813)223-2705 ATLANTA 430 MARGATE ATLANTA. GEORGIA3(1328 TEEPEFGFIE: (770) 3997700 FAMMI1E. (710) 3996462 L 71 _-.: BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P.A. James E Chandler Count), Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Rex Taylor City Manager City of Vero Beach 1053 20th Place Vero Beach, FL 32961-1389 THE EXa-tANGE Bonnwc 201 SOUTH MONROE STREET SUITE 500 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 Tan'HONE:(850)222-8611 FAcsaaz: (850) 272-8%9 May 15, 2001 Re: Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 Gentlemen ORLA.NIX) CENTURY PLAZA 135 WEST CENTRAL BL1T> SVRE 1230 ORLAN:c. FIDRIDA 32801 TF2EPER7No (407)426- 7001 FA__ :(407)4267262 PLEASE REPLY To: ROBERT C. REID TAuAHAssa OFETCE BOBRE50 117NOLA W MAI As the Escrow Agent serving under that certain Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 (the "Document Escrow Agreement"), by and among Indian River County, Florida (De ` County"), the City of Vero Beach, Florida (the "City"), the Los Angeles Dodgers. Inc (` Dodgers"), Fox Baseball Holding, Inc. (` Fox"), de Guardiola Development, Inc. (the `Developer") and Bryant Miller and Olive, P A, as the escrow agent (the "Escrow Agent"), we wish to inform you that on May 15 2001, we received written requests from the Developer, Dodgers and Fox to extend the date on which all conditions to release of the documents from the Document Escrow Agreement must be satisfied from May 31, 2001 to and including August 31, 2001 Copies of such requests are attached hereto. Such an extension requires the consent of the County, the City and the Escrow Agent. As Escrow Agent, we are willing to continue serving as Escrow Agent and to continue the Document Escrow Agreement to and including August 31, 2001. In order to document such an extension. we have prepared an Extension Agreement for Document Escrow Agreement dated as of May 22, 2001 (the `Extension Agreement"), and have forwarded a copy under separate cover to all parties to the Document Escrow Agreement We respectfully request that the County Commission of the County and the City Council of the City consider approving the requested extension and approving the execution and delivery of the May 22, 2001 73 61 %)7-4 • • 10.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-053 DODGERTOWN - CONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING THE ESCROW TERMINATION DATE TO AUGUST 31, 2001 (EXTENSION AGREEMENT) - CITY OF VERO BEACH - DE GUARDIOLA DEVELOPMENT, INC. The Board reviewed letters of May 15, and May 16, 2001 TaNtPA NATIONS/IA/4K PLAZA 101 FEST KINNIDY BLVD SUITS 2100 TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602 TELSPHONS: (813)273-667' FACSIMILE: (813)223-2705 ATLANTA 430 MARGATE ATLANTA. GEORGIA3(1328 TEEPEFGFIE: (770) 3997700 FAMMI1E. (710) 3996462 L 71 _-.: BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P.A. James E Chandler Count), Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Rex Taylor City Manager City of Vero Beach 1053 20th Place Vero Beach, FL 32961-1389 THE EXa-tANGE Bonnwc 201 SOUTH MONROE STREET SUITE 500 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 Tan'HONE:(850)222-8611 FAcsaaz: (850) 272-8%9 May 15, 2001 Re: Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 Gentlemen ORLA.NIX) CENTURY PLAZA 135 WEST CENTRAL BL1T> SVRE 1230 ORLAN:c. FIDRIDA 32801 TF2EPER7No (407)426- 7001 FA__ :(407)4267262 PLEASE REPLY To: ROBERT C. REID TAuAHAssa OFETCE BOBRE50 117NOLA W MAI As the Escrow Agent serving under that certain Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 (the "Document Escrow Agreement"), by and among Indian River County, Florida (De ` County"), the City of Vero Beach, Florida (the "City"), the Los Angeles Dodgers. Inc (` Dodgers"), Fox Baseball Holding, Inc. (` Fox"), de Guardiola Development, Inc. (the `Developer") and Bryant Miller and Olive, P A, as the escrow agent (the "Escrow Agent"), we wish to inform you that on May 15 2001, we received written requests from the Developer, Dodgers and Fox to extend the date on which all conditions to release of the documents from the Document Escrow Agreement must be satisfied from May 31, 2001 to and including August 31, 2001 Copies of such requests are attached hereto. Such an extension requires the consent of the County, the City and the Escrow Agent. As Escrow Agent, we are willing to continue serving as Escrow Agent and to continue the Document Escrow Agreement to and including August 31, 2001. In order to document such an extension. we have prepared an Extension Agreement for Document Escrow Agreement dated as of May 22, 2001 (the `Extension Agreement"), and have forwarded a copy under separate cover to all parties to the Document Escrow Agreement We respectfully request that the County Commission of the County and the City Council of the City consider approving the requested extension and approving the execution and delivery of the May 22, 2001 73 61 %)7-4 • • 10.A. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-053 DODGERTOWN - CONSIDERATION OF EXTENDING THE ESCROW TERMINATION DATE TO AUGUST 31, 2001 (EXTENSION AGREEMENT) - CITY OF VERO BEACH - DE GUARDIOLA DEVELOPMENT, INC. The Board reviewed letters of May 15, and May 16, 2001 TaNtPA NATIONS/IA/4K PLAZA 101 FEST KINNIDY BLVD SUITS 2100 TAMPA. FLORIDA 33602 TELSPHONS: (813)273-667' FACSIMILE: (813)223-2705 ATLANTA 430 MARGATE ATLANTA. GEORGIA3(1328 TEEPEFGFIE: (770) 3997700 FAMMI1E. (710) 3996462 L 71 _-.: BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P.A. James E Chandler Count), Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Rex Taylor City Manager City of Vero Beach 1053 20th Place Vero Beach, FL 32961-1389 THE EXa-tANGE Bonnwc 201 SOUTH MONROE STREET SUITE 500 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 Tan'HONE:(850)222-8611 FAcsaaz: (850) 272-8%9 May 15, 2001 Re: Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 Gentlemen ORLA.NIX) CENTURY PLAZA 135 WEST CENTRAL BL1T> SVRE 1230 ORLAN:c. FIDRIDA 32801 TF2EPER7No (407)426- 7001 FA__ :(407)4267262 PLEASE REPLY To: ROBERT C. REID TAuAHAssa OFETCE BOBRE50 117NOLA W MAI As the Escrow Agent serving under that certain Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 (the "Document Escrow Agreement"), by and among Indian River County, Florida (De ` County"), the City of Vero Beach, Florida (the "City"), the Los Angeles Dodgers. Inc (` Dodgers"), Fox Baseball Holding, Inc. (` Fox"), de Guardiola Development, Inc. (the `Developer") and Bryant Miller and Olive, P A, as the escrow agent (the "Escrow Agent"), we wish to inform you that on May 15 2001, we received written requests from the Developer, Dodgers and Fox to extend the date on which all conditions to release of the documents from the Document Escrow Agreement must be satisfied from May 31, 2001 to and including August 31, 2001 Copies of such requests are attached hereto. Such an extension requires the consent of the County, the City and the Escrow Agent. As Escrow Agent, we are willing to continue serving as Escrow Agent and to continue the Document Escrow Agreement to and including August 31, 2001. In order to document such an extension. we have prepared an Extension Agreement for Document Escrow Agreement dated as of May 22, 2001 (the `Extension Agreement"), and have forwarded a copy under separate cover to all parties to the Document Escrow Agreement We respectfully request that the County Commission of the County and the City Council of the City consider approving the requested extension and approving the execution and delivery of the May 22, 2001 73 61 %)7-4 • Extension Agreement at their respective meetings on May 22, 2001. The undersigned Escrow Agent will be in attendance at both the County Commission and the City Council meeting on May 22, 2001 to respond to any questions which either the County or the City may have regarding the requested extension. TAMPA NATIONSBANK PLAZA 101 EAST KENNEDY BLVD Sorra 2100 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 TELEPHONE: (813)273-6677 FACSIMILE: (813)223-2705 ATLANTA 430 MARGATE ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30328 TELEPHONE: (770)399-7700 FACSIMILE: (770) 3994162 James E. Chandler County Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Respectfully, Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. By alefArst Pr. Robert Reid Shareholder and Authorized Signatory WA\CPJ� ©fl5ict5: BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P.A. THE EXCHANGE BUILDING 201 SOUTH MONROE STREET, SUITE 500 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 TELEPHONE: (850)222-8611 FACSIMILE: (850)222-8969 May 16, 2001 Re: Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 Dear Jim: ORLANDO CENTURY PLAZA 135 WEST CENTRAL BLVD Surf 1230 ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801 TZLIPHOMI: (407)426-7001 FACSIMILE- (407) 426-'262 PLEASE REPLY To: ROBERT C. REID TALLAHASSEE OErIcE BOBREID'a BMOLA14.CO%1 Enclosed, please find (i) an original of our letter as Escrow Agent under the Document Escrow Agreement to you and Rex Taylor regarding the extension of the escrow release date to August 31, 2001, (ii) the County Resolution regarding the extension of deadlines to August 31 2001 with exhibits, (iii) an additional copy of the Extension Agreement, (iv) a separate letter regarding the extension of the closing date under the Real Estate Acquisition Agreement between the County and the Dodgers, and (v) our Memorandum regarding the County's immunity from ad valorem taxation 1 will also have copies with me for the May 22, 2001 County Commission meeting. May 22, 2001 Cordially, 74 Bd 11 u PG 3 3 0 Extension Agreement at their respective meetings on May 22, 2001. The undersigned Escrow Agent will be in attendance at both the County Commission and the City Council meeting on May 22, 2001 to respond to any questions which either the County or the City may have regarding the requested extension. TAMPA NATIONSBANK PLAZA 101 EAST KENNEDY BLVD Sorra 2100 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 TELEPHONE: (813)273-6677 FACSIMILE: (813)223-2705 ATLANTA 430 MARGATE ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30328 TELEPHONE: (770)399-7700 FACSIMILE: (770) 3994162 James E. Chandler County Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Respectfully, Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. By alefArst Pr. Robert Reid Shareholder and Authorized Signatory WA\CPJ� ©fl5ict5: BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P.A. THE EXCHANGE BUILDING 201 SOUTH MONROE STREET, SUITE 500 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 TELEPHONE: (850)222-8611 FACSIMILE: (850)222-8969 May 16, 2001 Re: Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 Dear Jim: ORLANDO CENTURY PLAZA 135 WEST CENTRAL BLVD Surf 1230 ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801 TZLIPHOMI: (407)426-7001 FACSIMILE- (407) 426-'262 PLEASE REPLY To: ROBERT C. REID TALLAHASSEE OErIcE BOBREID'a BMOLA14.CO%1 Enclosed, please find (i) an original of our letter as Escrow Agent under the Document Escrow Agreement to you and Rex Taylor regarding the extension of the escrow release date to August 31, 2001, (ii) the County Resolution regarding the extension of deadlines to August 31 2001 with exhibits, (iii) an additional copy of the Extension Agreement, (iv) a separate letter regarding the extension of the closing date under the Real Estate Acquisition Agreement between the County and the Dodgers, and (v) our Memorandum regarding the County's immunity from ad valorem taxation 1 will also have copies with me for the May 22, 2001 County Commission meeting. May 22, 2001 Cordially, 74 Bd 11 u PG 3 3 0 Extension Agreement at their respective meetings on May 22, 2001. The undersigned Escrow Agent will be in attendance at both the County Commission and the City Council meeting on May 22, 2001 to respond to any questions which either the County or the City may have regarding the requested extension. TAMPA NATIONSBANK PLAZA 101 EAST KENNEDY BLVD Sorra 2100 TAMPA, FLORIDA 33602 TELEPHONE: (813)273-6677 FACSIMILE: (813)223-2705 ATLANTA 430 MARGATE ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30328 TELEPHONE: (770)399-7700 FACSIMILE: (770) 3994162 James E. Chandler County Administrator Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Respectfully, Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A. By alefArst Pr. Robert Reid Shareholder and Authorized Signatory WA\CPJ� ©fl5ict5: BRYANT, MILLER AND OLIVE, P.A. THE EXCHANGE BUILDING 201 SOUTH MONROE STREET, SUITE 500 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 TELEPHONE: (850)222-8611 FACSIMILE: (850)222-8969 May 16, 2001 Re: Document Escrow Agreement dated as of September 1, 2000 Dear Jim: ORLANDO CENTURY PLAZA 135 WEST CENTRAL BLVD Surf 1230 ORLANDO. FLORIDA 32801 TZLIPHOMI: (407)426-7001 FACSIMILE- (407) 426-'262 PLEASE REPLY To: ROBERT C. REID TALLAHASSEE OErIcE BOBREID'a BMOLA14.CO%1 Enclosed, please find (i) an original of our letter as Escrow Agent under the Document Escrow Agreement to you and Rex Taylor regarding the extension of the escrow release date to August 31, 2001, (ii) the County Resolution regarding the extension of deadlines to August 31 2001 with exhibits, (iii) an additional copy of the Extension Agreement, (iv) a separate letter regarding the extension of the closing date under the Real Estate Acquisition Agreement between the County and the Dodgers, and (v) our Memorandum regarding the County's immunity from ad valorem taxation 1 will also have copies with me for the May 22, 2001 County Commission meeting. May 22, 2001 Cordially, 74 Bd 11 u PG 3 3 0 • • Administrator Chandler advised that the Board was being asked to consider two matters this morning. The first was the request for extension of the time on the escrow agreement from May 31 s` to August 31st. The second is an opinion of our Special Counsel Bob Reid with respect to the recent State Supreme Court decision commonly called the "Sebring Decision' (The Sebring Airport Authority and Sebring International Raceway, Inc. Case Nos. SC94118 and SC94105) relating to leasehold provisions. (Copy on file with the backup in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) Then Administrator Chandler advised that all provisions and conditions under the agreement have been met with one exception, the Developer (de Guardiola Development, Inc.) has indicated to the Dodgers that he is not yet ready to proceed and has requested an extension through August 31st. The Dodgers have concurred and requested that the County similarly concur and approve the extension of the Escrow Agreement. Staff and special counsel have looked at it and find no problems with extending the date as requested and recommend that the date be extended through August 31, 2001. Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there had already been one extension, and Administrator Chandler explained that the extension had been made administratively as provided in the contract because all the escrow requirements had not been met. Administrator Chandler further advised that the May 31s` date is the overriding date. Robert C. Reid, Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A., clarified that the real estate contract between the City of Vero Beach and the County had a projected closing date of March 31", which was a date that could be extended at the direction of the Dodgers and it was extended into early May. He explained the provisions of the Escrow Agreement with respect to the May 31st date and advised that his firm was willing to continue as the Escrow Agent. The request of the Dodgers and Developer to extend the date to August 31st was felt to be reasonable in the process and he transmitted the request to both the City and the County May 22, 2001 75 01i FG331 • • Administrator Chandler advised that the Board was being asked to consider two matters this morning. The first was the request for extension of the time on the escrow agreement from May 31 s` to August 31st. The second is an opinion of our Special Counsel Bob Reid with respect to the recent State Supreme Court decision commonly called the "Sebring Decision' (The Sebring Airport Authority and Sebring International Raceway, Inc. Case Nos. SC94118 and SC94105) relating to leasehold provisions. (Copy on file with the backup in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) Then Administrator Chandler advised that all provisions and conditions under the agreement have been met with one exception, the Developer (de Guardiola Development, Inc.) has indicated to the Dodgers that he is not yet ready to proceed and has requested an extension through August 31st. The Dodgers have concurred and requested that the County similarly concur and approve the extension of the Escrow Agreement. Staff and special counsel have looked at it and find no problems with extending the date as requested and recommend that the date be extended through August 31, 2001. Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there had already been one extension, and Administrator Chandler explained that the extension had been made administratively as provided in the contract because all the escrow requirements had not been met. Administrator Chandler further advised that the May 31s` date is the overriding date. Robert C. Reid, Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A., clarified that the real estate contract between the City of Vero Beach and the County had a projected closing date of March 31", which was a date that could be extended at the direction of the Dodgers and it was extended into early May. He explained the provisions of the Escrow Agreement with respect to the May 31st date and advised that his firm was willing to continue as the Escrow Agent. The request of the Dodgers and Developer to extend the date to August 31st was felt to be reasonable in the process and he transmitted the request to both the City and the County May 22, 2001 75 01i FG331 • • Administrator Chandler advised that the Board was being asked to consider two matters this morning. The first was the request for extension of the time on the escrow agreement from May 31 s` to August 31st. The second is an opinion of our Special Counsel Bob Reid with respect to the recent State Supreme Court decision commonly called the "Sebring Decision' (The Sebring Airport Authority and Sebring International Raceway, Inc. Case Nos. SC94118 and SC94105) relating to leasehold provisions. (Copy on file with the backup in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.) Then Administrator Chandler advised that all provisions and conditions under the agreement have been met with one exception, the Developer (de Guardiola Development, Inc.) has indicated to the Dodgers that he is not yet ready to proceed and has requested an extension through August 31st. The Dodgers have concurred and requested that the County similarly concur and approve the extension of the Escrow Agreement. Staff and special counsel have looked at it and find no problems with extending the date as requested and recommend that the date be extended through August 31, 2001. Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there had already been one extension, and Administrator Chandler explained that the extension had been made administratively as provided in the contract because all the escrow requirements had not been met. Administrator Chandler further advised that the May 31s` date is the overriding date. Robert C. Reid, Bryant, Miller and Olive, P.A., clarified that the real estate contract between the City of Vero Beach and the County had a projected closing date of March 31", which was a date that could be extended at the direction of the Dodgers and it was extended into early May. He explained the provisions of the Escrow Agreement with respect to the May 31st date and advised that his firm was willing to continue as the Escrow Agent. The request of the Dodgers and Developer to extend the date to August 31st was felt to be reasonable in the process and he transmitted the request to both the City and the County May 22, 2001 75 01i FG331 seeking consents to the extension. Vice Chairman Stanbridge asked if Mr. Reid felt this would satisfy any problems, and Mr. Reid suggested Mr. Callen respond to that question. Craig Callen, representing the Dodgers organization, responded in the affirmative due to the completion of about 99% of the requirements in this complex real estate transaction. The Developer has asked for the extension. The Dodgers, the City, the County and the State have completed their parts of the contract. He hoped that three months would be all that is needed. The Dodgers are just as excited as the County and the City are to get started. Chairman Ginn asked if there is a provision to go beyond August 31 t should things not come together, and Mr. Callen understood that an extension beyond that would be possible if all parties were agreeable. Administrator Chandler stated that would come back to the Board if that were to occur. Commissioner Adams asked ifthere was a time limit on the State funds, and Mr. Reid stated he believed the State funds which have been received are being held in a segregated account until the acquisition occurs at which time the County will be free to use those funds Mr. Reid continued that the County was certified January 1st as a facility for a retained spring training franchise, which entitled it to commence receiving its funds two months after that certification date, which commenced around March 1st. The funds have been coming in monthly since then and will continue for 30 months. The only thing that would stop that is if something happens that the transaction never closes, in which case those funds would be returned to the State. Chairman Ginn was concerned about additional expense the County has incurred, such as travel and documents, and asked who would pay for that since the County is not May 22, 2001 76 X `332 seeking consents to the extension. Vice Chairman Stanbridge asked if Mr. Reid felt this would satisfy any problems, and Mr. Reid suggested Mr. Callen respond to that question. Craig Callen, representing the Dodgers organization, responded in the affirmative due to the completion of about 99% of the requirements in this complex real estate transaction. The Developer has asked for the extension. The Dodgers, the City, the County and the State have completed their parts of the contract. He hoped that three months would be all that is needed. The Dodgers are just as excited as the County and the City are to get started. Chairman Ginn asked if there is a provision to go beyond August 31 t should things not come together, and Mr. Callen understood that an extension beyond that would be possible if all parties were agreeable. Administrator Chandler stated that would come back to the Board if that were to occur. Commissioner Adams asked ifthere was a time limit on the State funds, and Mr. Reid stated he believed the State funds which have been received are being held in a segregated account until the acquisition occurs at which time the County will be free to use those funds Mr. Reid continued that the County was certified January 1st as a facility for a retained spring training franchise, which entitled it to commence receiving its funds two months after that certification date, which commenced around March 1st. The funds have been coming in monthly since then and will continue for 30 months. The only thing that would stop that is if something happens that the transaction never closes, in which case those funds would be returned to the State. Chairman Ginn was concerned about additional expense the County has incurred, such as travel and documents, and asked who would pay for that since the County is not May 22, 2001 76 X `332 seeking consents to the extension. Vice Chairman Stanbridge asked if Mr. Reid felt this would satisfy any problems, and Mr. Reid suggested Mr. Callen respond to that question. Craig Callen, representing the Dodgers organization, responded in the affirmative due to the completion of about 99% of the requirements in this complex real estate transaction. The Developer has asked for the extension. The Dodgers, the City, the County and the State have completed their parts of the contract. He hoped that three months would be all that is needed. The Dodgers are just as excited as the County and the City are to get started. Chairman Ginn asked if there is a provision to go beyond August 31 t should things not come together, and Mr. Callen understood that an extension beyond that would be possible if all parties were agreeable. Administrator Chandler stated that would come back to the Board if that were to occur. Commissioner Adams asked ifthere was a time limit on the State funds, and Mr. Reid stated he believed the State funds which have been received are being held in a segregated account until the acquisition occurs at which time the County will be free to use those funds Mr. Reid continued that the County was certified January 1st as a facility for a retained spring training franchise, which entitled it to commence receiving its funds two months after that certification date, which commenced around March 1st. The funds have been coming in monthly since then and will continue for 30 months. The only thing that would stop that is if something happens that the transaction never closes, in which case those funds would be returned to the State. Chairman Ginn was concerned about additional expense the County has incurred, such as travel and documents, and asked who would pay for that since the County is not May 22, 2001 76 X `332 • asking for the extension. Administrator Chandler advised there is a provision that if something were to happen on the part of the Dodgers or the Developer and the closing did not take place, they would reimburse the County for all our legal expenses up to $50,000, which is now about $39,600. If the transaction does proceed, money will be reimbursed through the bond funds Mr. Callen interjected that, while it does not help the County, it costs the Dodgers for each one month extension about $80,000 due to lost interest on the bond money. Chairman Ginn pointed out that there are actual dollars and anticipated dollars. Funds coming from the bond money are taxpayers' money. Commissioner Adams understood the extension expenses will be paid out of the bond. Chairman Ginn asked if the Commissioners wanted any information on the Sebring decision, and Assistant Administrator Baird asked if the Board would vote on the extension first before discussing the second part. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve the extension of the Escrow Agreement to August 31, 2001. Chairman Ginn suggested they hear from people in the audience. Brian Heady recounted the history of how the Dodgers came to Vero Beach and acquired their property. His point was that the City's taxpayers never got what was promised and that it is costing them more money. The taxpayers do not understand why it is costing them when so many of the families need to have their children's lunches subsidized. He suggested that those who want the Dodgers to stay, the ones who believe it is a good deal, buy stock to purchase, own and operate the property, and lease it back to the Dodgers for $1 May 22, 2001 77 LJi 10 1 Cr 0 • • asking for the extension. Administrator Chandler advised there is a provision that if something were to happen on the part of the Dodgers or the Developer and the closing did not take place, they would reimburse the County for all our legal expenses up to $50,000, which is now about $39,600. If the transaction does proceed, money will be reimbursed through the bond funds Mr. Callen interjected that, while it does not help the County, it costs the Dodgers for each one month extension about $80,000 due to lost interest on the bond money. Chairman Ginn pointed out that there are actual dollars and anticipated dollars. Funds coming from the bond money are taxpayers' money. Commissioner Adams understood the extension expenses will be paid out of the bond. Chairman Ginn asked if the Commissioners wanted any information on the Sebring decision, and Assistant Administrator Baird asked if the Board would vote on the extension first before discussing the second part. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve the extension of the Escrow Agreement to August 31, 2001. Chairman Ginn suggested they hear from people in the audience. Brian Heady recounted the history of how the Dodgers came to Vero Beach and acquired their property. His point was that the City's taxpayers never got what was promised and that it is costing them more money. The taxpayers do not understand why it is costing them when so many of the families need to have their children's lunches subsidized. He suggested that those who want the Dodgers to stay, the ones who believe it is a good deal, buy stock to purchase, own and operate the property, and lease it back to the Dodgers for $1 May 22, 2001 77 LJi 10 1 Cr 0 • • asking for the extension. Administrator Chandler advised there is a provision that if something were to happen on the part of the Dodgers or the Developer and the closing did not take place, they would reimburse the County for all our legal expenses up to $50,000, which is now about $39,600. If the transaction does proceed, money will be reimbursed through the bond funds Mr. Callen interjected that, while it does not help the County, it costs the Dodgers for each one month extension about $80,000 due to lost interest on the bond money. Chairman Ginn pointed out that there are actual dollars and anticipated dollars. Funds coming from the bond money are taxpayers' money. Commissioner Adams understood the extension expenses will be paid out of the bond. Chairman Ginn asked if the Commissioners wanted any information on the Sebring decision, and Assistant Administrator Baird asked if the Board would vote on the extension first before discussing the second part. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve the extension of the Escrow Agreement to August 31, 2001. Chairman Ginn suggested they hear from people in the audience. Brian Heady recounted the history of how the Dodgers came to Vero Beach and acquired their property. His point was that the City's taxpayers never got what was promised and that it is costing them more money. The taxpayers do not understand why it is costing them when so many of the families need to have their children's lunches subsidized. He suggested that those who want the Dodgers to stay, the ones who believe it is a good deal, buy stock to purchase, own and operate the property, and lease it back to the Dodgers for $1 May 22, 2001 77 LJi 10 1 Cr 0 • a year. He urged the Commission to not extend the deal. Guy Barber, 1678 Highlands Avenue, concurred with Mr. Heady that there is no tax base to support this deal and extending it will increase the costs. He stated that the majority of the taxpayers in Indian River County do not want to pay to keep the Dodgers. He stated the majority of the taxpayers are not represented. This was a special interest group from the beginning. The people with money are forcing this on those without. John Clinton, 3606 Mockingbird Drive, distributed and read from a handout of the Florida Constitution, Article 7, Section 10, Pledging Credit. He stated that the four exceptions do not cover the deal with the Dodgers. He read a portion from the Sebring decision and opined that the Dodgertown deal is in violation of both. He questioned the purchase as not being constitutional. Frank Coffey,1335 River Ridge, recapped his understanding of the requested extension. He did not understand why the Developer had requested the extension and asked if there was any way that the Developer could be asked to put up a bond in order to consummate this extension. Since no one wished to respond to Mr. Coffey's inquiry, she stated that the Developer had asked and that is all we know. Assistant Administrator Baird pointed out that at this time we are not paying any interest which is a savings to the County. If the bond were issued on scheduled, the County would have an interest expense. This will help us. The debt service on the bonds will be lower due to the reduction in interest rates since the interest rates were substantially higher when they were estimated and calculated. Also the deal was structured so it minimizes the effect on the local taxpayer. The debt service is paid first from the State money, secondly from the additional local tourist tax, and thirdly from the ''A cent sales tax. He saw this delay as a positive because of the lowered interest rates. May 22, 2001 78 �0 PG a year. He urged the Commission to not extend the deal. Guy Barber, 1678 Highlands Avenue, concurred with Mr. Heady that there is no tax base to support this deal and extending it will increase the costs. He stated that the majority of the taxpayers in Indian River County do not want to pay to keep the Dodgers. He stated the majority of the taxpayers are not represented. This was a special interest group from the beginning. The people with money are forcing this on those without. John Clinton, 3606 Mockingbird Drive, distributed and read from a handout of the Florida Constitution, Article 7, Section 10, Pledging Credit. He stated that the four exceptions do not cover the deal with the Dodgers. He read a portion from the Sebring decision and opined that the Dodgertown deal is in violation of both. He questioned the purchase as not being constitutional. Frank Coffey,1335 River Ridge, recapped his understanding of the requested extension. He did not understand why the Developer had requested the extension and asked if there was any way that the Developer could be asked to put up a bond in order to consummate this extension. Since no one wished to respond to Mr. Coffey's inquiry, she stated that the Developer had asked and that is all we know. Assistant Administrator Baird pointed out that at this time we are not paying any interest which is a savings to the County. If the bond were issued on scheduled, the County would have an interest expense. This will help us. The debt service on the bonds will be lower due to the reduction in interest rates since the interest rates were substantially higher when they were estimated and calculated. Also the deal was structured so it minimizes the effect on the local taxpayer. The debt service is paid first from the State money, secondly from the additional local tourist tax, and thirdly from the ''A cent sales tax. He saw this delay as a positive because of the lowered interest rates. May 22, 2001 78 �0 PG a year. He urged the Commission to not extend the deal. Guy Barber, 1678 Highlands Avenue, concurred with Mr. Heady that there is no tax base to support this deal and extending it will increase the costs. He stated that the majority of the taxpayers in Indian River County do not want to pay to keep the Dodgers. He stated the majority of the taxpayers are not represented. This was a special interest group from the beginning. The people with money are forcing this on those without. John Clinton, 3606 Mockingbird Drive, distributed and read from a handout of the Florida Constitution, Article 7, Section 10, Pledging Credit. He stated that the four exceptions do not cover the deal with the Dodgers. He read a portion from the Sebring decision and opined that the Dodgertown deal is in violation of both. He questioned the purchase as not being constitutional. Frank Coffey,1335 River Ridge, recapped his understanding of the requested extension. He did not understand why the Developer had requested the extension and asked if there was any way that the Developer could be asked to put up a bond in order to consummate this extension. Since no one wished to respond to Mr. Coffey's inquiry, she stated that the Developer had asked and that is all we know. Assistant Administrator Baird pointed out that at this time we are not paying any interest which is a savings to the County. If the bond were issued on scheduled, the County would have an interest expense. This will help us. The debt service on the bonds will be lower due to the reduction in interest rates since the interest rates were substantially higher when they were estimated and calculated. Also the deal was structured so it minimizes the effect on the local taxpayer. The debt service is paid first from the State money, secondly from the additional local tourist tax, and thirdly from the ''A cent sales tax. He saw this delay as a positive because of the lowered interest rates. May 22, 2001 78 �0 PG • Commissioner Adams understood that the Developer is expected to be ready in 90 days. and Mr. Reid explained the County will not take its final actions until all pre -issuance conditions have been met. Until that date. any of the parties can back out: meanwhile the County is avoiding paying interest and earning interest on the State payments and on the tourist development tax received. We are waiting for the Developer to say he is ready to proceed. Commissioner Adams asked what could go wrong in the next 90 days that would cause this deadline not to be met, and Administrator Chandler advised that potentially the Developer could say he has no intention to proceed. Commissioner Adams then asked if the agreement is tied to this developer, or could it be any developer. Mr. Callen responded that the rights of de Guardiola can be assigned to a third party at which time due diligence would be done to move along with the third party. It is the Dodgers intent to continue whether it is with de Guardiola or their assignee; that individual or firm would have to sign every agreement signed by de Guardiola and would be held to those. If de Guardiola could not continue, it would be the Dodgers intent to find a third party and move forward. Commissioner Adams had questions because of what has been developing in Brevard County with the Marlins. She asked what Mr Callen to give her some comfort level that the Dodgers would not do as the Marlins have done. Mr. Callen spoke through his knowledge of the Dodgers and stated there is no intent to leave Indian River County. They continue to receive requests to move to Arizona and Las Vegas is still looking for them to move where their AAA team is. Vero Beach works for the Dodgers and he specified their minor league teams have been realigned to the east coast. Also Dodgertown is their players' rehab facility. The floor plans are ready and he is ready May 22, 2001 79 0i' t 1 0 1U o. 1/4) • • Commissioner Adams understood that the Developer is expected to be ready in 90 days. and Mr. Reid explained the County will not take its final actions until all pre -issuance conditions have been met. Until that date. any of the parties can back out: meanwhile the County is avoiding paying interest and earning interest on the State payments and on the tourist development tax received. We are waiting for the Developer to say he is ready to proceed. Commissioner Adams asked what could go wrong in the next 90 days that would cause this deadline not to be met, and Administrator Chandler advised that potentially the Developer could say he has no intention to proceed. Commissioner Adams then asked if the agreement is tied to this developer, or could it be any developer. Mr. Callen responded that the rights of de Guardiola can be assigned to a third party at which time due diligence would be done to move along with the third party. It is the Dodgers intent to continue whether it is with de Guardiola or their assignee; that individual or firm would have to sign every agreement signed by de Guardiola and would be held to those. If de Guardiola could not continue, it would be the Dodgers intent to find a third party and move forward. Commissioner Adams had questions because of what has been developing in Brevard County with the Marlins. She asked what Mr Callen to give her some comfort level that the Dodgers would not do as the Marlins have done. Mr. Callen spoke through his knowledge of the Dodgers and stated there is no intent to leave Indian River County. They continue to receive requests to move to Arizona and Las Vegas is still looking for them to move where their AAA team is. Vero Beach works for the Dodgers and he specified their minor league teams have been realigned to the east coast. Also Dodgertown is their players' rehab facility. The floor plans are ready and he is ready May 22, 2001 79 0i' t 1 0 1U o. 1/4) • • Commissioner Adams understood that the Developer is expected to be ready in 90 days. and Mr. Reid explained the County will not take its final actions until all pre -issuance conditions have been met. Until that date. any of the parties can back out: meanwhile the County is avoiding paying interest and earning interest on the State payments and on the tourist development tax received. We are waiting for the Developer to say he is ready to proceed. Commissioner Adams asked what could go wrong in the next 90 days that would cause this deadline not to be met, and Administrator Chandler advised that potentially the Developer could say he has no intention to proceed. Commissioner Adams then asked if the agreement is tied to this developer, or could it be any developer. Mr. Callen responded that the rights of de Guardiola can be assigned to a third party at which time due diligence would be done to move along with the third party. It is the Dodgers intent to continue whether it is with de Guardiola or their assignee; that individual or firm would have to sign every agreement signed by de Guardiola and would be held to those. If de Guardiola could not continue, it would be the Dodgers intent to find a third party and move forward. Commissioner Adams had questions because of what has been developing in Brevard County with the Marlins. She asked what Mr Callen to give her some comfort level that the Dodgers would not do as the Marlins have done. Mr. Callen spoke through his knowledge of the Dodgers and stated there is no intent to leave Indian River County. They continue to receive requests to move to Arizona and Las Vegas is still looking for them to move where their AAA team is. Vero Beach works for the Dodgers and he specified their minor league teams have been realigned to the east coast. Also Dodgertown is their players' rehab facility. The floor plans are ready and he is ready May 22, 2001 79 0i' t 1 0 1U o. 1/4) • to go as soon as the bonds are issued. He also mentioned that the Marlins are an expansion team and the Dodgers have been in Vero Beach since 1948 and in the National League since the 1800's. There are no plans to move. Malcolm Liggett,1505 4t" Street, had two questions for Mr. Callen, and Mr. Callen reiterated that in the event de Guardiola cannot move forward, they would seek another developer. There is already a prospective third party but that is premature. Mr. Callen advised that the 9 -hole golf course is being sold to de Guardiola for $60,000 per acre which is 15% higher than the property contiguous to it that the County is purchasing. B. J. McClure, 395 Nieuport Drive, asked if the Board would postpone their vote until the Sebring case was explained. There is a perception in the community that those issues impact the decision of the Commission and he would like to hear and explanation before he continued. The Board wished to hear Mr McClure's comments. Mr. McClure urged the Board to reject the extension or to at least amend the contract to remove any provision for the County paying any ad valorem taxes on the Dodger property. He had spoken before them six months ago and urged the same thing. He argued that the bonds will be invalidated because of the Supreme Court Case of Brandis vs City of Deerfield Beach. He also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the Sebring Raceway case, which he felt was appropriate to the County's deal with the Dodgers because the Legislature does not have the power to override the Constitution in the State of Florida. Until that Constitution is amended to remove the requirement for taxing private enterprise, there will be taxes on the Dodger property. He specified there is nothing in the 38 -page opinion from the Supreme Court that suggests, mentions or infers that the status of a taxing authority has anything whatsoever to do with whether there is an exemption created or not. He cited a third case, Archer vs. Marshall, 355 S.2d 781, 1978. He stressed that the taxpayers will be May 22, 2001 80 1' . 3E to go as soon as the bonds are issued. He also mentioned that the Marlins are an expansion team and the Dodgers have been in Vero Beach since 1948 and in the National League since the 1800's. There are no plans to move. Malcolm Liggett,1505 4t" Street, had two questions for Mr. Callen, and Mr. Callen reiterated that in the event de Guardiola cannot move forward, they would seek another developer. There is already a prospective third party but that is premature. Mr. Callen advised that the 9 -hole golf course is being sold to de Guardiola for $60,000 per acre which is 15% higher than the property contiguous to it that the County is purchasing. B. J. McClure, 395 Nieuport Drive, asked if the Board would postpone their vote until the Sebring case was explained. There is a perception in the community that those issues impact the decision of the Commission and he would like to hear and explanation before he continued. The Board wished to hear Mr McClure's comments. Mr. McClure urged the Board to reject the extension or to at least amend the contract to remove any provision for the County paying any ad valorem taxes on the Dodger property. He had spoken before them six months ago and urged the same thing. He argued that the bonds will be invalidated because of the Supreme Court Case of Brandis vs City of Deerfield Beach. He also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the Sebring Raceway case, which he felt was appropriate to the County's deal with the Dodgers because the Legislature does not have the power to override the Constitution in the State of Florida. Until that Constitution is amended to remove the requirement for taxing private enterprise, there will be taxes on the Dodger property. He specified there is nothing in the 38 -page opinion from the Supreme Court that suggests, mentions or infers that the status of a taxing authority has anything whatsoever to do with whether there is an exemption created or not. He cited a third case, Archer vs. Marshall, 355 S.2d 781, 1978. He stressed that the taxpayers will be May 22, 2001 80 1' . 3E to go as soon as the bonds are issued. He also mentioned that the Marlins are an expansion team and the Dodgers have been in Vero Beach since 1948 and in the National League since the 1800's. There are no plans to move. Malcolm Liggett,1505 4t" Street, had two questions for Mr. Callen, and Mr. Callen reiterated that in the event de Guardiola cannot move forward, they would seek another developer. There is already a prospective third party but that is premature. Mr. Callen advised that the 9 -hole golf course is being sold to de Guardiola for $60,000 per acre which is 15% higher than the property contiguous to it that the County is purchasing. B. J. McClure, 395 Nieuport Drive, asked if the Board would postpone their vote until the Sebring case was explained. There is a perception in the community that those issues impact the decision of the Commission and he would like to hear and explanation before he continued. The Board wished to hear Mr McClure's comments. Mr. McClure urged the Board to reject the extension or to at least amend the contract to remove any provision for the County paying any ad valorem taxes on the Dodger property. He had spoken before them six months ago and urged the same thing. He argued that the bonds will be invalidated because of the Supreme Court Case of Brandis vs City of Deerfield Beach. He also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the Sebring Raceway case, which he felt was appropriate to the County's deal with the Dodgers because the Legislature does not have the power to override the Constitution in the State of Florida. Until that Constitution is amended to remove the requirement for taxing private enterprise, there will be taxes on the Dodger property. He specified there is nothing in the 38 -page opinion from the Supreme Court that suggests, mentions or infers that the status of a taxing authority has anything whatsoever to do with whether there is an exemption created or not. He cited a third case, Archer vs. Marshall, 355 S.2d 781, 1978. He stressed that the taxpayers will be May 22, 2001 80 1' . 3E • the ones who will have to pay the ad valorem taxes on the Dodger property. He predicted that by granting this extension, they will be postponing the inevitable, and warned that "the County is buying a bunch of lawsuits that will involve the Tax Appraiser, the Tax Assessor, the County, the Dodgers and everybody involved. And if they think the bill is high now. wait to see what the lawyers will charge for that one because it is going to go all the way to the Supreme Court." He suggested that denying this extension is "a way for the County to back out of a really bad deal." He again urged them to reject the extension. Mr. Reid responded, at Chairman Ginn's suggestion. First to the earlier comments, (at last year's meetings) he cited and explained the Florida Supreme Court's decision on Poe vs Hillsborough County (ownership and financing of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Stadium) as having bearing on this matter. Chairman Ginn questioned the contrasting disbursal of the revenue, and Mr. Reid explained that the sports team in that instance (Tampa) is not responsible for the maintenance of the stadium. In response to her further questions, he expanded on that case pointing up the economic benefit to Indian River County. Chairman Ginn respectfully disagreed with Mr. Reid's opinion that the Sebring decision does not apply to the Dodgers and Indian River County. She felt the validity of our bond issue is in question because Article 7, Section 10, of the Florida Constitution, is directly implicated in bond validation matters. She read from several sections of that Article. She felt that page 30 of the decision says it all, beginning with the last paragraph.. Based on that decision, she felt the agreement with the Dodgers to be illegal and she did not see how the basis of sovereign immunity applied. Mr. Reid understood the confusion that the Sebring decision appears to raise. He explained as follows: The contract provides that in the event the property, following the County's acquisition, is subject to ad valorem real property taxes, the County, as the owner, May 22, 2001 81 no* i 1! 8 PG 3 3 7 • • the ones who will have to pay the ad valorem taxes on the Dodger property. He predicted that by granting this extension, they will be postponing the inevitable, and warned that "the County is buying a bunch of lawsuits that will involve the Tax Appraiser, the Tax Assessor, the County, the Dodgers and everybody involved. And if they think the bill is high now. wait to see what the lawyers will charge for that one because it is going to go all the way to the Supreme Court." He suggested that denying this extension is "a way for the County to back out of a really bad deal." He again urged them to reject the extension. Mr. Reid responded, at Chairman Ginn's suggestion. First to the earlier comments, (at last year's meetings) he cited and explained the Florida Supreme Court's decision on Poe vs Hillsborough County (ownership and financing of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Stadium) as having bearing on this matter. Chairman Ginn questioned the contrasting disbursal of the revenue, and Mr. Reid explained that the sports team in that instance (Tampa) is not responsible for the maintenance of the stadium. In response to her further questions, he expanded on that case pointing up the economic benefit to Indian River County. Chairman Ginn respectfully disagreed with Mr. Reid's opinion that the Sebring decision does not apply to the Dodgers and Indian River County. She felt the validity of our bond issue is in question because Article 7, Section 10, of the Florida Constitution, is directly implicated in bond validation matters. She read from several sections of that Article. She felt that page 30 of the decision says it all, beginning with the last paragraph.. Based on that decision, she felt the agreement with the Dodgers to be illegal and she did not see how the basis of sovereign immunity applied. Mr. Reid understood the confusion that the Sebring decision appears to raise. He explained as follows: The contract provides that in the event the property, following the County's acquisition, is subject to ad valorem real property taxes, the County, as the owner, May 22, 2001 81 no* i 1! 8 PG 3 3 7 • • the ones who will have to pay the ad valorem taxes on the Dodger property. He predicted that by granting this extension, they will be postponing the inevitable, and warned that "the County is buying a bunch of lawsuits that will involve the Tax Appraiser, the Tax Assessor, the County, the Dodgers and everybody involved. And if they think the bill is high now. wait to see what the lawyers will charge for that one because it is going to go all the way to the Supreme Court." He suggested that denying this extension is "a way for the County to back out of a really bad deal." He again urged them to reject the extension. Mr. Reid responded, at Chairman Ginn's suggestion. First to the earlier comments, (at last year's meetings) he cited and explained the Florida Supreme Court's decision on Poe vs Hillsborough County (ownership and financing of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers Stadium) as having bearing on this matter. Chairman Ginn questioned the contrasting disbursal of the revenue, and Mr. Reid explained that the sports team in that instance (Tampa) is not responsible for the maintenance of the stadium. In response to her further questions, he expanded on that case pointing up the economic benefit to Indian River County. Chairman Ginn respectfully disagreed with Mr. Reid's opinion that the Sebring decision does not apply to the Dodgers and Indian River County. She felt the validity of our bond issue is in question because Article 7, Section 10, of the Florida Constitution, is directly implicated in bond validation matters. She read from several sections of that Article. She felt that page 30 of the decision says it all, beginning with the last paragraph.. Based on that decision, she felt the agreement with the Dodgers to be illegal and she did not see how the basis of sovereign immunity applied. Mr. Reid understood the confusion that the Sebring decision appears to raise. He explained as follows: The contract provides that in the event the property, following the County's acquisition, is subject to ad valorem real property taxes, the County, as the owner, May 22, 2001 81 no* i 1! 8 PG 3 3 7 • agreed to be responsible for the taxes. This will not void the contract. The County did not assume any obligation to pay any taxes that are levied on the Dodgers, as lessee, to the extent there are taxes as a result of their leasehold interest. Those are not ad valorem real property taxes, and not the obligation of the County, but of the Dodgers. To the extent there are personal property ad valorem taxes levied, those are the responsibility of the Dodgers, not the County. The only tax obligation that the County agreed to be responsible for is ad valorem real property taxes taxing the County's ownership of the property. Nothing else. And the County, under those circumstances, would be the owner of the property. Mr. Reid then went on to explain in depth the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court with respect to Sebring, which is a special district, not a political subdivision of the State, as is Indian River County. He also cited another Supreme Court decision, Leon County vs City of Tallahassee, which dealt with a utility tax and a political subdivision of the State. He mentioned other cases which are dealing with a non -State government entity and explained in other ways trying to clarify the sovereign immunity issue. Commissioner Tippin called the question. Chairman Ginn believed the explanation presented by Mr Reid to be a "stretch" and explained• her reasons. Commissioner Tippin again called the question. County Attorney Bangel wished to CLARIFY THE EFFECT OF THE MOTION which would be to adopt the proposed resolution, enter into the proposed extension agreement, and approve the proposed letter that was in the backup. Chairman Ginn recognized the next speaker and asked her to be brief. Renee Renzi. 340 E Waverly Place, thought she heard Mr Reid say that it would be an "economic benefit" to the local community. She questioned the figures the Dodgers spoke of as benefit to the community. She read the Dodgers were very disappointed with the May 22, 2001 82 OA D!a agreed to be responsible for the taxes. This will not void the contract. The County did not assume any obligation to pay any taxes that are levied on the Dodgers, as lessee, to the extent there are taxes as a result of their leasehold interest. Those are not ad valorem real property taxes, and not the obligation of the County, but of the Dodgers. To the extent there are personal property ad valorem taxes levied, those are the responsibility of the Dodgers, not the County. The only tax obligation that the County agreed to be responsible for is ad valorem real property taxes taxing the County's ownership of the property. Nothing else. And the County, under those circumstances, would be the owner of the property. Mr. Reid then went on to explain in depth the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court with respect to Sebring, which is a special district, not a political subdivision of the State, as is Indian River County. He also cited another Supreme Court decision, Leon County vs City of Tallahassee, which dealt with a utility tax and a political subdivision of the State. He mentioned other cases which are dealing with a non -State government entity and explained in other ways trying to clarify the sovereign immunity issue. Commissioner Tippin called the question. Chairman Ginn believed the explanation presented by Mr Reid to be a "stretch" and explained• her reasons. Commissioner Tippin again called the question. County Attorney Bangel wished to CLARIFY THE EFFECT OF THE MOTION which would be to adopt the proposed resolution, enter into the proposed extension agreement, and approve the proposed letter that was in the backup. Chairman Ginn recognized the next speaker and asked her to be brief. Renee Renzi. 340 E Waverly Place, thought she heard Mr Reid say that it would be an "economic benefit" to the local community. She questioned the figures the Dodgers spoke of as benefit to the community. She read the Dodgers were very disappointed with the May 22, 2001 82 OA D!a agreed to be responsible for the taxes. This will not void the contract. The County did not assume any obligation to pay any taxes that are levied on the Dodgers, as lessee, to the extent there are taxes as a result of their leasehold interest. Those are not ad valorem real property taxes, and not the obligation of the County, but of the Dodgers. To the extent there are personal property ad valorem taxes levied, those are the responsibility of the Dodgers, not the County. The only tax obligation that the County agreed to be responsible for is ad valorem real property taxes taxing the County's ownership of the property. Nothing else. And the County, under those circumstances, would be the owner of the property. Mr. Reid then went on to explain in depth the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court with respect to Sebring, which is a special district, not a political subdivision of the State, as is Indian River County. He also cited another Supreme Court decision, Leon County vs City of Tallahassee, which dealt with a utility tax and a political subdivision of the State. He mentioned other cases which are dealing with a non -State government entity and explained in other ways trying to clarify the sovereign immunity issue. Commissioner Tippin called the question. Chairman Ginn believed the explanation presented by Mr Reid to be a "stretch" and explained• her reasons. Commissioner Tippin again called the question. County Attorney Bangel wished to CLARIFY THE EFFECT OF THE MOTION which would be to adopt the proposed resolution, enter into the proposed extension agreement, and approve the proposed letter that was in the backup. Chairman Ginn recognized the next speaker and asked her to be brief. Renee Renzi. 340 E Waverly Place, thought she heard Mr Reid say that it would be an "economic benefit" to the local community. She questioned the figures the Dodgers spoke of as benefit to the community. She read the Dodgers were very disappointed with the May 22, 2001 82 OA D!a • attendance at their Spring training games. She was shocked that it cost her $12 to attend a game and $5 to park; while the stands were about 1/3 full. She sympathized with those who had decided not to pay those prices. She thought the Dodgers would have been wise this year to allow free admission to all Indian River County residents. She urged the Board to refuse the extension. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 3-1 (Chairman Ginn opposed; Commissioner Macht absent). (Adopted Resolution No. 2001-053 providing for the approval of the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of an Extension Agreement for document escrow agreement in connection with the acquisition of certain real property known as Dodgertown, authorizing other required actions, providing for severability and an effective date. Chairman Ginn predicted this will end up in the courts. May 22, 2001 COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT AND A LETTER AGREEMENT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 053 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS DODGERTOWN, AUTHORIZING OTHER REQUIRED ACTIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILIT\ AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 83 j t' 9 • • attendance at their Spring training games. She was shocked that it cost her $12 to attend a game and $5 to park; while the stands were about 1/3 full. She sympathized with those who had decided not to pay those prices. She thought the Dodgers would have been wise this year to allow free admission to all Indian River County residents. She urged the Board to refuse the extension. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 3-1 (Chairman Ginn opposed; Commissioner Macht absent). (Adopted Resolution No. 2001-053 providing for the approval of the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of an Extension Agreement for document escrow agreement in connection with the acquisition of certain real property known as Dodgertown, authorizing other required actions, providing for severability and an effective date. Chairman Ginn predicted this will end up in the courts. May 22, 2001 COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT AND A LETTER AGREEMENT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 053 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS DODGERTOWN, AUTHORIZING OTHER REQUIRED ACTIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILIT\ AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 83 j t' 9 • • attendance at their Spring training games. She was shocked that it cost her $12 to attend a game and $5 to park; while the stands were about 1/3 full. She sympathized with those who had decided not to pay those prices. She thought the Dodgers would have been wise this year to allow free admission to all Indian River County residents. She urged the Board to refuse the extension. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 3-1 (Chairman Ginn opposed; Commissioner Macht absent). (Adopted Resolution No. 2001-053 providing for the approval of the form of and authorizing the execution and delivery of an Extension Agreement for document escrow agreement in connection with the acquisition of certain real property known as Dodgertown, authorizing other required actions, providing for severability and an effective date. Chairman Ginn predicted this will end up in the courts. May 22, 2001 COPY OF PARTIALLY EXECUTED EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT AND A LETTER AGREEMENT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 053 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN EXTENSION AGREEMENT FOR DOCUMENT ESCROW AGREEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS DODGERTOWN, AUTHORIZING OTHER REQUIRED ACTIONS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILIT\ AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 83 j t' 9 • BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 125, Flonda Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT. The Extension Agreement for Document Escrow Agreement (the "Extension Agreement") in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved and the Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Extension Agreement on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE CLOSING EXTENSION. The Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated as of September 1 2000 (the "Real Estate Contract ') between the Los Angeles Dodgers Inc. (the `Dodgers') and the County provided for a closing on the sale of the real estate on or before March 31, 2000. In light of the extension of the document escrow period until August 31, 2001, the Dodgers have extended the real estate closing date to August 31 2001, and have requested that the County acknowledge same by executing the extension letter attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the acknowledgment of the extension letter substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional changes insertions- and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY AND INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, but not expressly prohibited or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way effect the validity of the other provisions hereof SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2001. Attest Der ury Clerk May 22, 2001 84 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA By: < saL As: Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY -•tfAkt'' vSpecial County A torney nr BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 125, Flonda Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT. The Extension Agreement for Document Escrow Agreement (the "Extension Agreement") in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved and the Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Extension Agreement on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE CLOSING EXTENSION. The Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated as of September 1 2000 (the "Real Estate Contract ') between the Los Angeles Dodgers Inc. (the `Dodgers') and the County provided for a closing on the sale of the real estate on or before March 31, 2000. In light of the extension of the document escrow period until August 31, 2001, the Dodgers have extended the real estate closing date to August 31 2001, and have requested that the County acknowledge same by executing the extension letter attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the acknowledgment of the extension letter substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional changes insertions- and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY AND INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, but not expressly prohibited or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way effect the validity of the other provisions hereof SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2001. Attest Der ury Clerk May 22, 2001 84 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA By: < saL As: Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY -•tfAkt'' vSpecial County A torney nr BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION. This Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 125, Flonda Statutes, and other applicable provisions of law SECTION 2. APPROVAL OF THE EXTENSION AGREEMENT. The Extension Agreement for Document Escrow Agreement (the "Extension Agreement") in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved and the Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Extension Agreement on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional changes, insertions and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval. SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF REAL ESTATE CLOSING EXTENSION. The Agreement for Sale and Purchase dated as of September 1 2000 (the "Real Estate Contract ') between the Los Angeles Dodgers Inc. (the `Dodgers') and the County provided for a closing on the sale of the real estate on or before March 31, 2000. In light of the extension of the document escrow period until August 31, 2001, the Dodgers have extended the real estate closing date to August 31 2001, and have requested that the County acknowledge same by executing the extension letter attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Chairman or Vice -Chairman and the Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the acknowledgment of the extension letter substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B on behalf of and in the name of the County, with such additional changes insertions- and omissions therein as may be otherwise made and approved by said officers of the County executing the same, such execution to be conclusive evidence of such approval. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY AND INVALID PROVISIONS. If any one or more of the covenants, agreements or provisions herein contained shall be held contrary to any express provision of law or contrary to the policy of express law, but not expressly prohibited or against public policy, or shall for any reason whatsoever be held invalid, then such covenants, agreements or provisions shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants, agreements or provisions and shall in no way effect the validity of the other provisions hereof SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. Adopted this 22nd day of May, 2001. Attest Der ury Clerk May 22, 2001 84 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA By: < saL As: Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY -•tfAkt'' vSpecial County A torney nr 1 11.C. MAIN LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS - BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC. - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPROVAL The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 2001: Date: May 14, 2001 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator From. Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director A it) Subject: Contract Approval with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., for the Construction of Main Library Improvements EXHIBIT: Proposed Agreement between County and Contractor BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners awarded to Bill Bryant & Associates. Inc., the bid for the improvements to the Main Library. Bill Bryant & Associates was the lowest complying bidder and had bid a price of $1,603,000 for the work as requested within the bid documents. The contractor has included as part of his bid a time period of 240 days to complete the work 1 have attached a document entitled "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor where the basis of payment is a Stipulated Sum," AIA Document A101-1997, 1997 Edition. This particular document has the recommended modification as recommended by the National Construction Law Center, Inc. The recommendations were also included into the documents prepared by the architect and approved by the County Attorney's office. Specifically, AIA Document A201-1997, as modified with recommendations of the Construction Law Center, Inc , is part of this agreement as referenced within the agreement and as part of the Construction Document Project Manual prepared by Dow Howell Gilmore Associates, Inc., dated March 8, 2001, which was advertised as a bid specification document that the contractor would have to use as part of the contract document. The AIA Document A101-1997 with the modifications has been reviewed by approved by the County Attorney's office along with the AIA Document A201-1997. RECOMENDATION: Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approval of the attached agreement and authorization for the Chairman to execute said agreement when required performance and payment bonds have been submitted along with appropriate certification of insurance. ,4 z, ,64e1'c1° fav,-,m,Caote Are, rc ce May 22, 2001 85 u 10 1 • 1 11.C. MAIN LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS - BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC. - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPROVAL The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 2001: Date: May 14, 2001 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator From. Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director A it) Subject: Contract Approval with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., for the Construction of Main Library Improvements EXHIBIT: Proposed Agreement between County and Contractor BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners awarded to Bill Bryant & Associates. Inc., the bid for the improvements to the Main Library. Bill Bryant & Associates was the lowest complying bidder and had bid a price of $1,603,000 for the work as requested within the bid documents. The contractor has included as part of his bid a time period of 240 days to complete the work 1 have attached a document entitled "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor where the basis of payment is a Stipulated Sum," AIA Document A101-1997, 1997 Edition. This particular document has the recommended modification as recommended by the National Construction Law Center, Inc. The recommendations were also included into the documents prepared by the architect and approved by the County Attorney's office. Specifically, AIA Document A201-1997, as modified with recommendations of the Construction Law Center, Inc , is part of this agreement as referenced within the agreement and as part of the Construction Document Project Manual prepared by Dow Howell Gilmore Associates, Inc., dated March 8, 2001, which was advertised as a bid specification document that the contractor would have to use as part of the contract document. The AIA Document A101-1997 with the modifications has been reviewed by approved by the County Attorney's office along with the AIA Document A201-1997. RECOMENDATION: Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approval of the attached agreement and authorization for the Chairman to execute said agreement when required performance and payment bonds have been submitted along with appropriate certification of insurance. ,4 z, ,64e1'c1° fav,-,m,Caote Are, rc ce May 22, 2001 85 u 10 1 • 1 11.C. MAIN LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS - BILL BRYANT & ASSOCIATES, INC. - CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT APPROVAL The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 14, 2001: Date: May 14, 2001 To: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: James E. Chandler, County Administrator From. Thomas W. Frame, General Services Director A it) Subject: Contract Approval with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., for the Construction of Main Library Improvements EXHIBIT: Proposed Agreement between County and Contractor BACKGROUND: On May 15, 2001, the Board of County Commissioners awarded to Bill Bryant & Associates. Inc., the bid for the improvements to the Main Library. Bill Bryant & Associates was the lowest complying bidder and had bid a price of $1,603,000 for the work as requested within the bid documents. The contractor has included as part of his bid a time period of 240 days to complete the work 1 have attached a document entitled "Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor where the basis of payment is a Stipulated Sum," AIA Document A101-1997, 1997 Edition. This particular document has the recommended modification as recommended by the National Construction Law Center, Inc. The recommendations were also included into the documents prepared by the architect and approved by the County Attorney's office. Specifically, AIA Document A201-1997, as modified with recommendations of the Construction Law Center, Inc , is part of this agreement as referenced within the agreement and as part of the Construction Document Project Manual prepared by Dow Howell Gilmore Associates, Inc., dated March 8, 2001, which was advertised as a bid specification document that the contractor would have to use as part of the contract document. The AIA Document A101-1997 with the modifications has been reviewed by approved by the County Attorney's office along with the AIA Document A201-1997. RECOMENDATION: Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approval of the attached agreement and authorization for the Chairman to execute said agreement when required performance and payment bonds have been submitted along with appropriate certification of insurance. ,4 z, ,64e1'c1° fav,-,m,Caote Are, rc ce May 22, 2001 85 u 10 1 • ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the proposed agreement with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., and authorized the Chairman to execute the same when required performance and payment bonds have been submitted along with appropriate certification of insurance, as recommended in the memorandum. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.E. TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS - TOURIST TAX REVENUE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 2001: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 10, 2001 SUBJECT: TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION FROM: Joseph A. Baird Assistant County Administrator `S DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 8, 2001, the Tourist Development Council reviewed budget requests for fiscal year 2001/2002 to be paid from the Tourist Tax revenue. The Council's recommendations are listed below: May 22, 2001 86 BOK 1c� ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the proposed agreement with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., and authorized the Chairman to execute the same when required performance and payment bonds have been submitted along with appropriate certification of insurance, as recommended in the memorandum. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.E. TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS - TOURIST TAX REVENUE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 2001: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 10, 2001 SUBJECT: TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION FROM: Joseph A. Baird Assistant County Administrator `S DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 8, 2001, the Tourist Development Council reviewed budget requests for fiscal year 2001/2002 to be paid from the Tourist Tax revenue. The Council's recommendations are listed below: May 22, 2001 86 BOK 1c� ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved the proposed agreement with Bill Bryant & Associates, Inc., and authorized the Chairman to execute the same when required performance and payment bonds have been submitted along with appropriate certification of insurance, as recommended in the memorandum. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.E. TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS - TOURIST TAX REVENUE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 10, 2001: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 10, 2001 SUBJECT: TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 2001/2002 BUDGET RECOMMENDATION FROM: Joseph A. Baird Assistant County Administrator `S DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 8, 2001, the Tourist Development Council reviewed budget requests for fiscal year 2001/2002 to be paid from the Tourist Tax revenue. The Council's recommendations are listed below: May 22, 2001 86 BOK 1c� • • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there has been a lot of discussion concerning personnel to be employed and wondered if any conclusion had been reached. Commissioner Tippin advised the previous minutes were being checked. This does include some salaries but it would be impossible in five meetings to come to an agreement on the way some people feel, pro and con, on that subject. May 22, 2001 87 nu '3143 ORGANIZATION 2000/2001 FUNDING 2001/2002 REQUEST 2001/2002 T.D.C. RECOMMENDATION Center For The Arts $13,830 $14.798 $13,830 Cultural Council of Indian River County $56.000 S55,934 555,934 Indian River County Chamber of Commerce S392,727 $405.689 5405.689 IRC Chamber of Commerce — Pelican Island Centennial Celebration Steering Committee 50 $50,518 $43,018 Indian River County Historical Society $8,000 $5,000 S5.000 McKee Botanical Gardens $10.223 SO SO Riverside Theatre, Inc. 53.800 $7.224 53.800 Treasure Coast Sports Commission S25.000 $50,000 525,000 Vero Heritage, Inc. 510,446 $14,555 510,955 Other Professional Services (Tourism Study) $64,741 $0 $0 American Heritage River Steering Committee Video Promotion Eco -Tourism — PBS Special $5,000 $0 $0 Reserve for Contingency $2,724 SO $0 Sub -Total $592,491 $603,718 5563.226 Beach Restoration $475,000 S513.000 $513,000 Dodgertown Bond Issue $0 $342.000 $342,000 TOTAL 51.067,491 $1,458,718 $1.418.226 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there has been a lot of discussion concerning personnel to be employed and wondered if any conclusion had been reached. Commissioner Tippin advised the previous minutes were being checked. This does include some salaries but it would be impossible in five meetings to come to an agreement on the way some people feel, pro and con, on that subject. May 22, 2001 87 nu '3143 • • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there has been a lot of discussion concerning personnel to be employed and wondered if any conclusion had been reached. Commissioner Tippin advised the previous minutes were being checked. This does include some salaries but it would be impossible in five meetings to come to an agreement on the way some people feel, pro and con, on that subject. May 22, 2001 87 nu '3143 ORGANIZATION 2000/2001 FUNDING 2001/2002 REQUEST 2001/2002 T.D.C. RECOMMENDATION Center For The Arts $13,830 $14.798 $13,830 Cultural Council of Indian River County $56.000 S55,934 555,934 Indian River County Chamber of Commerce S392,727 $405.689 5405.689 IRC Chamber of Commerce — Pelican Island Centennial Celebration Steering Committee 50 $50,518 $43,018 Indian River County Historical Society $8,000 $5,000 S5.000 McKee Botanical Gardens $10.223 SO SO Riverside Theatre, Inc. 53.800 $7.224 53.800 Treasure Coast Sports Commission S25.000 $50,000 525,000 Vero Heritage, Inc. 510,446 $14,555 510,955 Other Professional Services (Tourism Study) $64,741 $0 $0 American Heritage River Steering Committee Video Promotion Eco -Tourism — PBS Special $5,000 $0 $0 Reserve for Contingency $2,724 SO $0 Sub -Total $592,491 $603,718 5563.226 Beach Restoration $475,000 S513.000 $513,000 Dodgertown Bond Issue $0 $342.000 $342,000 TOTAL 51.067,491 $1,458,718 $1.418.226 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there has been a lot of discussion concerning personnel to be employed and wondered if any conclusion had been reached. Commissioner Tippin advised the previous minutes were being checked. This does include some salaries but it would be impossible in five meetings to come to an agreement on the way some people feel, pro and con, on that subject. May 22, 2001 87 nu '3143 • • RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there has been a lot of discussion concerning personnel to be employed and wondered if any conclusion had been reached. Commissioner Tippin advised the previous minutes were being checked. This does include some salaries but it would be impossible in five meetings to come to an agreement on the way some people feel, pro and con, on that subject. May 22, 2001 87 nu '3143 ORGANIZATION 2000/2001 FUNDING 2001/2002 REQUEST 2001/2002 T.D.C. RECOMMENDATION Center For The Arts $13,830 $14.798 $13,830 Cultural Council of Indian River County $56.000 S55,934 555,934 Indian River County Chamber of Commerce S392,727 $405.689 5405.689 IRC Chamber of Commerce — Pelican Island Centennial Celebration Steering Committee 50 $50,518 $43,018 Indian River County Historical Society $8,000 $5,000 S5.000 McKee Botanical Gardens $10.223 SO SO Riverside Theatre, Inc. 53.800 $7.224 53.800 Treasure Coast Sports Commission S25.000 $50,000 525,000 Vero Heritage, Inc. 510,446 $14,555 510,955 Other Professional Services (Tourism Study) $64,741 $0 $0 American Heritage River Steering Committee Video Promotion Eco -Tourism — PBS Special $5,000 $0 $0 Reserve for Contingency $2,724 SO $0 Sub -Total $592,491 $603,718 5563.226 Beach Restoration $475,000 S513.000 $513,000 Dodgertown Bond Issue $0 $342.000 $342,000 TOTAL 51.067,491 $1,458,718 $1.418.226 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, to approve staff's recommendation. Under discussion, Vice Chairman Stanbridge understood there has been a lot of discussion concerning personnel to be employed and wondered if any conclusion had been reached. Commissioner Tippin advised the previous minutes were being checked. This does include some salaries but it would be impossible in five meetings to come to an agreement on the way some people feel, pro and con, on that subject. May 22, 2001 87 nu '3143 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) (Approved the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council in the above memorandum.) 11.G.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - WILLIAM GLOVER, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND RELEASE OF RETAINAGE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P E. Public VVorks Director Terry B. Thompson, P. Capital Projects Manager FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E. Project Engineer SUBJECT: Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements IRC Project 9623B Change Order No. 2 and Final Payment (Release of Retainage) DATE: May 9, 2001 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This project was awarded to William Glover, Inc. on February 15, 2000 with a contract amount of $720,553.46. Change Order No. 1 was approved on February 15, 2000 for a total deduction of ($28,284.27). Change Order No. 2 deducts ($105,794.09). This amount added to the current contract amount, results in a new contract amount of $586,475.10. Glover has requested, and is entitled to, a full release of retainage. All work has been completed, deficiencies corrected and all warranties, as -built drawings, and other contract required close-out documentation have been submitted. COMPLETION DATE Work under this contract was Substantially Complete on December 19, 2000. Glover has requested a time extension to bring the contract completion date into agreement with this actual completion date. A total of 154 days are requested in consideration of delays caused by events that were beyond the contractor's control. May 22, 2001 88 P r J THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) (Approved the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council in the above memorandum.) 11.G.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - WILLIAM GLOVER, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND RELEASE OF RETAINAGE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P E. Public VVorks Director Terry B. Thompson, P. Capital Projects Manager FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E. Project Engineer SUBJECT: Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements IRC Project 9623B Change Order No. 2 and Final Payment (Release of Retainage) DATE: May 9, 2001 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This project was awarded to William Glover, Inc. on February 15, 2000 with a contract amount of $720,553.46. Change Order No. 1 was approved on February 15, 2000 for a total deduction of ($28,284.27). Change Order No. 2 deducts ($105,794.09). This amount added to the current contract amount, results in a new contract amount of $586,475.10. Glover has requested, and is entitled to, a full release of retainage. All work has been completed, deficiencies corrected and all warranties, as -built drawings, and other contract required close-out documentation have been submitted. COMPLETION DATE Work under this contract was Substantially Complete on December 19, 2000. Glover has requested a time extension to bring the contract completion date into agreement with this actual completion date. A total of 154 days are requested in consideration of delays caused by events that were beyond the contractor's control. May 22, 2001 88 P r J THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) (Approved the amounts recommended by the Tourist Development Council in the above memorandum.) 11.G.1. WABASSO CAUSEWAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS - WILLIAM GLOVER, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND RELEASE OF RETAINAGE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P E. Public VVorks Director Terry B. Thompson, P. Capital Projects Manager FROM: G. Sean McGuire, P.E. Project Engineer SUBJECT: Wabasso Causeway Park Improvements IRC Project 9623B Change Order No. 2 and Final Payment (Release of Retainage) DATE: May 9, 2001 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This project was awarded to William Glover, Inc. on February 15, 2000 with a contract amount of $720,553.46. Change Order No. 1 was approved on February 15, 2000 for a total deduction of ($28,284.27). Change Order No. 2 deducts ($105,794.09). This amount added to the current contract amount, results in a new contract amount of $586,475.10. Glover has requested, and is entitled to, a full release of retainage. All work has been completed, deficiencies corrected and all warranties, as -built drawings, and other contract required close-out documentation have been submitted. COMPLETION DATE Work under this contract was Substantially Complete on December 19, 2000. Glover has requested a time extension to bring the contract completion date into agreement with this actual completion date. A total of 154 days are requested in consideration of delays caused by events that were beyond the contractor's control. May 22, 2001 88 P r J • RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board approves Change Order No. 2 for a net deduction of ($105,794 09) and an addition of 154 days, and authorizes the final payment for release of retainage. Funding is from account #315-210-572-068.09. ATTACHMENT Project Schedule Change Order No. 2 Application for Payment No. 7 — Final (Release of Retainage) ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams. the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order No. 2 for a net deduction of $105.794.09 and an addition of 154 days to the William Glover. Inc. contract, and authorized the final payment for release of retainage, as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NO 2 & COPY OF APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.2. EMERGENCY DUNE RESTORATION - RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - (INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE) - FEMA The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D. Environmental Analyst SUBJECT: Change Order No. 3 - Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. DATE: May 9, 2001 May 22, 2001 89 Oil 1 1 3 [ 0 d1 Lr • • RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board approves Change Order No. 2 for a net deduction of ($105,794 09) and an addition of 154 days, and authorizes the final payment for release of retainage. Funding is from account #315-210-572-068.09. ATTACHMENT Project Schedule Change Order No. 2 Application for Payment No. 7 — Final (Release of Retainage) ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams. the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order No. 2 for a net deduction of $105.794.09 and an addition of 154 days to the William Glover. Inc. contract, and authorized the final payment for release of retainage, as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NO 2 & COPY OF APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.2. EMERGENCY DUNE RESTORATION - RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - (INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE) - FEMA The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D. Environmental Analyst SUBJECT: Change Order No. 3 - Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. DATE: May 9, 2001 May 22, 2001 89 Oil 1 1 3 [ 0 d1 Lr • • RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board approves Change Order No. 2 for a net deduction of ($105,794 09) and an addition of 154 days, and authorizes the final payment for release of retainage. Funding is from account #315-210-572-068.09. ATTACHMENT Project Schedule Change Order No. 2 Application for Payment No. 7 — Final (Release of Retainage) ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams. the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order No. 2 for a net deduction of $105.794.09 and an addition of 154 days to the William Glover. Inc. contract, and authorized the final payment for release of retainage, as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NO 2 & COPY OF APPLICATION FOR PAYMENT ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.2. EMERGENCY DUNE RESTORATION - RANGER CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES, INC. - CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 - (INCREASE IN CONTRACT PRICE) - FEMA The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Jonathan C. Gorham, Ph.D. Environmental Analyst SUBJECT: Change Order No. 3 - Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. DATE: May 9, 2001 May 22, 2001 89 Oil 1 1 3 [ 0 d1 Lr • DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County has contracted with Ranger Construction Industries to perform emergency dune restoration under Indian River County bid No 3041. The quantities of sand needed to build the dune feature in each project sector in the bid documentswere estimates based on surveys conducted in summer and fall of 2000. It was recognized that, due to subsequent changes in beach profiles, the actual amount of sand needed in each project sector might be greater or lesser than the bid quantity. Change Order No.3 reflects these differences, and results in a net increase in the contracted amount of $56,738.00 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends the approval of Change Order No. 3 to the contract with Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. Reimbursement of 75% from FEMA, 12.5% from State of Florida and 12.5% from Beach Preservation Fund 128-144-572. ATTACHMENT Change Order No. 3 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order No. 3 to the contract with Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.3. POINTE WEST - OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO 74TH AVENUE, 12TH STREET AND 16TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 1 - SUBSTITUTION OF PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: May 22, 2001 90 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County has contracted with Ranger Construction Industries to perform emergency dune restoration under Indian River County bid No 3041. The quantities of sand needed to build the dune feature in each project sector in the bid documentswere estimates based on surveys conducted in summer and fall of 2000. It was recognized that, due to subsequent changes in beach profiles, the actual amount of sand needed in each project sector might be greater or lesser than the bid quantity. Change Order No.3 reflects these differences, and results in a net increase in the contracted amount of $56,738.00 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends the approval of Change Order No. 3 to the contract with Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. Reimbursement of 75% from FEMA, 12.5% from State of Florida and 12.5% from Beach Preservation Fund 128-144-572. ATTACHMENT Change Order No. 3 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order No. 3 to the contract with Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.3. POINTE WEST - OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO 74TH AVENUE, 12TH STREET AND 16TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 1 - SUBSTITUTION OF PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: May 22, 2001 90 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Indian River County has contracted with Ranger Construction Industries to perform emergency dune restoration under Indian River County bid No 3041. The quantities of sand needed to build the dune feature in each project sector in the bid documentswere estimates based on surveys conducted in summer and fall of 2000. It was recognized that, due to subsequent changes in beach profiles, the actual amount of sand needed in each project sector might be greater or lesser than the bid quantity. Change Order No.3 reflects these differences, and results in a net increase in the contracted amount of $56,738.00 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends the approval of Change Order No. 3 to the contract with Ranger Construction Industries, Inc. Reimbursement of 75% from FEMA, 12.5% from State of Florida and 12.5% from Beach Preservation Fund 128-144-572. ATTACHMENT Change Order No. 3 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order No. 3 to the contract with Ranger Construction Industries, Inc., as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.3. POINTE WEST - OFFSITE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TO 74TH AVENUE, 12TH STREET AND 16TH STREET - ALTERNATIVE 1 - SUBSTITUTION OF PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 16, 2001: May 22, 2001 90 • TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Pointe West Offsite Roadway Improvements to 74" Avenue, 12" S treet and 16" Street - Substitution of Performance and P ayment Bonds REF. LETTER: Steven Melchicri, Onsite Management Group, to Jirn Davis dated April 25, 2001 DATE: May 16, 2001 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On July 27, 1999, The County and Pointe West of Vero Beach, Limited Partnership, entered into a developer's agreement to provide for t he paving and drainage improvements to 74`" Avenue, 16" Street, 12'h S treet, and 8`" Street. The Developer is obligated to seek competitive bids from qualified contractors and obtain performance bonds and payment bonds from contractors performing work on County roaas. At this time, OnSite Management Group, consultants for Pointe West, has obtained bids on their internal site work. They have extended unit price bids for work on 74" Avenue, 12" Street and 16" Street. The apparent low bidder is SPS Contracting at a cost of $449,204 for 12" Street between 82nd Ave. and 74" Avenue, approximately $250,000 for 74" Avenue between 16" Street and 12" Street, and $320,000 for 16" Street west of Pointe West main road. The Developer is requesting approval to substitute a one year 25% maintenance bond and provide lien releases from all suppliers and subcontractors performing work for the requirement of payments and performance bonds. The County Attorney's office has no objection. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS • Since the County Attorney's office has no objection and SPS Contracting has performed acceptable work as subcontractor on county projects and Pointe West internal roads, staff has no objections. The alternatives presented are: May 22, 2001 Alternative No. 1 Approve substituting the 25% maintenance bond and release of liens for the performance and payment bond. The attached Amendment # 1 to the Developer's Agreement would be required. 91 Epi I ID 3L1I • TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Pointe West Offsite Roadway Improvements to 74" Avenue, 12" S treet and 16" Street - Substitution of Performance and P ayment Bonds REF. LETTER: Steven Melchicri, Onsite Management Group, to Jirn Davis dated April 25, 2001 DATE: May 16, 2001 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On July 27, 1999, The County and Pointe West of Vero Beach, Limited Partnership, entered into a developer's agreement to provide for t he paving and drainage improvements to 74`" Avenue, 16" Street, 12'h S treet, and 8`" Street. The Developer is obligated to seek competitive bids from qualified contractors and obtain performance bonds and payment bonds from contractors performing work on County roaas. At this time, OnSite Management Group, consultants for Pointe West, has obtained bids on their internal site work. They have extended unit price bids for work on 74" Avenue, 12" Street and 16" Street. The apparent low bidder is SPS Contracting at a cost of $449,204 for 12" Street between 82nd Ave. and 74" Avenue, approximately $250,000 for 74" Avenue between 16" Street and 12" Street, and $320,000 for 16" Street west of Pointe West main road. The Developer is requesting approval to substitute a one year 25% maintenance bond and provide lien releases from all suppliers and subcontractors performing work for the requirement of payments and performance bonds. The County Attorney's office has no objection. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS • Since the County Attorney's office has no objection and SPS Contracting has performed acceptable work as subcontractor on county projects and Pointe West internal roads, staff has no objections. The alternatives presented are: May 22, 2001 Alternative No. 1 Approve substituting the 25% maintenance bond and release of liens for the performance and payment bond. The attached Amendment # 1 to the Developer's Agreement would be required. 91 Epi I ID 3L1I • TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Pointe West Offsite Roadway Improvements to 74" Avenue, 12" S treet and 16" Street - Substitution of Performance and P ayment Bonds REF. LETTER: Steven Melchicri, Onsite Management Group, to Jirn Davis dated April 25, 2001 DATE: May 16, 2001 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On July 27, 1999, The County and Pointe West of Vero Beach, Limited Partnership, entered into a developer's agreement to provide for t he paving and drainage improvements to 74`" Avenue, 16" Street, 12'h S treet, and 8`" Street. The Developer is obligated to seek competitive bids from qualified contractors and obtain performance bonds and payment bonds from contractors performing work on County roaas. At this time, OnSite Management Group, consultants for Pointe West, has obtained bids on their internal site work. They have extended unit price bids for work on 74" Avenue, 12" Street and 16" Street. The apparent low bidder is SPS Contracting at a cost of $449,204 for 12" Street between 82nd Ave. and 74" Avenue, approximately $250,000 for 74" Avenue between 16" Street and 12" Street, and $320,000 for 16" Street west of Pointe West main road. The Developer is requesting approval to substitute a one year 25% maintenance bond and provide lien releases from all suppliers and subcontractors performing work for the requirement of payments and performance bonds. The County Attorney's office has no objection. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS • Since the County Attorney's office has no objection and SPS Contracting has performed acceptable work as subcontractor on county projects and Pointe West internal roads, staff has no objections. The alternatives presented are: May 22, 2001 Alternative No. 1 Approve substituting the 25% maintenance bond and release of liens for the performance and payment bond. The attached Amendment # 1 to the Developer's Agreement would be required. 91 Epi I ID 3L1I Alternative No. 2 Deny the substitution, which would result in SPS Contracting not performing the work. An additional cost of over $60,000 would apply. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the attached amendment to the Developer's Agreement is approved. ATTACHMENT Referenced letter Amendment to Developer's Agreement ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Alternative No. 1, as recommended in the memorandum. (Substituted the 25% maintenance bond and release of liens for the performance and payment bond and approved the proposed amendment to the Developer's Agreement.) AMENDMENT #1 TO THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.11.1. SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT - PHASE 3A - TRI - SURE CORPORATION - CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: DATE TO: FROM: MAY 9. 2001 JAMES E CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DONALD R. HUBB... P DIRECTOR OF UTILITY 4 PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS PE -// L AND STAFFED INTERIM CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES May 22, 2001 92 BK 3118 Alternative No. 2 Deny the substitution, which would result in SPS Contracting not performing the work. An additional cost of over $60,000 would apply. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the attached amendment to the Developer's Agreement is approved. ATTACHMENT Referenced letter Amendment to Developer's Agreement ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Alternative No. 1, as recommended in the memorandum. (Substituted the 25% maintenance bond and release of liens for the performance and payment bond and approved the proposed amendment to the Developer's Agreement.) AMENDMENT #1 TO THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.11.1. SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT - PHASE 3A - TRI - SURE CORPORATION - CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: DATE TO: FROM: MAY 9. 2001 JAMES E CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DONALD R. HUBB... P DIRECTOR OF UTILITY 4 PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS PE -// L AND STAFFED INTERIM CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES May 22, 2001 92 BK 3118 Alternative No. 2 Deny the substitution, which would result in SPS Contracting not performing the work. An additional cost of over $60,000 would apply. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the attached amendment to the Developer's Agreement is approved. ATTACHMENT Referenced letter Amendment to Developer's Agreement ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Alternative No. 1, as recommended in the memorandum. (Substituted the 25% maintenance bond and release of liens for the performance and payment bond and approved the proposed amendment to the Developer's Agreement.) AMENDMENT #1 TO THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.11.1. SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT - PHASE 3A - TRI - SURE CORPORATION - CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 2001: DATE TO: FROM: MAY 9. 2001 JAMES E CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DONALD R. HUBB... P DIRECTOR OF UTILITY 4 PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS PE -// L AND STAFFED INTERIM CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES May 22, 2001 92 BK 3118 • SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT -PHASE 3A APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.S 1 AND 2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -97 -16 -DS WIP NO. 473-000-169489.00 BID NO. 3025 BACKGROUND On December 19, 2000, the Board of County Commissioner's awarded Bid No. 3025 to Tri -Sure Corporation (see attached agenda item and minutes) in the amount of $1.364,954 00 to provide water service and fire protection to the above -referenced project. The project is now underway and approximately' 50% complete. The Indian River County Public Works Departrnent is replacing a bridge along 26th Street spanning the canal on the east side of 74' Avenue. A 16" water main. a 12" reuse main and a 6" force main. presently supported by the old bridge will have to be relocated prior to removal of the bridge. In order to avoid a future conflict with bridgework, staff has proposed to directional bore the canal crossings. Based on competitive directional bore unit prices submitted by Tri -Sure for the Sebastian Phase 3A project. staff has requested the contractor to hold those prices for the 74h Avenue canal crossings. Tri -Sure agreed to the prices and submitted Change Order No. 1 (see attached change order), which results in a $95,384.00, non -assessable increase to the Sebastian Phase 3A Water Expansion Project for the canal crossings. The Sebastian Phase 3A Water Expansion Project allowed for water main crossings under roads in good condition to be by directional bore, and crossings under deteriorated roads to be by cut and restored. Due to the contractor's competitive unit prices for directional bores, staff proposes to directional bore all roadway crossings at an overall project savings The directional bored crossings will result in a neater job and fewer customer complaints. Change Order No 2 (see attached change order), which proposes a $9,736 assessable deduct in the Sebastian contract, is issued to incorporate directional boring of all roadways as well as other miscellaneous changes. ANALYSIS Change Order No. I includes the same unit costs used in the Phase 3A project for directional boring 6" ($30 per foot) and 12" ($74 per foot) diameter pipe (see attached schedule of bid items from the Sebastian Phase 3A project). The unit cost of $124 for 16" diameter pipe was not used in the Sebastian project but compares favorably with the unit cost of $100 per foot for the labor portion and $32 per foot for material of 16' directional bores used in the labor contract (see attached cops of bid items used in labor contract and cost estimate of material supplied by U.S. Filter). Change Order No. 1 will result in a $95.384.00 increase to the original Sebastian Phase 3A contract of $1.364,954.00, or a 7% increase. It should be emphasized that this increase will not be reflected in the assessment. One half of the associated cost, or 547,692.00 will be funded from the Utilities Department replacement and renewal fund (fund number 471) and the Pubhc Works Department has agreed to pay for the other half. Change Order No. 1 also results in a 30 day extension to the project schedule. Change Order No 2 results in an overall net decrease of $9,736.00 to the Sebastian Phase 3A project. or Tess than I%, which will help reduce the final assessment. The overall change order increase of $85,648.00 results in a 6.27% overall increase to the originally approved contract and adjusts the contract amount to $1.450602.00. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1 and 2 and authorize the Chairman to execute same, as presented. MCH/c Attachments May 22, 2001 93 • • SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT -PHASE 3A APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.S 1 AND 2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -97 -16 -DS WIP NO. 473-000-169489.00 BID NO. 3025 BACKGROUND On December 19, 2000, the Board of County Commissioner's awarded Bid No. 3025 to Tri -Sure Corporation (see attached agenda item and minutes) in the amount of $1.364,954 00 to provide water service and fire protection to the above -referenced project. The project is now underway and approximately' 50% complete. The Indian River County Public Works Departrnent is replacing a bridge along 26th Street spanning the canal on the east side of 74' Avenue. A 16" water main. a 12" reuse main and a 6" force main. presently supported by the old bridge will have to be relocated prior to removal of the bridge. In order to avoid a future conflict with bridgework, staff has proposed to directional bore the canal crossings. Based on competitive directional bore unit prices submitted by Tri -Sure for the Sebastian Phase 3A project. staff has requested the contractor to hold those prices for the 74h Avenue canal crossings. Tri -Sure agreed to the prices and submitted Change Order No. 1 (see attached change order), which results in a $95,384.00, non -assessable increase to the Sebastian Phase 3A Water Expansion Project for the canal crossings. The Sebastian Phase 3A Water Expansion Project allowed for water main crossings under roads in good condition to be by directional bore, and crossings under deteriorated roads to be by cut and restored. Due to the contractor's competitive unit prices for directional bores, staff proposes to directional bore all roadway crossings at an overall project savings The directional bored crossings will result in a neater job and fewer customer complaints. Change Order No 2 (see attached change order), which proposes a $9,736 assessable deduct in the Sebastian contract, is issued to incorporate directional boring of all roadways as well as other miscellaneous changes. ANALYSIS Change Order No. I includes the same unit costs used in the Phase 3A project for directional boring 6" ($30 per foot) and 12" ($74 per foot) diameter pipe (see attached schedule of bid items from the Sebastian Phase 3A project). The unit cost of $124 for 16" diameter pipe was not used in the Sebastian project but compares favorably with the unit cost of $100 per foot for the labor portion and $32 per foot for material of 16' directional bores used in the labor contract (see attached cops of bid items used in labor contract and cost estimate of material supplied by U.S. Filter). Change Order No. 1 will result in a $95.384.00 increase to the original Sebastian Phase 3A contract of $1.364,954.00, or a 7% increase. It should be emphasized that this increase will not be reflected in the assessment. One half of the associated cost, or 547,692.00 will be funded from the Utilities Department replacement and renewal fund (fund number 471) and the Pubhc Works Department has agreed to pay for the other half. Change Order No. 1 also results in a 30 day extension to the project schedule. Change Order No 2 results in an overall net decrease of $9,736.00 to the Sebastian Phase 3A project. or Tess than I%, which will help reduce the final assessment. The overall change order increase of $85,648.00 results in a 6.27% overall increase to the originally approved contract and adjusts the contract amount to $1.450602.00. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1 and 2 and authorize the Chairman to execute same, as presented. MCH/c Attachments May 22, 2001 93 • • SUBJECT: SEBASTIAN WATER ASSESSMENT -PHASE 3A APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO.S 1 AND 2 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -97 -16 -DS WIP NO. 473-000-169489.00 BID NO. 3025 BACKGROUND On December 19, 2000, the Board of County Commissioner's awarded Bid No. 3025 to Tri -Sure Corporation (see attached agenda item and minutes) in the amount of $1.364,954 00 to provide water service and fire protection to the above -referenced project. The project is now underway and approximately' 50% complete. The Indian River County Public Works Departrnent is replacing a bridge along 26th Street spanning the canal on the east side of 74' Avenue. A 16" water main. a 12" reuse main and a 6" force main. presently supported by the old bridge will have to be relocated prior to removal of the bridge. In order to avoid a future conflict with bridgework, staff has proposed to directional bore the canal crossings. Based on competitive directional bore unit prices submitted by Tri -Sure for the Sebastian Phase 3A project. staff has requested the contractor to hold those prices for the 74h Avenue canal crossings. Tri -Sure agreed to the prices and submitted Change Order No. 1 (see attached change order), which results in a $95,384.00, non -assessable increase to the Sebastian Phase 3A Water Expansion Project for the canal crossings. The Sebastian Phase 3A Water Expansion Project allowed for water main crossings under roads in good condition to be by directional bore, and crossings under deteriorated roads to be by cut and restored. Due to the contractor's competitive unit prices for directional bores, staff proposes to directional bore all roadway crossings at an overall project savings The directional bored crossings will result in a neater job and fewer customer complaints. Change Order No 2 (see attached change order), which proposes a $9,736 assessable deduct in the Sebastian contract, is issued to incorporate directional boring of all roadways as well as other miscellaneous changes. ANALYSIS Change Order No. I includes the same unit costs used in the Phase 3A project for directional boring 6" ($30 per foot) and 12" ($74 per foot) diameter pipe (see attached schedule of bid items from the Sebastian Phase 3A project). The unit cost of $124 for 16" diameter pipe was not used in the Sebastian project but compares favorably with the unit cost of $100 per foot for the labor portion and $32 per foot for material of 16' directional bores used in the labor contract (see attached cops of bid items used in labor contract and cost estimate of material supplied by U.S. Filter). Change Order No. 1 will result in a $95.384.00 increase to the original Sebastian Phase 3A contract of $1.364,954.00, or a 7% increase. It should be emphasized that this increase will not be reflected in the assessment. One half of the associated cost, or 547,692.00 will be funded from the Utilities Department replacement and renewal fund (fund number 471) and the Pubhc Works Department has agreed to pay for the other half. Change Order No. 1 also results in a 30 day extension to the project schedule. Change Order No 2 results in an overall net decrease of $9,736.00 to the Sebastian Phase 3A project. or Tess than I%, which will help reduce the final assessment. The overall change order increase of $85,648.00 results in a 6.27% overall increase to the originally approved contract and adjusts the contract amount to $1.450602.00. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Change Order No. 1 and 2 and authorize the Chairman to execute same, as presented. MCH/c Attachments May 22, 2001 93 • ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.11.2. ADDITION TO UTILITY SERVICES MAINTENANCE BUILDING AT COUNTY WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) - BARTH CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 2001 DATE: MAY 15. 2001 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMI.NISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. - DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERF STAFFED BY: GENE A. RAUTH. OPERATIONS MANAGER &AIL - DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES UTILITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXTENSION BACKGROUND: With Board of County Commission (BCC) approval, the Staff of the Public Works Department negotiated a design -build contract for the Indian River County Agricultural Arena/Exhibit Building. (See attached Contract and building image 1). This Contract was authorized by the BCC with Barth Construction, Inc.. of Vero Beach in 1999. The Agncultural/Exhibit Building is a 20.000 square foot building, which was constructed at a cost of $652,540.00, or S32 63 per square foot. The Department of Utility Services currently has a 7200 square foot maintenance building located at the West Regional Treatment Facility, (See attached building image 2). Constructed in 1996 this building is used for the staging/storage of manpower, materials. and equipment. Due to the small size of the present maintenance building, much of the equipment is currently stored outside in substandard conditions, subject to weather and hurricane damage. (See building image 3). The BCC approved Staff's request in the 2000/2001 fiscal year budget for an addition to the existing building: budgeted at 5200.000.00. to store remaining equipment out of the weather. and provide adequately sized headquarters. May 22, 2001 94 BK i r 350 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.11.2. ADDITION TO UTILITY SERVICES MAINTENANCE BUILDING AT COUNTY WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) - BARTH CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 2001 DATE: MAY 15. 2001 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMI.NISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. - DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERF STAFFED BY: GENE A. RAUTH. OPERATIONS MANAGER &AIL - DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES UTILITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXTENSION BACKGROUND: With Board of County Commission (BCC) approval, the Staff of the Public Works Department negotiated a design -build contract for the Indian River County Agricultural Arena/Exhibit Building. (See attached Contract and building image 1). This Contract was authorized by the BCC with Barth Construction, Inc.. of Vero Beach in 1999. The Agncultural/Exhibit Building is a 20.000 square foot building, which was constructed at a cost of $652,540.00, or S32 63 per square foot. The Department of Utility Services currently has a 7200 square foot maintenance building located at the West Regional Treatment Facility, (See attached building image 2). Constructed in 1996 this building is used for the staging/storage of manpower, materials. and equipment. Due to the small size of the present maintenance building, much of the equipment is currently stored outside in substandard conditions, subject to weather and hurricane damage. (See building image 3). The BCC approved Staff's request in the 2000/2001 fiscal year budget for an addition to the existing building: budgeted at 5200.000.00. to store remaining equipment out of the weather. and provide adequately sized headquarters. May 22, 2001 94 BK i r 350 ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Stanbridge, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Change Order Nos. 1 and 2 and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended in the memorandum. CHANGE ORDER NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.11.2. ADDITION TO UTILITY SERVICES MAINTENANCE BUILDING AT COUNTY WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) - BARTH CONSTRUCTION, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 15, 2001 DATE: MAY 15. 2001 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER, COUNTY ADMI.NISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. - DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERF STAFFED BY: GENE A. RAUTH. OPERATIONS MANAGER &AIL - DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES UTILITY MAINTENANCE BUILDING EXTENSION BACKGROUND: With Board of County Commission (BCC) approval, the Staff of the Public Works Department negotiated a design -build contract for the Indian River County Agricultural Arena/Exhibit Building. (See attached Contract and building image 1). This Contract was authorized by the BCC with Barth Construction, Inc.. of Vero Beach in 1999. The Agncultural/Exhibit Building is a 20.000 square foot building, which was constructed at a cost of $652,540.00, or S32 63 per square foot. The Department of Utility Services currently has a 7200 square foot maintenance building located at the West Regional Treatment Facility, (See attached building image 2). Constructed in 1996 this building is used for the staging/storage of manpower, materials. and equipment. Due to the small size of the present maintenance building, much of the equipment is currently stored outside in substandard conditions, subject to weather and hurricane damage. (See building image 3). The BCC approved Staff's request in the 2000/2001 fiscal year budget for an addition to the existing building: budgeted at 5200.000.00. to store remaining equipment out of the weather. and provide adequately sized headquarters. May 22, 2001 94 BK i r 350 • ANALYSIS: The preamble of the previously -referenced design -build contract, allows for Barth Construction to provide services for 'any related or similar project as the County may deem necessary." Section 17 of the contract allows for the Agreement to remain in full force and effect for a period of three years after the date of execution. At this time, staff has considered three alternatives for construction of the building addition. ALTERNATIVE # 1: To utilize Barth Construction, Inc., based upon their project history with the Agricultural/Exhibit Building. It is Staff's desire to enter into a design -build contract with Barth Construction similar in concept to the previously negotiated Public Works Contract. (See attached). The fee for this design -build Contract has the negotiated amounts of 524.000.00 for design. and 5174,769.00 for construction, for a total amount of 5198.769.00. The square foot pnce for this (7200 square foot) building addition is S27 61 per square foot, compared to $32.63 per square foot for the Agricultural/Exhibit Building. Funding will be from 471-268-536-066.29. ALTERNATIVE # 2: To utilize the Continuing Consulting Sen ices Engineer, through a Work Authorization. for a formal design and construction process. The Work Authonzanon would be brought back to the BCC for review and approval Staff would then proceed with the formal bid process for construction. ALTERNATIVE # 3: For Staff to advertise for design/build services through the formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Staff would then negotiate a design/build contract with the selected firm. The negotiated contract would be brought back to the BCC for approval. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING: Staff recommends Board authorization and approval for Alternative No. 1, whereby the attached Contract is approved and accepted for the maintenance building addition in the amount of S 198.769.00. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Indian River County Agricultural Arena\Exhibit Building design -build Contract & building image # 1. 2. West Regional Treatment Facility image # 2. 3. West Regional Treatment Facility image # 3. 4. Barth Construction, Inc. — Contract Agreement Utility Services Director Donald R. Hubbs gave a brief history beginning in June 1998 when a cost -reduction study group consisting of staff members of the Utilities Department recommended a strategy that all the tools, crews, and equipment were co -located to a single May 22, 2001 95 BK 0PGkar • • ANALYSIS: The preamble of the previously -referenced design -build contract, allows for Barth Construction to provide services for 'any related or similar project as the County may deem necessary." Section 17 of the contract allows for the Agreement to remain in full force and effect for a period of three years after the date of execution. At this time, staff has considered three alternatives for construction of the building addition. ALTERNATIVE # 1: To utilize Barth Construction, Inc., based upon their project history with the Agricultural/Exhibit Building. It is Staff's desire to enter into a design -build contract with Barth Construction similar in concept to the previously negotiated Public Works Contract. (See attached). The fee for this design -build Contract has the negotiated amounts of 524.000.00 for design. and 5174,769.00 for construction, for a total amount of 5198.769.00. The square foot pnce for this (7200 square foot) building addition is S27 61 per square foot, compared to $32.63 per square foot for the Agricultural/Exhibit Building. Funding will be from 471-268-536-066.29. ALTERNATIVE # 2: To utilize the Continuing Consulting Sen ices Engineer, through a Work Authorization. for a formal design and construction process. The Work Authonzanon would be brought back to the BCC for review and approval Staff would then proceed with the formal bid process for construction. ALTERNATIVE # 3: For Staff to advertise for design/build services through the formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Staff would then negotiate a design/build contract with the selected firm. The negotiated contract would be brought back to the BCC for approval. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING: Staff recommends Board authorization and approval for Alternative No. 1, whereby the attached Contract is approved and accepted for the maintenance building addition in the amount of S 198.769.00. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Indian River County Agricultural Arena\Exhibit Building design -build Contract & building image # 1. 2. West Regional Treatment Facility image # 2. 3. West Regional Treatment Facility image # 3. 4. Barth Construction, Inc. — Contract Agreement Utility Services Director Donald R. Hubbs gave a brief history beginning in June 1998 when a cost -reduction study group consisting of staff members of the Utilities Department recommended a strategy that all the tools, crews, and equipment were co -located to a single May 22, 2001 95 BK 0PGkar • • ANALYSIS: The preamble of the previously -referenced design -build contract, allows for Barth Construction to provide services for 'any related or similar project as the County may deem necessary." Section 17 of the contract allows for the Agreement to remain in full force and effect for a period of three years after the date of execution. At this time, staff has considered three alternatives for construction of the building addition. ALTERNATIVE # 1: To utilize Barth Construction, Inc., based upon their project history with the Agricultural/Exhibit Building. It is Staff's desire to enter into a design -build contract with Barth Construction similar in concept to the previously negotiated Public Works Contract. (See attached). The fee for this design -build Contract has the negotiated amounts of 524.000.00 for design. and 5174,769.00 for construction, for a total amount of 5198.769.00. The square foot pnce for this (7200 square foot) building addition is S27 61 per square foot, compared to $32.63 per square foot for the Agricultural/Exhibit Building. Funding will be from 471-268-536-066.29. ALTERNATIVE # 2: To utilize the Continuing Consulting Sen ices Engineer, through a Work Authorization. for a formal design and construction process. The Work Authonzanon would be brought back to the BCC for review and approval Staff would then proceed with the formal bid process for construction. ALTERNATIVE # 3: For Staff to advertise for design/build services through the formal Request for Proposal (RFP) process. Staff would then negotiate a design/build contract with the selected firm. The negotiated contract would be brought back to the BCC for approval. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING: Staff recommends Board authorization and approval for Alternative No. 1, whereby the attached Contract is approved and accepted for the maintenance building addition in the amount of S 198.769.00. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Indian River County Agricultural Arena\Exhibit Building design -build Contract & building image # 1. 2. West Regional Treatment Facility image # 2. 3. West Regional Treatment Facility image # 3. 4. Barth Construction, Inc. — Contract Agreement Utility Services Director Donald R. Hubbs gave a brief history beginning in June 1998 when a cost -reduction study group consisting of staff members of the Utilities Department recommended a strategy that all the tools, crews, and equipment were co -located to a single May 22, 2001 95 BK 0PGkar • location to help reduce redundancy and add to the shift and crew overlaps. The West Regional WWTP was chosen rather than the Ixora location. The County had a successful project with the Fairgrounds Building and this is the same Butler -building structure. The square footage costs from Barth are considerably less than those of the Fairgrounds and he felt it was a better price than the traditional process. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Alternative No. 1, approved the proposed contract with Barth Construction and accepted the maintenance building addition in the amount of $198,769.00, as recommended in the memorandum. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.1. INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL CONTINUUM OF CARE - 2001 HUD APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION UNDER THE McKINNEY VENTO ACT - REVISED The Board reviewed a letter of May 7, 2001: INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL, INC. 2525 ST. LUCIE AVENUE VERO BEACH, FL 32960 561-567-7790 coalition_ li yahoo.com Caroline D. Ginn, Chair Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Chairman Ginn and Commissioners: May 7, 2001 Attached you will find the three projects that will be submitted for this year's HUD Continuum of Care submission under the Mc -Kinney Vento Act homeless funds. These May 22, 2001 96 Bi 1 1 0 PG 352 location to help reduce redundancy and add to the shift and crew overlaps. The West Regional WWTP was chosen rather than the Ixora location. The County had a successful project with the Fairgrounds Building and this is the same Butler -building structure. The square footage costs from Barth are considerably less than those of the Fairgrounds and he felt it was a better price than the traditional process. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Alternative No. 1, approved the proposed contract with Barth Construction and accepted the maintenance building addition in the amount of $198,769.00, as recommended in the memorandum. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.1. INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL CONTINUUM OF CARE - 2001 HUD APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION UNDER THE McKINNEY VENTO ACT - REVISED The Board reviewed a letter of May 7, 2001: INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL, INC. 2525 ST. LUCIE AVENUE VERO BEACH, FL 32960 561-567-7790 coalition_ li yahoo.com Caroline D. Ginn, Chair Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Chairman Ginn and Commissioners: May 7, 2001 Attached you will find the three projects that will be submitted for this year's HUD Continuum of Care submission under the Mc -Kinney Vento Act homeless funds. These May 22, 2001 96 Bi 1 1 0 PG 352 location to help reduce redundancy and add to the shift and crew overlaps. The West Regional WWTP was chosen rather than the Ixora location. The County had a successful project with the Fairgrounds Building and this is the same Butler -building structure. The square footage costs from Barth are considerably less than those of the Fairgrounds and he felt it was a better price than the traditional process. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Vice Chairman Stanbridge, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved Alternative No. 1, approved the proposed contract with Barth Construction and accepted the maintenance building addition in the amount of $198,769.00, as recommended in the memorandum. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.1. INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL CONTINUUM OF CARE - 2001 HUD APPLICATION FOR SUBMISSION UNDER THE McKINNEY VENTO ACT - REVISED The Board reviewed a letter of May 7, 2001: INDIAN RIVER HOMELESS SERVICES COUNCIL, INC. 2525 ST. LUCIE AVENUE VERO BEACH, FL 32960 561-567-7790 coalition_ li yahoo.com Caroline D. Ginn, Chair Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Chairman Ginn and Commissioners: May 7, 2001 Attached you will find the three projects that will be submitted for this year's HUD Continuum of Care submission under the Mc -Kinney Vento Act homeless funds. These May 22, 2001 96 Bi 1 1 0 PG 352 • projects are being submitted on behalf of the thirty-five member agencies of the Indian River Homeless Services Council, Inc Continuum of Care. The Indian River Homeless Services Council, Inc. would appreciate your review and approval of these three projects at your County Commission meeting to be held on May �Z"='' -°. We are asking the Indian River County Board of Commissioners to be the applicant for these projects as you were for the HUD grant last year. The application and certifications require the signature of the Indian River County Board of Commissioners' Chairman. You will be pleased to note that the Indian River Homeless Services Council will be providing the required match for the projects this year. No matching funds will Se required from the County. There is also no new construction being requested this year. A brief description of the projects follows: Project 1: Shelter Plus Care - provides fair market rental assistance to help 14 clients pay rent in apartments for a period of five years SafeSpace and the Indian River Public Housing Authority will be co-sponsors of this projects and screen and select the applicants. Project 2: Transitional Housing Staffing Project - provides professional staff to serve the families who will reside at 720 4`h Street. Project 3: Homeless Management Information System -provides for the purchase of software and hardware to link services providers in the Continuum together to avoid costly duplication of effort and services. The Continuum of Care Plan, Exhibit One is in the final stages of revision. The format is not substantially changed from the one you approved last year. We will submit the application to the legal staff for approval before signature. If any commissioner would like to review that document, please feel free to call Louise Hubbard, at 561-567-7790. Respectfully, -/ l z- / . yc jL -ic. t-ar -Joyce Johnston -Carlson, Chair Continuum of Care Committee IR Homeless Services Council, Inc. Human Services Director Joyce Johnston -Carlson explained this matter was before the Board for the third time because when the agreement approved at the last meeting was not exactly the same as that presented for the Chairman's signature. It is back to the Board for their approval. May 22, 2001 97 BK 1 i U "'U • • projects are being submitted on behalf of the thirty-five member agencies of the Indian River Homeless Services Council, Inc Continuum of Care. The Indian River Homeless Services Council, Inc. would appreciate your review and approval of these three projects at your County Commission meeting to be held on May �Z"='' -°. We are asking the Indian River County Board of Commissioners to be the applicant for these projects as you were for the HUD grant last year. The application and certifications require the signature of the Indian River County Board of Commissioners' Chairman. You will be pleased to note that the Indian River Homeless Services Council will be providing the required match for the projects this year. No matching funds will Se required from the County. There is also no new construction being requested this year. A brief description of the projects follows: Project 1: Shelter Plus Care - provides fair market rental assistance to help 14 clients pay rent in apartments for a period of five years SafeSpace and the Indian River Public Housing Authority will be co-sponsors of this projects and screen and select the applicants. Project 2: Transitional Housing Staffing Project - provides professional staff to serve the families who will reside at 720 4`h Street. Project 3: Homeless Management Information System -provides for the purchase of software and hardware to link services providers in the Continuum together to avoid costly duplication of effort and services. The Continuum of Care Plan, Exhibit One is in the final stages of revision. The format is not substantially changed from the one you approved last year. We will submit the application to the legal staff for approval before signature. If any commissioner would like to review that document, please feel free to call Louise Hubbard, at 561-567-7790. Respectfully, -/ l z- / . yc jL -ic. t-ar -Joyce Johnston -Carlson, Chair Continuum of Care Committee IR Homeless Services Council, Inc. Human Services Director Joyce Johnston -Carlson explained this matter was before the Board for the third time because when the agreement approved at the last meeting was not exactly the same as that presented for the Chairman's signature. It is back to the Board for their approval. May 22, 2001 97 BK 1 i U "'U • • projects are being submitted on behalf of the thirty-five member agencies of the Indian River Homeless Services Council, Inc Continuum of Care. The Indian River Homeless Services Council, Inc. would appreciate your review and approval of these three projects at your County Commission meeting to be held on May �Z"='' -°. We are asking the Indian River County Board of Commissioners to be the applicant for these projects as you were for the HUD grant last year. The application and certifications require the signature of the Indian River County Board of Commissioners' Chairman. You will be pleased to note that the Indian River Homeless Services Council will be providing the required match for the projects this year. No matching funds will Se required from the County. There is also no new construction being requested this year. A brief description of the projects follows: Project 1: Shelter Plus Care - provides fair market rental assistance to help 14 clients pay rent in apartments for a period of five years SafeSpace and the Indian River Public Housing Authority will be co-sponsors of this projects and screen and select the applicants. Project 2: Transitional Housing Staffing Project - provides professional staff to serve the families who will reside at 720 4`h Street. Project 3: Homeless Management Information System -provides for the purchase of software and hardware to link services providers in the Continuum together to avoid costly duplication of effort and services. The Continuum of Care Plan, Exhibit One is in the final stages of revision. The format is not substantially changed from the one you approved last year. We will submit the application to the legal staff for approval before signature. If any commissioner would like to review that document, please feel free to call Louise Hubbard, at 561-567-7790. Respectfully, -/ l z- / . yc jL -ic. t-ar -Joyce Johnston -Carlson, Chair Continuum of Care Committee IR Homeless Services Council, Inc. Human Services Director Joyce Johnston -Carlson explained this matter was before the Board for the third time because when the agreement approved at the last meeting was not exactly the same as that presented for the Chairman's signature. It is back to the Board for their approval. May 22, 2001 97 BK 1 i U "'U • Chairman Ginn commended Executive Aide Kimberly Massung for watching carefully and bringing this to her attention. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippet, to approve submission of the Applications for Federal Assistance as presented. Vice Chairman Stanbridge had questions and concerns about Safe Space and the distribution of the units. She also asked if staff has a copy of the totally complete grant with all documents because she had not seen a letter from St. Lucie County authorizing the funding to go to the Continuum of Care. Louise Hubbard, Executive Director of the Indian River Homeless Services Council, the grant writer, advised that the County does have the complete grants. She explained there is no need for a letter from St Lucie County because last year it was agreed to combine Indian River County and St Lucie County representation, including the entitlement cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, because their pro rata need scores are greater than ours Last year, when we applied to HUD, IRHSC became the "official" Continuum of Care for Indian River County and St Lucie County and the City of Ft. Pierce. That was brought before the Commission, reviewed and approved. The City of Ft. Pierce has not been able to organize well enough to have a Continuum of Care. Thanks to the Board's help last year and the Indian River Council, IRHSC did. Martin County opted out because there has never been a formal request to have Martin County join our Continuum. We have been working very hard just to keep what we have together. Martin County is named in a particular grant because Safe Space, which was started by Indian River County over 20 years ago, has expanded its services to shelters in Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties as part of their match portion of the grant. It is their privilege, if they choose, to locate a client in May 22, 2001 98 CA ii 54 Chairman Ginn commended Executive Aide Kimberly Massung for watching carefully and bringing this to her attention. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippet, to approve submission of the Applications for Federal Assistance as presented. Vice Chairman Stanbridge had questions and concerns about Safe Space and the distribution of the units. She also asked if staff has a copy of the totally complete grant with all documents because she had not seen a letter from St. Lucie County authorizing the funding to go to the Continuum of Care. Louise Hubbard, Executive Director of the Indian River Homeless Services Council, the grant writer, advised that the County does have the complete grants. She explained there is no need for a letter from St Lucie County because last year it was agreed to combine Indian River County and St Lucie County representation, including the entitlement cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, because their pro rata need scores are greater than ours Last year, when we applied to HUD, IRHSC became the "official" Continuum of Care for Indian River County and St Lucie County and the City of Ft. Pierce. That was brought before the Commission, reviewed and approved. The City of Ft. Pierce has not been able to organize well enough to have a Continuum of Care. Thanks to the Board's help last year and the Indian River Council, IRHSC did. Martin County opted out because there has never been a formal request to have Martin County join our Continuum. We have been working very hard just to keep what we have together. Martin County is named in a particular grant because Safe Space, which was started by Indian River County over 20 years ago, has expanded its services to shelters in Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties as part of their match portion of the grant. It is their privilege, if they choose, to locate a client in May 22, 2001 98 CA ii 54 Chairman Ginn commended Executive Aide Kimberly Massung for watching carefully and bringing this to her attention. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippet, to approve submission of the Applications for Federal Assistance as presented. Vice Chairman Stanbridge had questions and concerns about Safe Space and the distribution of the units. She also asked if staff has a copy of the totally complete grant with all documents because she had not seen a letter from St. Lucie County authorizing the funding to go to the Continuum of Care. Louise Hubbard, Executive Director of the Indian River Homeless Services Council, the grant writer, advised that the County does have the complete grants. She explained there is no need for a letter from St Lucie County because last year it was agreed to combine Indian River County and St Lucie County representation, including the entitlement cities of Ft. Pierce and Port St. Lucie, because their pro rata need scores are greater than ours Last year, when we applied to HUD, IRHSC became the "official" Continuum of Care for Indian River County and St Lucie County and the City of Ft. Pierce. That was brought before the Commission, reviewed and approved. The City of Ft. Pierce has not been able to organize well enough to have a Continuum of Care. Thanks to the Board's help last year and the Indian River Council, IRHSC did. Martin County opted out because there has never been a formal request to have Martin County join our Continuum. We have been working very hard just to keep what we have together. Martin County is named in a particular grant because Safe Space, which was started by Indian River County over 20 years ago, has expanded its services to shelters in Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties as part of their match portion of the grant. It is their privilege, if they choose, to locate a client in May 22, 2001 98 CA ii 54 • Martin County using their own portion of the funding; it has nothing to do with the request itself. Ms. Hubbard continued and advised that the funding for Part 2 has not yet been received. She stated that there is no request for any other government assistance this year for the construction rehabilitation project which will be completed sometime soon. Vice Chairman Stanbridge wanted to make sure that since the County's name is on this that our credibility remains high with the HUD programs. She also asked if the Council expected to continue using the County's name. Ms. Hubbard advised she and Ms. Johnston -Carlson are going to Jacksonville in June to sit in on the contracting and training for last year's project. She had called Washington to get clarification on the questions. She felt they had been able to make incredible progress in less than 14 months and she wanted to come to the point soon where the Indian River County Homeless Services Council could stand on its own as an applicant. She gave assurances that the documents were examined by Assistant Administrator Baird, Budget Manager Jason Brown, County Attorney Bangel and others before they were signed. Chairman Ginn found it incredible that the Federal government almost insisted that counties are involved in these things, which is another "unfunded mandate". The law is clear that they expect cooperation. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 3-1 (Vice Chairman Stanbridge opposed; Commissioner Macht absent). May 22, 2001 COPIES WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECU I ED AND RECEIVED 99 BIC 1 I J PG 355 • • Martin County using their own portion of the funding; it has nothing to do with the request itself. Ms. Hubbard continued and advised that the funding for Part 2 has not yet been received. She stated that there is no request for any other government assistance this year for the construction rehabilitation project which will be completed sometime soon. Vice Chairman Stanbridge wanted to make sure that since the County's name is on this that our credibility remains high with the HUD programs. She also asked if the Council expected to continue using the County's name. Ms. Hubbard advised she and Ms. Johnston -Carlson are going to Jacksonville in June to sit in on the contracting and training for last year's project. She had called Washington to get clarification on the questions. She felt they had been able to make incredible progress in less than 14 months and she wanted to come to the point soon where the Indian River County Homeless Services Council could stand on its own as an applicant. She gave assurances that the documents were examined by Assistant Administrator Baird, Budget Manager Jason Brown, County Attorney Bangel and others before they were signed. Chairman Ginn found it incredible that the Federal government almost insisted that counties are involved in these things, which is another "unfunded mandate". The law is clear that they expect cooperation. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 3-1 (Vice Chairman Stanbridge opposed; Commissioner Macht absent). May 22, 2001 COPIES WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECU I ED AND RECEIVED 99 BIC 1 I J PG 355 • • Martin County using their own portion of the funding; it has nothing to do with the request itself. Ms. Hubbard continued and advised that the funding for Part 2 has not yet been received. She stated that there is no request for any other government assistance this year for the construction rehabilitation project which will be completed sometime soon. Vice Chairman Stanbridge wanted to make sure that since the County's name is on this that our credibility remains high with the HUD programs. She also asked if the Council expected to continue using the County's name. Ms. Hubbard advised she and Ms. Johnston -Carlson are going to Jacksonville in June to sit in on the contracting and training for last year's project. She had called Washington to get clarification on the questions. She felt they had been able to make incredible progress in less than 14 months and she wanted to come to the point soon where the Indian River County Homeless Services Council could stand on its own as an applicant. She gave assurances that the documents were examined by Assistant Administrator Baird, Budget Manager Jason Brown, County Attorney Bangel and others before they were signed. Chairman Ginn found it incredible that the Federal government almost insisted that counties are involved in these things, which is another "unfunded mandate". The law is clear that they expect cooperation. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 3-1 (Vice Chairman Stanbridge opposed; Commissioner Macht absent). May 22, 2001 COPIES WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WHEN EXECU I ED AND RECEIVED 99 BIC 1 I J PG 355 • 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - LOST TREE ISLANDS - P2000 FUNDS - OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL AUTHORIZED FOR VICE CHAIRMAN AND COUNTY ATTORNEY Vice Chairman Stanbridge rendered an update on the Lost Tree Islands appeal status She advised that the appeal court date has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 13, 2001, at 10 a.m. in West Palm Beach office of the 4th District Court of Appeals Each side will be given only 10 minutes to present their oral argument. It is anticipated it may take several months for the judges to reach their decision. Also, Vice Chairman Stanbridge advised that the vote by the Legislature that will provide the old P2000 funds ($75,000,000) to the Everglades, is still on the Governor's Desk. The Governor only has a few more days to act on it. Indian River County sent a letter asking that these funds stay with statewide projects now listed for possible purchase, one of which would have been the Lost Tree Islands She believed the City of Vero Beach and Town of Indian River Shores have not sent similar letters or any official notice asking that the P2000 funds stay available. Vice Chairman Stanbridge continued regarding Lost Tree Islands that the Department of Community Affairs has taken no official action on the 1990 Final Recommended Order from the Department of Administration's Hearing Judge on the bridge ordinance for the City and the density of the islands, which is the Town's matter. That Final Recommended Order found that both the density and the ordinance were permissible. The DCA needs to adopt that Final Recommended Order. The County cannot push for that adoption, it is up to the City and the Town to support that. It was her belief that neither the City nor the Town has encouraged, requested, nor called on the DCA to ask them to adopt those Final Orders. County Attorney Bangel requested approval from the Board for out -of -county travel to the oral argument regarding Lost Tree Islands of himself and Vice Chairman Stanbridge. May 22, 2001 100 OK 356 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - LOST TREE ISLANDS - P2000 FUNDS - OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL AUTHORIZED FOR VICE CHAIRMAN AND COUNTY ATTORNEY Vice Chairman Stanbridge rendered an update on the Lost Tree Islands appeal status She advised that the appeal court date has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 13, 2001, at 10 a.m. in West Palm Beach office of the 4th District Court of Appeals Each side will be given only 10 minutes to present their oral argument. It is anticipated it may take several months for the judges to reach their decision. Also, Vice Chairman Stanbridge advised that the vote by the Legislature that will provide the old P2000 funds ($75,000,000) to the Everglades, is still on the Governor's Desk. The Governor only has a few more days to act on it. Indian River County sent a letter asking that these funds stay with statewide projects now listed for possible purchase, one of which would have been the Lost Tree Islands She believed the City of Vero Beach and Town of Indian River Shores have not sent similar letters or any official notice asking that the P2000 funds stay available. Vice Chairman Stanbridge continued regarding Lost Tree Islands that the Department of Community Affairs has taken no official action on the 1990 Final Recommended Order from the Department of Administration's Hearing Judge on the bridge ordinance for the City and the density of the islands, which is the Town's matter. That Final Recommended Order found that both the density and the ordinance were permissible. The DCA needs to adopt that Final Recommended Order. The County cannot push for that adoption, it is up to the City and the Town to support that. It was her belief that neither the City nor the Town has encouraged, requested, nor called on the DCA to ask them to adopt those Final Orders. County Attorney Bangel requested approval from the Board for out -of -county travel to the oral argument regarding Lost Tree Islands of himself and Vice Chairman Stanbridge. May 22, 2001 100 OK 356 13.B. VICE CHAIRMAN STANBRIDGE - UPDATES - LOST TREE ISLANDS - P2000 FUNDS - OUT-OF-TOWN TRAVEL AUTHORIZED FOR VICE CHAIRMAN AND COUNTY ATTORNEY Vice Chairman Stanbridge rendered an update on the Lost Tree Islands appeal status She advised that the appeal court date has been scheduled for Wednesday, June 13, 2001, at 10 a.m. in West Palm Beach office of the 4th District Court of Appeals Each side will be given only 10 minutes to present their oral argument. It is anticipated it may take several months for the judges to reach their decision. Also, Vice Chairman Stanbridge advised that the vote by the Legislature that will provide the old P2000 funds ($75,000,000) to the Everglades, is still on the Governor's Desk. The Governor only has a few more days to act on it. Indian River County sent a letter asking that these funds stay with statewide projects now listed for possible purchase, one of which would have been the Lost Tree Islands She believed the City of Vero Beach and Town of Indian River Shores have not sent similar letters or any official notice asking that the P2000 funds stay available. Vice Chairman Stanbridge continued regarding Lost Tree Islands that the Department of Community Affairs has taken no official action on the 1990 Final Recommended Order from the Department of Administration's Hearing Judge on the bridge ordinance for the City and the density of the islands, which is the Town's matter. That Final Recommended Order found that both the density and the ordinance were permissible. The DCA needs to adopt that Final Recommended Order. The County cannot push for that adoption, it is up to the City and the Town to support that. It was her belief that neither the City nor the Town has encouraged, requested, nor called on the DCA to ask them to adopt those Final Orders. County Attorney Bangel requested approval from the Board for out -of -county travel to the oral argument regarding Lost Tree Islands of himself and Vice Chairman Stanbridge. May 22, 2001 100 OK 356 • ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin. SECONDED BY Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved out -of -county travel for County Attorney Bangel and Vice Chairman Stanbridge to attend the oral argument before the 4th District Court of Appeals in West Palm Beach on June 13. 2001. (CLERK'S NOTE AT 11:38 A.M., AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PREVIOUS ITEM, CHAIRMAN GINN REQUESTED A BRIEF RECESS. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 11:45 A.M.) REPORTS AND INFORMATION NOT ON AGENDA Announcement Concerning the Death of William "Billy" Macht, son of Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Chairman Ginn sadly announced that William "Billy' Macht, son of Commissioner Macht, had expired at 9:03 a.m. at Indian River Memorial Hospital at age 39. (Clerk's Note - The Chairman made this announcement at approximately 9:45 a.m., at the conclusion of item 9.A.5., after which she called a brief recess.) Announcement That Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Will Be Unable to Attend an Amtrak Meeting Friday May 22, 2001 101 EC • • ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin. SECONDED BY Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved out -of -county travel for County Attorney Bangel and Vice Chairman Stanbridge to attend the oral argument before the 4th District Court of Appeals in West Palm Beach on June 13. 2001. (CLERK'S NOTE AT 11:38 A.M., AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PREVIOUS ITEM, CHAIRMAN GINN REQUESTED A BRIEF RECESS. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 11:45 A.M.) REPORTS AND INFORMATION NOT ON AGENDA Announcement Concerning the Death of William "Billy" Macht, son of Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Chairman Ginn sadly announced that William "Billy' Macht, son of Commissioner Macht, had expired at 9:03 a.m. at Indian River Memorial Hospital at age 39. (Clerk's Note - The Chairman made this announcement at approximately 9:45 a.m., at the conclusion of item 9.A.5., after which she called a brief recess.) Announcement That Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Will Be Unable to Attend an Amtrak Meeting Friday May 22, 2001 101 EC • • ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin. SECONDED BY Chairman Ginn, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Macht absent) approved out -of -county travel for County Attorney Bangel and Vice Chairman Stanbridge to attend the oral argument before the 4th District Court of Appeals in West Palm Beach on June 13. 2001. (CLERK'S NOTE AT 11:38 A.M., AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PREVIOUS ITEM, CHAIRMAN GINN REQUESTED A BRIEF RECESS. THE MEETING WAS RECONVENED AT 11:45 A.M.) REPORTS AND INFORMATION NOT ON AGENDA Announcement Concerning the Death of William "Billy" Macht, son of Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Chairman Ginn sadly announced that William "Billy' Macht, son of Commissioner Macht, had expired at 9:03 a.m. at Indian River Memorial Hospital at age 39. (Clerk's Note - The Chairman made this announcement at approximately 9:45 a.m., at the conclusion of item 9.A.5., after which she called a brief recess.) Announcement That Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Will Be Unable to Attend an Amtrak Meeting Friday May 22, 2001 101 EC • Chairman Ginn advised that Commissioner Macht was scheduled to attend a meeting in Cocoa on Friday, May 25, 2001, concerning the proposed Amtrak passenger rail service from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach, and asked for a volunteer to attend in his place. (Clerk's Note: This matter was brought up after item 13 B ) 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT The Chairman announced that following the meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those minutes are being prepared separately. 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that following the Emergency Services District meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those minutes are being prepared separately. 14.C. None. May 22, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 102 8 PG u58 Chairman Ginn advised that Commissioner Macht was scheduled to attend a meeting in Cocoa on Friday, May 25, 2001, concerning the proposed Amtrak passenger rail service from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach, and asked for a volunteer to attend in his place. (Clerk's Note: This matter was brought up after item 13 B ) 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT The Chairman announced that following the meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those minutes are being prepared separately. 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that following the Emergency Services District meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those minutes are being prepared separately. 14.C. None. May 22, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 102 8 PG u58 Chairman Ginn advised that Commissioner Macht was scheduled to attend a meeting in Cocoa on Friday, May 25, 2001, concerning the proposed Amtrak passenger rail service from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach, and asked for a volunteer to attend in his place. (Clerk's Note: This matter was brought up after item 13 B ) 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT The Chairman announced that following the meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those minutes are being prepared separately. 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that following the Emergency Services District meeting, the Commissioners would sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those minutes are being prepared separately. 14.C. None. May 22, 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD 102 8 PG u58 There being no further business. upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:46 a.m. ATTEST: JeffreyK Barton,Clerk Caroline D Ginn, Chairman Minutes approve May 22, 2001 There being no further business. upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:46 a.m. ATTEST: JeffreyK Barton,Clerk Caroline D Ginn, Chairman Minutes approve May 22, 2001 There being no further business. upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 11:46 a.m. ATTEST: JeffreyK Barton,Clerk Caroline D Ginn, Chairman Minutes approve May 22, 2001