· February 11, 2014 Page 1 of 6 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA C O M M I S S I O N A G E N D A COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Peter D. O’Bryan, Chairman District

February 11, 2014 Page 1 of 6

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

C O M M I S S I O N A G E N D A

COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Peter D. O’Bryan, Chairman District 4 Joseph A. Baird, County AdministratorWesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman District 1 Dylan Reingold, County AttorneyJoseph E. Flescher District 2 Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk to the BoardBob Solari District 5 Tim Zorc District 3

1. CALL TO ORDER 9:00 A.M. PAGE

2. INVOCATION

Stan Boling, Indian River County Community Development Director

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator

4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA / EMERGENCY ITEMS

5. PROCLAMATIONS and PRESENTATIONS

A. Presentation of Proclamation Love Life Walk Appreciation Week 1

B. Presentation of Proclamation Honoring 2-1-1 Awareness Week February 11 – 17, 2014 2

County Commission Chamber Indian River County Administration Complex

1801 27th Street, Building A Vero Beach, Florida, 32960-3388

www.ircgov.com

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2014 - 9:00 A.M.


6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PAGE

A. Regular Meeting of January 14, 2014

7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS NOT REQUIRING BOARD ACTION

A. Adoption of Revised Purchasing Manual (memorandum dated February 3, 2014) 3-39

8. CONSENT AGENDA

A. Approval of Warrants – January 24, 2014 to January 30, 2014

(memorandum dated January 30, 2014) 40-48 B. 2014/2015 Budget Workshop / Hearing Schedule

(memorandum dated February 4, 2014) 49 C. Approval of First Extension to Agreement for Providing Auction Services

(memorandum dated February 3, 2014) 50-51

D. Approval to Authorize Payment for Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy, & Ecker, P.A. for 800 MHz Rebanding (memorandum dated January 30, 2014) 52-54

E. Final Pay Request Siemens Jail Fire Alarm (memorandum dated January 30, 2014) 55-62

F. Mary Rutz’s Request for Final Plat Approval for a Commercial Subdivision to be Known as Rutz 27th Avenue SW Retail Center (memorandum dated February 3, 2014) 63-73

9. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES

A. Jeffrey R. Smith, Indian River County Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller Presentation of CAFR Award by Jeffrey R. Smith (no back-up) ---

B. Deryl Loar, Indian River County Sheriff Potential Purchase and Funding Sources for Replacement of High Mileage Vehicles (letter dated February 4, 2014) 74-78


10. PUBLIC ITEMS PAGE

A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

None

B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS

Please give your name and address, and then give your remarks. Please try to limit your remarks to three minutes.

1. Request to Speak from Gifford Economic Development Regarding

Follow-up 79

C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS

None

11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MATTERS

A. Renewal of Employment Agreement (memorandum dated February 5, 2014) 80-84

12. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS

A. Community Development

None

B. Emergency Services

None

C. General Services

None

D. Human Resources

None

E. Human Services

None

F. Leisure Services

None


12. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS PAGE

G. Office of Management and Budget

None

H. Recreation

None

I. Public Works

None

J. Utilities Services

1. Sewer Feasibility Study for the North Sebastian Area – Results (memorandum dated January 30, 2014) 85-87

13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS

A. Attorney-Client Session: Time Certain of 10:30 a.m. Pelican Island Audubon Society, Dr. Richard Baker, and Dr. David Cox v. Indian River County and St. Johns River Water Management District, pending with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 13-3601 (memorandum dated February 4, 2014) 88-89

B. City of Vero Beach (“City”) Water, Wastewater and Reclaimed Water Agreement (memorandum dated February 5, 2014) 90-101

14. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS

A. Commissioner Peter D. O’Bryan, Chairman

None

B. Commissioner Wesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman

None

C. Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher

None

D. Commissioner Bob Solari

1. Oslo Boat Ramp (memorandum dated January 27, 2014) 102


14. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS PAGE

E. Commissioner Tim Zorc

1. Optional One-Cent Sales Tax Fund (memorandum dated February 5, 2014) 103

15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND BOARDS

A. Emergency Services District

None

B. Solid Waste Disposal District

1. Approval of Minutes Meeting of December 3, 2013

2. Approval of Minutes Meeting of December 17, 2013

3. Approval of Minutes Meeting of January 7, 2014

4. Request to Apply to the Florida Green Building Coalition (FGBC)

for Green Local Government Recertification (memorandum dated January 30, 2014) 104-106

5. Final Pay for CDM Smith Work Order No. 7 – 2013 Annual Permit

Compliance Monitoring & Reporting (memorandum dated January 30, 2014) 107-116

6. Work Order No. 8 to CDM Smith, Inc. for Engineering Services

with the 2014 Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring & Reporting (memorandum dated January 30, 2014) 117-130

7. Work Order No. 9 to CDM Smith, Inc. for Engineering Services

with the 2014 Annual Financial Reports (memorandum dated January 30, 2014) 131-139

C. Environmental Control Board

None

16. ADJOURNMENT

Except for those matters specifically exempted under the State Statute and Local Ordinance, the Board shall provide an opportunity for public comment prior to the undertaking by the Board of any action on the agenda, including those matters on the Consent Agenda. Public comment shall also be heard on any


proposition which the Board is to take action which was either not on the Board agenda or distributed to the public prior to the commencement of the meeting. 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 (772) 226-1223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. The full agenda is available on line at the Indian River County Website at www.ircgov.com The full agenda is also available for review in the Board of County Commission Office, the Indian River County Main Library, and the North County Library.

Commission Meeting may be broadcast live by Comcast Cable Channel 27 Rebroadcasts continuously with the following proposed schedule:

Tuesday at 6:00 p.m. until Wednesday at 6:00 a.m., Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.,

Thursday at 1:00 p.m. through Friday Morning, and Saturday at 12:00 Noon to 5:00 p.m.

P Ro C LA MAT IO NFEBRUARY 11, 2014 AGENDA ITEM: SA

LOVE LIFE WALK APPRECIATION WEEK

WHEREAS, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners are dedicated to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and

WHEREAS, Steve Fugate is an Indian River County resident whose mission is to remind people to LOVE LIFE; and

WHEREAS, Steve's message was born out of tragedy in 1999 when his son, Stevie, committed suicide at age 26; and six years later his daughter, Michele, died from an accidental drug overdose; and

WHEREAS, Steve Fugate turned the tragedy into living proof that if anyone can face the adversity of losing all of one's children and still LOVE LIFE then it's possible for anyone; and

WHEREAS, Steve Fugate having already logged over 30,000 miles with his LOVE LIFE sign embarked from Vero Beach on March 23, 2013 on this current Zig Zag walk through al l 48 states of the contiguous United States; and

WHEREAS, Steve Fugate has currently crossed 21 states while inspiring those he meets as well his followers via social media to LOVE LIFE; and

WHEREAS, the Board encourages all residents of Indian River County to come celebrate the LOVE LIFE Walk event on Saturday, February 15th at the east side of Barber Bridge at 8:30 am; and

WHEREAS, the Board wishes to express their appreciation to Steve Fugate for all his efforts so far and wish him a safe journey on his LOVE LIFE Walk; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of February 10, 2014 be designated as LOVE LIFE Walk Appreciation Week in Indian River County.

Adopted this 11 th day of February, 2014. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman

Wesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman

Joseph E. Flescher

Tim Zorc

Bob Solari

PROCLAMATION HONORING 2-1-1 AWARENESS WEEK

FEBRUARY 11 -17, 2014

513

WHEREAS, many times when individuals and families need help in meeting life's basic needs or experiencing times of crisis and are not sure where to turn; and

WHEREAS, 2-1-1 is an easy to remember, easy to use three-digit number recognized as the central linkage point in providing individuals and families with the guidance, support and information they need to solve their problems; and with the crisis intervention and suicide prevention they seek to keep them safe; and

WHEREAS, Indian River County is fortunate to have a 2-1-1 Helpline, a service that is available any time of day or night that enables individuals and families to get the help they need.

As was the case when the caring staff at 211 helped a distraught grandmother who had lost her job and was caring for her seriously ill daughter and grandson. She struggled with bills and had received notice that their power was soon to be shut-off ... 211 staff worked to keep her power on and helped to find additional assistance with food and medical care for her family.

211 staff also listened to the teen whose father had left the family ... she was so emotionally overwhelmed and thinking of suicide - a 211 staff member was able to comfort her and get her immediate care and counseling.

211 staff was also sensitive to a woman who had concerns for her elder brother. He suffered numerous strokes and falls while living with his frail wife who could no longer care for his needs. 211 staff was able to get him into a safer living environment and find resources for his wife as well; and with so many other real life stories; and

WHEREAS, 2-1-1 Helpline service is free. confidential, available 24/7, with highly trained staff who are "here to listen, and here to help," who last year alone assisted over 121,000 callers in need of crisis intervention, assessment and referrals to community services; and

WHEREAS, 2-1-1 Helpline looks forward to continuing to provide quality, caring assistance to the people of our community; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board recognizes February 11 - 17, 2014 as

2-1-1 AWARENESS WEEK

in Indian River County and urge all citizens to be aware of the only telephone number they need to know to access information and referral to programs and services at over 2,800 sites in our community that provide assistance in such areas as Healthcare, Insurance, Volunteering, Food, Daycare, Mental Health Counseling, Support Groups, Financial Assistance. etc. .

Adopted this 11th day of February, 2014. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,

IN~R~NTY, LORIDA

Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman

/~,¼z ~ h---::.• Wesy S. Davis,tce Chairman

~L~4~ ~:,~

Bob Solari ,...-------, ,,,-2

Timiof! 9-?=-· o r L ,•_,,,.

2

1ft Informational ltern

DATE:

TO:

THROUGH:

THROUGH:

fROM:

SUBJECT:

BACKGROUND:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

PURCHASING DIVISION

February 3, 2014


Joseph A. !Baird, County Administrator Jason Brown, Director, Office of Management and Budget

Jennifer Hyde, Purchasing Manager~

Adoption of Revised Purchasing Manual

The current Purchasing Manual (Policies and Procedures) was prepared on behalf of the County Administrator pursuant to the provisions of Section 105.06 of the Code of Ordinances of Indian River County, effective October 2, 2012, with revisions on November 9, 2012 and January 9, 2013. Paragraph 1.3.C.4 requires the Purchasing Manager to review the manual annually to determine if revisions are needed, and a few updates have been identified.

The following pages show in redline the proposed changes to the Manual's text, and the revised Manual is also attached in its entirety.

This item is being presented for informational purposes. If no further action is undertaken by the Board of County Commissioners, the County Administrator shall approve the revised Manual.

ATTACHMENT:

Proposed Changes to Purchasing Manual Proposed Revised Purchasing Manual

APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: Indian River Co

Admin

Legal

Budget Department

Risk Manager

3

PROPOSED CHANGES - PURCHASING MANUAL

specifically provided within a grant or funding agreement approved by the Board, or by applicable state or federal law.

3. Dependent Special Districts. This manual shall apply to procurement transactions solicited or entered into by the County on behalf of dependent special districts.

4. Revisions. The Purchasing Manager shall review this manual on an annual basis to determine if revisions are needed. Revisions may be made at the direction of the County Administrator upon recommendation of the Purchasing Manager. Any substantial and material revisions shall be approved by the Board.

D. Waiver of Requirements of the Manual. The Board may waive the requirements of this manual when it is in the best interests of the County to do so. This waiver may be made before or after completion of the procurement transaction.

E. Waiver of Technicalities and Irregularities. The Board may waive any techn icalities or irregularities relating to compliance with the requirements of this manual when it is in the best interests of the County to do so. This waiver may be made before or after completion of the procurement transaction.

F. Limited Authority of the Purchasing Manager. The Purchasing Manager shall be authorized to procure commodities and services up to $25,000, without competitive selection, unless otherwise required by applicable state or federal law; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the Purchasing Manager to exercise such authority.

G. Limited Authority of the County Administrator. The County Administrator shall be authorized to procure commodities and services up to $50,000, without competitive selection, unless otherwise required by applicable state or federal law; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the County Administrator to exercise such authority. The County Administrator is authorized to procure planning or study activity services obtained pursuant to the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act. F.S. 287.055 up to $25.000.

H. Indemnification. All contracts for services or public works projects (other than construction contracts), and any other contracts deemed necessary by the County Administrator or the Board, shall provide that the contractor or vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County and its commissioners, officers, employees and agents, from any and all losses, damages, expenses {including reasonable attorneys fees) and other liabilities of any type whatsoever, arising out of or relating to any negligence, intentional tort, breach of contract, or breach of applicable law by the contractor (or vendor), or its employees, agents, subcontractors, or other persons or entities performing work under the contract. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS SHALL INCLUDE THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION SET FORTH IN SECTION 4.4 BELOW.

I. Insurance Requirements. When deemed necessary by the County Administrator o r the Board, contracts shall contain requirements for the protection of the County through sufficient insurance as specified by the Risk Management Division, which shall approve the

2

4


insurance requirements contained in the bid documents. Upon award, the Risk Management Division shall review certificates of insurance, approving those which comply with the requirements of the bid documents. Non-approved certificates of insurance sha ll be returned to the Purchasing Division with a statement of the reasons for non-approval and instructions on how the certificate may be corrected. Insurance requirements shall be met prior to final

execution of the contract by the Chairman of the Board. or the County Administrator or the Purchasing Manager. The Purchasing Division and the Risk Management Division shall not allow any contract to continue without proper insurance in effect. Work to be authorized by purchase order must also meet the insurance requirements dictated by the Administrative Policy and Risk Management.

J. Bid Bond. A bid bond or alternative bid security must accompany each bid exceeding $25,000. A bid bond must be properly executed by the bidder and by a qualified surety. Alternative bid security must be in the form of a certified check or cashier's check issued by a bank authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The bid bond or security shall be in the amount of not less than five percent (5%) of the total amount of the bid, and shall be payable to the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. Any failure or refusal by the bidder to honor the bid after opening shall be deemed to be a breach of the bidder's obligations. In such event, the bid bond or security sha II be immediately payable to the County as liquidated damages, and not as a penalty.

Failure to supply the required bid bond or security at the time of the bid opening shall automatically disqualify the bidder as non-responsive to the bid requirements.

K. Sole Discretion. Any decision, waiver, exercise of judgment or interpretation required or permitted by this manual, or the application of this manual, by t he County or any County official shall be deemed to be made in the sole and absolute discretion of the County or the official, and shall be final and binding upon all affected parties.

L. Contract Renewal or Extension. Renewal or extension of any contract shall be at the sole discretion of the County. No supplier of commodities or services shall have a legal right to renewal or extension of any contract.

M. Contracts or Purchase Orders Entered into in Violation of this Manual. Any contract, purchase order or other commitment entered into by a County employee or department in violation of this manual shall be null and void; provided, however, that the Boa rd may waive the requirements of this manual, or any technicalities or irregularities rela t ing to compliance with the requirements of this manual, when it is in the best interests of the County to do so.

1.4 PURCHASING DEFINITIONS

APPLICABLE LAW - Any local, state or federal law which applies to the t ra nsaction or issue at hand, as amended from time to time. If any specific statute or local law is cited in this manual, such reference sha II be to the statute or local law, as amended from time to time.

3

5


SERVICES - This term shall generally include all services rendered to the County, except those described in section 287.057(f.~)(f~), Florida Statutes (e.g, legal services, a61diting health services, etc). Services described in section 287.057(.S.~J(f~), Florida Statutes, may be procured without competitive selection.

SOLE SOURCE - The only known vendor reasonably capable of providing a specific commodity or service to the County.

SOLE BRAND - The only known brand reasonably capable of fulfilling the specific needs of t he County.

TECHNICALITY OR IRREGULARITY - An item which is not in compliance with the bid invitation or solicitation request, but which is determined by the County to be immaterial to the substantive terms and conditions of the bid, proposal or submittal. The waiver of a technicality or irregula rity shall not result in an unfair advantage or disadvantage to any person responding to the bid invitation or solicitation request.

1.5 AUTHORITY OF THE PURCHASING MANAGER

A. Line of Authority. The Purchasing Division is part of the Office of Management and Budget. The Purchasing Manager is directly responsible to the Director of t he Office of Management and Budget. Except as otherwise provided in this manual, the Purchasing Manager shall procure or oversee the procurement of all commodities and services for the Board.

B. Principal Procurement Officer of the County. The Purchasing Manager shall be the principal procurement officer of the County.

C. Operational Procedures. The Purchasing Manager may adopt operational procedures covering the internal functions of the Purchasing Division and delegate rights, powers, and authority vested in him to other Purchasing Division staff.

5

6


2. Travel expenses incurred in the course of official duties for a County

employee be it in-county, out-of-county, in-state or out-of-state travel

requests 3. Routine overhead such as: water, sewer, natural gas, electrical, telephone

and garbage fees

4. Postage and postage meter rentals: does not include mailing or stuffing service

5. Subscriptions, subscription renewals and books (with the exception of book

orders for libraries)

6. Hospital bills and nursing home bills 7. Medical claims, workers' compensation claims, and liability claims as paid

from the County's self-insurance funds 8. After school programs, including salaries for teachers, referees, umpires and

swim instructors, and food expenses 9. Railroad crossing signal maintenance

10. Legal services

11. Newspaper advertisement magazine/agency advertisements 12. Notary public applications 13. Welfare services indigent care (food vouchers, prescriptions) 14. Medical services

15. Surplus equipment and services from other local, state or federal agencies 16. Application for permits 17. Registration fees 18. College tuition and/or educational fee and training fees

19. Membership dues 20. Instructor fees (Up to $3,000 per training event) 21. Title searches/title insurance

22. Expert witness fees and/or services; also includes travel in accordance with

Florida statutes 23. Court orders 24. Landfill fees

25. Overnight express mail service

26. Payment of fuel credit cards 27. Rubber stamps 28. Employee business cards 29. Reimbursement to County employees for the purchase of items intended

for County use

2.6 COUNTY PURCHASING CARD

The use of a County purchasing card is a valid method of procurement in lieu of a purchase requisition, provided the purchase is in accordance with the Purchasing Card Policy as approved by the Board of Commissioners and ~rnm1a1lgated b;· the Gle~k of Girnrt's Finane@ DH5ion.

7

7

PROPOSED CHANGES - PURCHASING MANUAL BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS


Purchasing Policies and Procedures

Approval Date: October 2, 2012 By:

3. PURCHASES NOT REQUIRING COMPETITIVE SELECTION

3.1 BELOW THE MANDATORY BID THRESHOLD

Purchases below the mandatory bid threshold may be made without competitive selection; however, purchases below the mandatory bid threshold may be made with competitive selection, at the discretion of the Purchasing Manager, the County Administrator or the Board .

3.2 SOLE SOURCE AND SOLE BRAND PROCUREMENT

A sole source or sole brand purchase less than $25,000 may be authorized by the Purchasing Manager after receipt of proper documentation from the Originating Department in the form of a completed sole source/sole brand memorandum and documentation verifying that a good faith review of available sources or brands has been completed. A record of the sole source or sole brand request shall be maintained by attachment of the completed documentation in the MUNIS requisition file.

A sole source or sole brand purchase up to $50,000 may be approved by the County Administrator. Any request in excess of $50,000, shall be forwarded to the Purchasing Division for submission to the Board for approval.

A sole source procurement involving contracts or purchase of materials for the construction, modification, alteration, or repair of any publicly owned facility shall be governed by Florida Statute 255.04, which generally provides that the County may not specify the use of materials or systems by a sole source, unless the Board, after considerat ion of all available alternatives materials and systems, determines that the specification of the sole source is justifiable based upon its cost or interchangeability, and the sole source specification has been recommended by the architect or engineer of record. Documentation of the Board's determination and supporting iustification shall be maintained in the bid or requisition file.

For a commodity or service to be deemed a sole source or sole brand procurement, t he department must attach the appropriate documentation to the requisition, which shall include both correspondence from the manufacturer or vendor asserting its status as sole source or sole brand and a completed sole source/sole brand memorandum, documenting at least one of the following:

A. This is the only known vendor or manufacturer reasonably capable of providing a

8

8


B. Requisition. Requests for blanket purchase orders shall be initiated by entry of an electronic requisition into MUNIS indicating the vendor, item description, and amount being requested. Blanket purchase orders shall then be prepared on the standard purchase order form which shall include the following information:

1. Dates the blanket purchase order is to be in effect (i.e., start and end dates).

2. General description of commodities to be purchased.

3. Multiple line items are required where more than one account number is to be used. Each account number requires a separate line.

C. Procedure if Initial Purchase Order is Exceeded. After the blanket purchase order is issued to the vendor, the Originating Department is authorized to place orders directly with the vendor using the purchase order number. If the amount of the initial blanket purchase order will be exceeded, the department shall request authority to increase the amount from the Budget Department. If the Budget Department approves the request, the Purchasing Division shall process the change order, up to a maximum total of $25,000 (for purchase orders not associat ed with a bid, contract, or piggyback. which may exceed the $25,000 threshold}. The County Administrator may authorize an increase up to a maximum $SO.ODO total (for purchase orders not associated with a bid, contract. or piggyback).

11

9


F. Executed Contract. The Originating Department shall be responsible for returning a fully executed original contract to the vendor and shall prepare and send a notice to proceed to the contractor when appropriate.

G. Forfeiting of Bonds.

Default by Contractor. All contracts for construction services shall contain a clause providing for termination upon default of the contractor and providing that in such cases the surety company shall bear responsibility for the completion of the contract, or if no surety company has provided a performance bond, the County may claim the alternative security and use such funds for the completion of the contract.

H. I~rrni_n~tion for Conve1J_ieo.ce_. All construction contracts shall contain clauses providing for the termination of the contract for convenience of the County, and shall prescribe methods by which the contractor may calculate the cost of work already performed and termination settlement costs.

I. Indemnification. All construction contracts shall provide that the contractor (or other appropriate party) shall indemnify and hold harmless the County, and its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasona ble attorney's fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional wrongful misconduct of the contractor (or other appropriate party) and persons employed or utilized by the contractor (or other appropriate party) in the performance of the construction contract.

4.5 CHANGE ORDERS

A. Applicability. Modifications may be made to an executed contract. which do not substantially alter the character of the work contracted, and which do not vary substantially from the original specifications as to constitute a new undertaking. Such changes must be reasonably viewed as being in fulfillment of the original scope of the contract and must be clearly directed to the achievement of a more satisfactory result or to the elimination of work not necessary.

B. Purchasing Manager Authority. The Purchasing Manager is authorized to approve change orders to contracts executed under the Purchasing Manager's authority, provided the criteria in paragraph A above are met. and the total value of the contract does not exceed $25,000.

C. County Administrator Authority. The County Administrator is authorized to approve and authorize change orders which fit the criteria in paragraph A. above where the net modification in the contract amount does not exceed $5,000. unless contract was initially awarded solely under the Purchasing Manager or County Administrator's authority ($50.000 threshold) and the total value of the contract still does not exceed Sso.ooo.

D. All other change orders must be formally approved by the Board.

17

10


E. Change orders shall not be artificially distributed or divided to avoid the requirement to present the approval to the Board.

18

11

Indian River County Purchasing Manual

Approved by

The Board of County Commissioners, Effective October 2, 2012.

Revised November 19, 2012, January 9, 2013

Current Revision February 11, 2014 [PROPOSED]

12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION ....................................................................................... ... .. .. ........................ 1

1.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... . 1

1.2 PURCHASING OVERVIEW ...... ............................................................................. ......... ................ 1

1.3 GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSES AND APPLICATION .. ............... .............................................. 1

1.4 PURCHASING DEFINITIONS ............................ ................... ....... .. ................................................. 3

1.5 AUTHORITY OF THE PURCHASING MANAGER ............................................................................. 5

2. REQUISITION GUIDELINES ............................. ..................... .. ................................................................. 6

2.1 AUTHORITY ..................................................................................... ................ ............................. 6

2.2 PURCHASE REQUISITIONS ............................................ .............................. ............................. .... 6

2.3 QUOTE REQUIREMENTS BELOW MANDATORY BID THRESHOLD ............. ..... .. ....... ................ .... 6

2.4 NEWVENDORS ......... ............................................................................ ................................ ....... 6

2.5 PURCHASE REQUISITION/ORDER EXEMPTIONS .......................................................................... 6

2.6 COUNTY PURCHASING CARD ................................................................... .... ........ ......... ............ .. . 7

3. PURCHASES NOT REQUIRING COMPETITIVE SELECTION .... ................... ....... .... ........... .. ................... .... 8

3.1 BELOW THE MANDATORY BID THRESHOLD ................................................................. ..... .......... 8

3.2 SOLE SOURCE AND SOLE BRAND PROCUREMENT ......... ............ ... .............. .... ............... ............. 8

3.3 COOPERATIVE PURCHASING THROUGH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL CONTRACTS

{"PIGGYBACKING" ) .......................................................................................... ..... ........... ......... ... 9

3.4 EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS .................................................. ................... ............................... 9

3.5 PROCUREMENT PURSUANT TO EXISTING ANNUAL TERM CONTRACTS ..... .. ....... ..... ............ .. .. 10

3.6 BLANKET PURCHASE ORDERS .............. .. ..................... ............ ................. ... .............. ...... ..... .... .. 10

4. COMPETETIVE SELECTION - BIDS ............ ....... .......... ........................................................................... 12

4.1 AT OR ABOVE THE MANDATORY BID THRESHOLD ............. ............... ............... ..... .. .... .. ............ 12

4.2 BIDDING PROCEDURES ..................... ....................................... ..... ........... .... ... .. ........ ................. 12

ii

13

4.3 AWARD ...................................................................................................................................... 13

4.4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS .......... 14

4.5 CHANGE ORDERS ................ .. ............................................................................... ........ .............. 17

5. COMPETITIVE SELECTION - RFP/RFQ .................................................................................................. 19

5.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) ................................................................................................. 19

5.2 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) ...................................................................................... 20

6. SUMMARY OF PROCUREMENT ..................................................................... .... ......... ................... ...... 23

7. PROTEST PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... ...... 24

7.1 RESOLUTION OF PROTESTS ....................................................................................................... 24

8. EXCESS/SURPLUS ASSET DISPOSITION ............................................................. ................................... 25

iii

14





1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this manual is to set forth and implement policies and procedures governing the procurement of commodities and services. It is strongly recommended that all personnel charged with responsibility for procuring commodities and services become thoroughly familiar with the policies and procedures set forth herein.

1.2 PURCHASING OVERVIEW

Procurement is regulated by this manual, the Indian River County Code and, to the extent applicable, state and federal statutes.

The Board of County Commissioners (Board) has delegated limited authority to procure commodities and services to the Purchasing Manager and the County Administrator. Any procurement in excess of the authority of the County Administrator shall be approved by the Board.

The County Attorney shall serve as legal counsel and provide legal services with respect to procurement matters.

1.3 GENERAL PROVISIONS, PURPOSES AND APPLICATION

A. Authority. Pursuant to chapter 105 of the Indian River County Code of Ordinances, the policies and procedures set forth herein have been promulgated by the County Administrator, and approved by the Board.

B. Short Title. These policies and procedures shall be known and may be cited as the "Indian River County Purchasing Manual."

C. Application of This Manual.

1. General Application. This manual shall apply only to procurement transactions solicited or entered into after the effective date of the manual.

2. Application to Procurement. This manual shall app ly to all procurement transactions by the County, irrespective of the source of funds . The use of state or federal grants or funds shall not exempt compliance with the requirements of this manual, unless

1

15

specifically provided within a grant or funding agreement approved by the Board, or by applicable state or federal law.

3. Dependent Special Districts. This manual shall apply to procurement transactions solicited or entered into by the County on behalf of dependent special districts.

4. Revisions. The Purchasing Manager shall review this manual on an annual basis to determine if revisions are needed. Revisions may be made at the direction of the County Administrator upon recommendation of the Purchasing Manager. Any substantial and material revisions shall be approved by the Board.

D. Waiver of Requirements of the Manual. The Board may waive the requirements of this manual when it is in the best interests of the County to do so. This waiver may be made before or after completion of the procurement transaction.

E. Waiver of Technicalities and Irregularities. The Board may waive any technicalities or irregularities relating to compliance with the requirements of this manual when it is in the best interests of the County to do so. This waiver may be made before or after completion of the procurement transaction.

F. Limited Authority of the Purchasing Manager. The Purchasing Manager shall be authorized to procure commodities and services up to $25,000, without competitive selection, unless otherwise required by applicable state or federal law; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the Purchasing Manager to exercise such authority.

G. Limited Authority of the County Administrator. The County Administrator shall be authorized to procure commodities and services up to $50,000, without competitive selection, unless otherwise required by applicable state or federal law; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require the County Administrator to exercise such authority. The County Administrator is authorized to procure planning or study activity services obtained pursuant to the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act, F.S. 287.055 up to $25,000.

H. Indemnification. All contracts for services or public works projects (other than construction contracts), and any other contracts deemed necessary by the County Administrator or the Board, shall provide that the contractor or vendor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County and its commissioners, officers, employees and agents, from any and all losses, damages, expenses (including reasonable attorneys fees) and other liabilities of any type whatsoever, arising out of or relating to any negligence, intentional tort, breach of contract, or breach of applicable law by the contractor {or vendor), or its employees, agents, subcontractors, or other persons or entities performing work under the contract. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS SHALL INCLUDE THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVISION SET FORTH IN SECTION 4.4 BELOW.

I. Insurance Requirements. When deemed necessary by the County Administrator or the Board, contracts shall contain requirements for the protection of the County through sufficient insurance as specified by the Risk Management Division, which shall approve the

2

16

insurance requirements contained in the bid documents. Upon award, the Risk Management Division shall review certificates of insurance, approving those which comply with the requirements of the bid documents.· Non-approved certificates of insurance shall be returned to the Purchasing Division with a statement of the reasons for non-approval and instructions on how the certificate may be corrected. Insurance requirements shall be met prior to final execution of the contract by the Chairman of the Board, or the County Administrator or the Purchasing Manager. The Purchasing Division and the Risk Management Division shall not allow any contract to continue without proper insurance in effect. Work to be authorized by purchase order must also meet the insurance requirements dictated by the Administrative Policy and Risk Management.

J. Bid Bond. A bid bond or alternative bid security must accompany each bid exceeding $25,000. A bid bond must be properly executed by the bidder and by a qualified surety. Alternative bid security must be in the form of a certified check or cashier's check issued by a bank authorized to do business in the State of Florida. The bid bond or security shall be in the amount of not less than five percent (5%) of the total amount of the bid, and shall be payable to the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. Any failure or refusal by the bidder to honor the bid after opening shall be deemed to be a breach of the bidder's obligations. In such event, the bid bond or security shall be immediately payable to the County as liquidated damages, and not as a penalty.

Failure to supply the required bid bond or security at the time of the bid opening shall automatically disqualify the bidder as non-responsive to the bid requirements.

K. Sole Discretion. Any decision, waiver, exercise of judgment or interpretation required or permitted by this manual, or the application of this manual, by the County or any County official shall be deemed to be made in the sole and absolute discretion of the County or the official, and shall be final and binding upon all affected parties.

L. Contract Renewal or Extension. Renewal or extension of any contract shall be at the sole discretion of the County. No supplier of commodities or services shall have a legal right to renewal or extension of any contract.

M. Contracts or Purchase Orders Entered into in Violation of this Manual. Any contract, purchase order or other commitment entered into by a County employee or department in violation of this manual shall be null and void; provided, however, that the Board may waive the requirements of this manual, or any technica lities or irregularities relating to compliance with the requirements of this manual, when it is in the best interests of the County to do so.

1.4 PURCHASING DEFINITIONS

APPLICABLE LAW - Any local, state or federal law which applies to the transaction or issue at

hand, as amended from time to time. If any specific statute or local law is cited in this manual, such reference shall be to the statute or local law, as amended from time to time.

3

17

EMERGENCY - Any circumstance which creates a threat to public health, safety, welfare or property, or may result in substantial loss to the County. The term shall not be limited to officially-declared local, state or federal emergencies. In the absence of an officially declared state of emergency, the Purchasing Manager (for purchases up to $25,000), the County Administrator or the Board shall determine whether an emergency exists for procurement purposes.

EMERGENCY PROCUREMENT - A procurement transaction necessitated by an emergency where the delay incident to compliance with this manual would be detrimental to the best interests of the County.

MANDATORY BID THRESHOLD - The mandatory bid threshold shall be $25,000. Commodities or services having an estimated value equal to or in excess of the mandatory bid threshold shall be procured through a competitive selection process; provided that the County Admin istrator shall be authorized to enter into a procurement transaction up to $50,000, without competitive selection, unless otherwise required by applicable law; and provided further that the Board shall be authorized to approve a procurement transaction up to or in excess of $50,000, without competitive selection, unless otherwise required by applicable law.

OFFICIAL - Any reference to a county official in this manual - such as the County Administrator, County Attorney, Department Director, Purchasing Manager or Risk Manager - shall include the official, or his or her designee.

ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT - The department within the County which originated the request for procurement of a commodity or service.

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) - A solicitation for proposals to achieve a stated objective. An RFP is characterized by a description of the desired objective and a statement of evaluation criteria . RFPs may request a price proposal, to be considered in accordance with the evaluation criteria . (See section 5.1 below).

REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION (RFQ) - A solicitation to professionals to submit a summary of their qualifications to perform a general or specific job or service. If the RFQ is subject to the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act, the County shall select no less than three professionals for discussions and, if requested by the County, for presentations. After staff recommendation and approval by the Board, the County shall enter into negotiations for a contract with the most qualified professional(s). RFQs shall be governed by the Consultants' Competitive Negot iation Act, to the extent applicable. (See section 5.2 below).

RESPONSIVE BIDDER - A bidder whose bid, proposal or submittal complies in all materia l respects with the bid invitation or solicitation request, as determined by the County.

RESPONSIBLE BIDDER - A bidder who has the capability in all respects to fully perform the contract requirements, and the integrity and reliability that will assure good faith performance, as determined by the County.

4

18

SERVICES - This term shall generally include all services rendered to the County, except those described in section 287.057(3)(e), Florida Statutes (e.g, legal services, health services, etc). Services described in section 287.057(3)(e), Florida Statutes, may be procured without

competitive selection.

SOLE SOURCE -The only known vendor reasonably capable of providing a specific commodity or

service to the County.

SOLE BRAND - The only known brand reasonably capable of fulfi ll ing the specific needs of the County.

TECHNICALITY OR IRREGULARITY - An item which is not in compliance with the bid invitation or

solicitation request, but which is determined by the County to be immaterial to the substantive terms and conditions of the bid, proposal or submittal. The waiver of a technicality or irregularity shall not result in an unfair advantage or disadvantage to any person responding to the bid

invitation or solicitation request.

1.5 AUTHORITY OF THE PURCHASING MANAGER

A. Line of Authority. The Purchasing Division is part of the Office of Management and Budget. The Purchasing Manager is directly responsible to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Except as otherwise provided in this manual, the Purchasi ng Manager shall procure or oversee the procurement of all commodities and services for the Board.

B. Principal Procurement Officer of the County. The Purchasing Manager shall be the

principal procurement officer of the County.

C. Operational Procedures. The Purchasing Manager may adopt operational procedures covering the internal functions of the Purchasing Division and delegate right s, powers, and authority vested in him to other Purchasing Division staff.

5

19





2.. REQUISITION GUIDELINES

2.1 AUTHORITY

No County employee has the authority to purchase or commit public funds toward the purchase

of commodities or services without first complying with the appropriate requisition and procurement procedures.

2.2 PURCHASE REQUISITIONS

All requests for procurement shall start with a properly prepared purchase requisition created in the MUNIS electronic financial software system. Requisitions must be completely filled out with

the proper information, required quotes, documentation, attachments, approvals, account

number, and final approval by the Budget Office. Without this information, the requisition shall be rejected and returned to the Originating Department.

2.3 QUOTE REQUIREMENTS BELOW MANDATORY BID THRESHOLD

Purchase requisitions for items valued between $1,000 and $4,999 shall include three quotes

indicating the vendor, a contact name, telephone number, and price. Purchase requisitions for items valued between $5,000 and $25,000 shall include copies of the written quotations received

from each of a minimum of three vendors. If the Originating Department does not have the ability to attach written quotes to MUNIS, the quotes may be forwarded to the Purchasing Division to be

scanned and attached. Upon request, the Purchasing Manager may obtain quotes for specific commodities.

2.4 NEW VENDORS

When a new vendor is selected and not presently listed in MUNIS, the Originating Department

shall provide and submit new vendor information in the form of a W-9 to the Finance Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The Finance Office shall enter the vendor information into its records and issue a vendor number which shall be emailed to the Originating Department.

2.5 PURCHASE REQUISITION/ORDER EXEMPTIONS

The following expenditures do not require a purchase requisition or a purchase order:

1. Salaries, by position, which were included in the department's annual budget

6

20

2. Travel expenses incurred in the course of official duties for a County employee be it in-county, out-of-county, in-state or out-of-state travel requests

3. Routine overhead such as: water, sewer, natural gas, electrical, telephone and garbage fees

4. Postage and postage meter rentals: does not include mailing or stuffing service

5. Subscriptions, subscription renewals and books (with the exception of book orders for libraries}

6. Hospital bills and nursing home bills 7. Medical claims, workers' compensation claims, and liability claims as paid

from the County's self-insurance funds 8. After school programs, including salaries for teachers, referees, umpires and

swim instructors, and food expenses 9. Railroad crossing signal maintenance 10. Legal services 11. Newspaper advertisement magazine/agency advertisements 12. Notary public applications

13. Welfare services indigent care (food vouchers, prescriptions) 14. Medical services

15. Surplus equipment and services from other local, state or federal agencies 16. Application for permits 17. Registration fees

18. College tuition and/or educational fee and training fees 19. Membership dues 20. Instructor fees (Up to $3,000 per training event) 21. Title searches/title insurance 22. Expert witness fees and/or services; also includes travel in accordance with

Florida statutes 23. Court orders 24. Landfill fees 25. Overnight express mail service 26. Payment of fuel credit cards 27. Rubber stamps 28. Employee business cards

29. Reimbursement to County employees for the purchase of items intended for County use

2.6 COUNTY PURCHASING CARD

The use of a County purchasing card is a valid method of procurement in lieu of a purchase requisition, provided the purchase is in accordance with the Purchasing Card Policy as approved by the Board of Commissioners.

7

21





3. PURCHASES NOT REQUIRING COMPETITIVE SELECTION

3.1 BELOW THE MANDATORY BID THRESHOLD

Purchases below the mandatory bid threshold may be made without competitive selection; however, purchases below the mandatory bid threshold may be made with competitive selection, at the discretion of the Purchasing Manager, the County Administrator or the Board.

3.2 SOLE SOURCE AND SOLE BRAND PROCUREMENT

A sole source or sole brand purchase less than $25,000 may be authorized by the Purchasing Manager after receipt of proper documentation from the Originating Department in the form of a completed sole source/sole brand memorandum and documentation verifying that a good faith review of available sources or brands has been completed. A record of the sole source or sole brand request shall be maintained by attachment of the completed documentation in the MUNIS requisition file.

A sole source or sole brand purchase up to $50,000 may be approved by t he County Administrator. Any request in excess of $50,000, shall be forwarded to the Purchasing Division for submission to the Board for approval.

A sole source procurement involving contracts or purchase of materials for the construction, modification, alteration, or repair of any publicly owned facility shall be governed by Florida Statute 255.04, which generally provides that the County may not specify the use of materia ls or

systems by a sole source, unless the Board, after consideration of all available alternatives materials and systems, determines that the specification of the sole source is justifiable based upon its cost or interchangeability, and the sole source specification has been recommended by the architect or engineer of record . Documentation of the Board's determination and supporting justification shall be maintained in the bid or requisition file.

For a commodity or service to be deemed a sole source or sole brand procurement, the department must attach the appropriate documentation to the requisition, which shall include both correspondence from the manufacturer or vendor asserting its status as sole source or sole brand and a completed sole source/ sole brand memorandum, documenting at least one of the following:

A. This is the only known vendor or manufacturer reasonably capable of providing a specific commodity or service to the County.

8

22

B. This is the only known brand reasonably capable of fulfilling the specific needs of the County

C. The required commodities or services are sold only through an authorized dealer that serves Indian River County and no other dealer or distributor may sell within th is geographical area.

3.3 COOPERATIVE PURCHASING THROUGH OTHER GOVERNMENTAL CONTRACTS ("PIGGYBACKING")

A. Authority to Enter into Piggyback Contracts. As an alternative to any competitive selection process required by this manual, commodities and services may also be procured

through: (1) the use of cooperative purchasing methods utilizing purchase agreements entered into by other governmental or public entities (local, state, federal, public educational, etc) following a valid competitive selection process, or (2) directly from vendors holding a current U.S. General Services Administration contract. The County shall have the authority to enter into a piggyback contract if both the vendor and the public procurement unit agree and the procu rement transaction was entered into following a valid competitive selection process. Piggyback purchases

shall be allowed without limit for any commodity or service that is included in the current year budget. For items not included in the current year budget, such piggyback purchases shall be approved by the Purchasing Manager (up to $25,000), the County Administrat or (up to $50,000), or the Board (up to and in excess of $50,000).

B. Authority to Sponsor, etc Cooperative Purchasing Agreements. The Purchasing Division may sponsor, conduct, administer or participate in cooperative purchasing agreements for the procurement of any commodities or services with one or more other public procurement units. Such cooperative purchasing may include but is not limit ed to joint or mult iple party contracts which are made available to other public procurement units.

C. Contract Controversies. Any controversies concerning t he award or processing of a contract which has been entered into on a cooperative basis shall be resolved under the terms of the original public contract, except as modified by the piggyback contract.

3.4 EMERGENCY PROCUREMENTS

When an emergency exists, the Originating Department shall contact the Purchasing Division and provide adequate justification for making an emergency procurement. Any emergency procurement exceeding the $25,000 award authority of the Purchasing Manager shall require the approval of the County Administrator or the Board, along with a written account of the emergency circumstances from the Director of the Originating Department.

If an emergency is confirmed, the Purchasing Division shall enter a requisition in MUNIS and assign an emergency purch ase order number. The Originating Department may be required to enter a written explanation of the emergency in the MUNIS requisition for the permanent purchasing files.

9

23

The Originating Department shall make the purchase of the necessary commodities or services and may be required to update the emergency requisition to reflect the actual description and cost of the commodities or services.

The Purchasing Division shall issue a "confirming" purchase order to cover the purchase after receipt of the approved requisition.

After Normal Working Hours. The Department Director shall exercise his or her judgment as to the justification for making an emergency procurement. If justified, the Department shall make the written emergency purchase request to the Purchasing Division, which shall prepare a requisition and assign a purchase order number. The Originating Department shall prepare an emergency memorandum and deliver it to the Purchasing Division on the next working day.

In an emergency, contracts for purchase of parts or repairs to then-existing county equipment or machinery may be purchased or contracted by the County Administrator, provided the County Administrator certifies that an emergency exists, and routes a copy of the purchase order or contract to the Board for its review with a memorandum describing the emergency.

Any request to the Purchasing Manager for an emergency purchase order number prior to complying with the requisition procedures outlined above shall be denied, unless the Purchasing

Manager decides that a bona fide emergency does in fact exist.

3.5 PROCUREMENT PURSUANT TO EXISTING ANNUAL TERM CONTRACTS

The Purchasing Manager shall issue annual term contracts for commodities and services (up to $25,000) or after approval by the County Administrator (up to $50,000) or the Board (up to or in

excess of $50,000).

The Purchasing Manager may renew an annual contract for multiple years, one year at a time, subject to satisfactory performance, zero cost increase (or as stated in the original contract), vendor acceptance and the determination that such renewal of the annual cont ract is in the best interests of the County, and authority for such renewal(s) is set forth in the contract.

3.6 BLANKET PURCHASE ORDERS

A. Authority. A blanket purchase order may be issued for up to $25,000 for the purchase of miscellaneous commodities where the quantity cannot be anticipated or where it is not practical to store all items until they are needed. Single item purchases pursuant to a blanket purchase order may not exceed $1,000. Blanket purchase orders issued as a resu lt of a bid or piggyback contract (entered into in accordance with section 3.3), or otherwise approved by the County Administrator (up to $50,000) or the Board (up to or in excess of $50,000), are exempt from the $25,000 limit and the $1,000 single item purchase limit. Blanket purchase orders shall be effective for up to one year, and only for the fiscal year for which it has been issued.

B. Requisition. Requests for blanket purchase orders shall be initiated by entry of an electronic requisition into MUNIS indicating the vendor, item description, and amount being

10

24

requested. Blanket purchase orders shall then be prepared on the standard purchase order form which shall include the following information:

1. Dates the blanket purchase order is to be in effect (i.e., start and end dates).

2. General description of commodities to be purchased.

3. Multiple line items are required where more than one account number is to be used. Each account number requires a separate line.

C. Procedure if Initial Purchase Order is Exceeded. After the blanket purchase order is issued to the vendor, the Originating Department is authorized to place orders directly with the vendor using the purchase order number. If the amount of the initial blanket purchase order will be exceeded, the department shall request authority to increase the amount from the Budget Department. If the Budget Department approves the request, the Purchasing Division shall process the change order, up to a maximum total of $25,000 (for purchase orders not associated with a bid, contract, or piggyback, which may exceed the $25,000 threshold). The County Administrator may authorize an increase up to a maximum $50,000 total (for purchase orders not associated with a bid, contract, or piggyback).

11

25





4. COMPETETIVE SELECTION - BIDS

4.1 AT OR ABOVE THE MANDATORY BID THRESHOLD

The Mandatory Bid Threshold is $25,000. Except as set forth in applicable law or this

manual, commodities or services having an estimated value in excess of the mandatory bid

threshold shall be procured through competitive sealed bidding; provided that the County Administrator shall be authorized to enter into a procurement transaction up to $50,000, without

competitive selection, unless otherwise required by applicable law; and provided further that t he

Board shall be authorized to approve a procurement transaction in excess of $50,000, w ithout competitive selection, unless otherwise required by applicable law. A procurement transaction

shall not be artificially divided so as to circumvent the mandatory bidding process.

4.2 BIDDING PROCEDURES

A. Requisition. The Originating Department shall enter an electronic requisition in MUNIS for approval by the Office of Management and Budget for availability of funds. The

requisition shall include a description of the commodity or service. Upon receipt of the approved requisition, the Purchasing Division shall contact the Originating Department and provide a bid

number. This number shall be included on all specifications and bid documents.

B. Bid Documents. The Originating Department shall provide the Purchasing Division

with a copy of specifications and bid documents. The Purchasing Manager shall review the

specifications and bid documents to ensure that the specifications do not unduly restrict open and free competition, and do promote standardization of commodities.

C. Public Notice. Public notice of the invitation for bids shall be given a reasonable

time prior to the date set forth in the bid documents for the opening of bids. Such notice may include publication in a newspaper of general circulation and posting on the internet.

D. Addenda. Addenda to the bid documents shall be provided to all bid document holders of record by the Originating Department, the consultant or DemandStar (or similar provider), as applicable. A copy shall be provided to the Purchasing Division for its records.

E. Bid Opening.

1. Time of Receipt. Bids must be received by the Purchasing Division no late r than the time and date stated in the invitation for bids. Bids received after thi s time shall not be considered.

12

26

F. Public Bid Opening. All timely received bids shall be publicly opened by the Purchasing Manager in the presence of one or more witnesses at the time and place stated in the invitation for bids. The Purchasing Division shall retain the original bids on file and remaining copies shall be sent to the Originating Department.

G. Bid Acceptance. Bids shall be accepted without alteration or correction, except as authorized in this manual. All bids must have an original authorized signature in ink.

H. Bid Review. The Originating Department is responsible for reviewing the bid responses and making a recommendation for award of the bid. Should the low bidder not be recommended, a reason must be stated in the written recommendation for award.

I. Correction, Cancellation or Withdrawal of Bids.

1. Correction of Bids.

a. Correction of Mathematical Errors Prior to Award. Errors in addition or multiplication of unit prices or in other mathematical calculations may be corrected by the Director of the Originating Department or Purchasing Manager prior to award. Bids shall be deemed to be amended to the corrected amount. In all cases of errors in mathematical computation, the unit prices shall not be changed.

b. Correction of Mathematical Errors after Award. Errors in addition or multiplication of unit prices or in other mathematical calculations identified after award may be corrected only with the approval of the Board, and any correction shall not exceed the amount of the next low bid.

2. Cancellation of Bids. Any time prior to the bid opening date and time, the Purchasing Manager may cancel or postpone the bid opening, or cancel the invitation for bids in its entirety.

3. Amendment or Withdrawal of Bids.

a. Bid Amendments Prior to Opening. Any bidder may voluntarily withdraw or amend the bid at any time prior to the bid opening in person, or by written notice received by the Purchasing Manager prior to the bid opening. Amendments shall be forwarded to the Purchasing Division prior to bid opening, sealed and identified with the bid number.

b. Bid Amendments after Opening. After bid opening, bidders may not amend their bid. Bids shall remain in effect and binding upon the bidder for a period of sixty days, or such other time period specified in the bid documents.

4.3 AWARD

A. Award Authority. A bid shall be awarded by written notice to the lowest

13

27

responsible and responsive bidder. Awards not exceeding $25,000 may be awarded by the

Purchasing Manager; awards not exceeding $50,000 may be awarded by the County Administrator; and, awards exceeding $50,000 shall be awarded by the Board. The Board is authorized to waive technicalities and irregularities and to reject any and all bids, or any portion of a bid. After an award is made, the Purchasing Manager shall issue a purchase order or a "Notice of Award" as applicable. If, within 60 days after bids are opened, or within such other time period specified in the bid documents, the bid of the lowest responsible and responsive bidder is withdrawn or not honored, the County may award the bid to the next f owe st responsible and responsive bidder. After 60 days or such other time period specified in the bid documents, the Board may award to the next lowest responsible and responsive bidder only if the next lowest responsible and responsive bidder agrees, in writing, to extension of t he bid price for the additional period of time. These processes may be repeated until an award is made to a responsible and responsive bidder.

B. Tie Bids. If two or more bidders are tied, in accordance with section 287.087 of t he Florida Statutes, preference shall be given to the bidder with a Drug Free Workplace Program. In cases where at least two tied bidders each have a Drug Free Workplace Program, preference shal l be given to the bidder having an office or facility in Indian River County. If consideration of such factors does not resolve the tie, the Board shall determine the most responsible bidder based upon any other relevant factors.

C. Price Adjustment. Where appropriate, contracts may be awarded with a provision for upward or downward price adjustments, provided such adjustments were part of the bid documents.

D. Cancellation after Award. The Board may cancel a bid award at any time prior to execution of the contract by all parties, including the County.

4.4 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS

A. Bid Package Preparation.

1. For In-House Projects. For projects managed in-house, the Originating Department shall provide all necessary specifications to the Purchasing Division for inclusion in a bid package. A sample contract shall be included in the bid documents if provided by the Originating Department. A complete packet of all bid documents including the original specifications and standardized terms and conditions shall be provided by t he Originating Department to the County Attorney for approval. A copy of the bid documents indicating approval by the County Attorney shall be forwarded to the Purchasing Division for final review.

2. For Consultant Managed Projects. For projects managed by a consultant, it is the Originating Department's responsibility to ensure that the Purchasing Division's standard language is included in the bid documents prepared by the consultant, and that

14

28

the bid documents have the approval of the County Attorney's Office. The consultant shall provide the Purchasing Division with a copy of the specifications and bid documents. A copy of the bid documents indicating approval by the County Attorney shall be forwarded to the Purchasing Division for final review.

Public Notice. Bids for a construction or public works project that is projected to cost more than the threshold amounts set forth in Florida Statute 255.0525(2), currently $200,000, shall be advertised in accordance with such statute, which generally requires that (a} solicitations for projects in excess of $200,000 be advertised at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in Indian River County at least 21 days prior to the bid opening date, and at least 5 days prior to any scheduled pre-bid conference, and (b) solicitations for projects in excess of $500,000 be advertised at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in Indian River County at least 30 days prior to the bid opening date, and at least 5 days prior to any scheduled pre-bid conference.

B. Recommendation for Award.

1. For In-House Projects. It is the Purchasing Division's responsibility to review the Originating Department's recommendation and prepare an agenda item for submission to the Board. Should the Originating Department prefer to prepare an Agenda Item due to complexity of the bid, the item shall be routed through the Purchasing Division prior to submission to the Board.

If a proposed or sample contract is included in the agenda item, the Originating Department is responsible for routing the proposed contract through the office of the County Attorney. The written recommendation should only request permission for the Board Chairman to execute the contract if the proposed or sample contract is included with the agenda item. A contract must be executed by the other party prior to submission to the Board Chairman to sign.

If a proposed or sample contract is not included in the agenda item, it shal l be the Originating Department's responsibility at a later date, to prepare an agenda item requesting execution by the Board Chairman, to route the agenda item for required approvals, and to present the item at a Board meeting. A contract must be executed by the other party prior to submission to the Board Chairman to sign. A copy of the agenda item materials and the executed contract shall be provided to the Purchasing Division for its records.

2. For Consultant-Managed Projects. The Originating Department shall be responsible for preparation of an agenda item, proper routing for approvals, and presentation to the Board. A complete copy of the agenda item shall be provided to the Purchasing Division for its records. The Purchasing Division may prepare the agenda item at the Originating Department's request, after receipt of a recommendation memo from the Originating Department.

15

29

The Originating Department is responsible for preparation of a proposed or sample contract and obtaining approval by the office of the County Attorney if it is to be included in the agenda item. The written recommendation in the agenda item shall include a request for authorization for the Board Chairman to execute the contract.

If a proposed or sample contract is not included in the agenda item, it shall be the Originating Department's responsibility at a later date, to prepare an agenda item requesting execution by the Board Chairman, to route the agenda item for requi red approvals, and to present the item at a Board meeting. A contract must be executed by the other party prior to submission to the Board Chairman to sign. A copy of the agenda item materials and the executed contract shall be provided to the Purchasing Division for its records.

C. Notice of Award. Upon Board approval, the Purchasing Division shall send out a notice of award to the successful bidder and request submittal of any required certificate(s} of insurance and bond(s}. If a proposed or sample contract was included in the agenda item approved by the Board, the Purchasing Division shall also include two (2) copies of the contract to be executed by the vendor which shall be returned with the appropriate certificate(s} of insurance and bond(s).

D. Certificates of lnsurance/Bond(s). Upon receipt of certificate(s) of insurance, bond{s), and contracts executed by the contractor, the Purchasing Division shal l submit the certificate(s} of insurance to the County Risk Manager for approval and the bond(s) to the County Attorney for approval. After approval of the bond(s), the Purchasing Division or the contractor shall record the bond(s) in the public records, if appropriate, and send copies of the bond(s), certificate(s} of insurance and the original executed contracts to the Originating Department. The Originating Department shall be responsible for proper routing and submission of the contracts for the Board Chairman's signature.

E. Notice of Award. Public Construction Bond.

1. Public Construction Bond Required on any Construction Contracts Equal to or in Excess of $100,000. A public construction bond shall be required on any construction or public works contract for a project costing $100,000, or more. Such bond shall be provided by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of Florida. An alternative form of security may be provided in the form of cash, a money order, a certified check, a cashier's check, an irrevocable letter of credit, or other form of security permitted by Florida Statute 255.05(7), in a form acceptable to the County Attorney and the County Budget Director.

2. Bond Must be Delivered Prior to Issuing Contract Document. If required, a public construction bond or other form of security shall be delivered to the County prior to execution of the contract. All public construction bonds shall be recorded with the Clerk of the Court by the Purchasing Division or the contractor prior to commencement of t he project.

16

30

F. Executed Contract. The Originating Department shall be responsible for returning a fully executed original contract to the vendor and shall prepare and send a notice to proceed to the contractor when appropriate.

G. Forfeiting of Bonds.

Default by Contractor. All contracts for construction services shall contain a clause providing for termination upon default of the contractor and providing that in such cases the surety company shall bear responsibility for the completion of the contract, or if no surety

company has provided a performance bond, the County may claim the alternative security and use such funds for the completion of the contract.

H. Termination for Convenience. All construction contracts shall cont ain clauses providing for the termination of the contract for convenience of the County, and shall prescribe methods by which the contractor may calculate the cost of work already performed and termination settlement costs.

I. Indemnification. All construction contracts shall provide that the contractor (or other appropriate party) shall indemnify and hold harmless the County, and its officers and employees, from liabilities, damages, losses and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees, to the extent caused by the negligence, recklessness, or intentional wrongful misconduct of the contractor (or other appropriate party) and persons employed or utilized by the contractor (or other appropriate party) in the performance of the construction contract.

4.5 CHANGE ORDERS

A. Applicability. Modifications may be made to an executed contract, which do not substantially alter the character of the work contracted, and which do not vary substant ially from the original specifications as to constitute a new undertaking. Such changes must be reasonably viewed as being in fulfillment of the original scope of the contract and must be clearly directed t o the achievement of a more satisfactory result or to the elimination of work not necessary.

B. Purchasing Manager Authority . The Purchasing Manager is authorized to approve change orders to contracts executed under the Purchasing Manager's authority, provided the criteria in paragraph A above are met, and the total value of the contract does not exceed $25,000.

C. County Administrator Authority. The County Administrator is authorized to approve and authorize change orders which fit the criteria in paragraph A, above, where t he net modification in the contract amount does not exceed $5,000, unless cont ract was initially awarded solely under the Purchasing Manager or County Administrator's authority ($50,000 threshold) and the total value of the contract still does not exceed $50,000.

D. All other change orders must be formally approved by the Board.

17

31

E. Change orders shall not be artificially distributed or divided to avoid the

requirement to present the approval to the Board.

18

32





5. COMPETITIVE SELECTION - RFP/RFQ

5.1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

If it is not practical or advantageous to procure any specific commodity or service by competitive sealed bidding, a request for proposals may be used.

A. RFP Process. An RFP is characterized by a description of the desired objective and a statement of evaluation criteria. RFPs may include a request for price, to be considered in accordance with the evaluation criteria. Except as modified by applicable law or this manual, RFPs shall be advertised, received, opened and processed, and shall be corrected, withdrawn and cancelled, in the same manner as bids discussed in section 4.

1. Evaluation Criteria. The RFP shall state the evaluation criteria and the relative importance of each evaluation criterion, including price, if applicable. Only criteria set forth in the request may be used to evaluate the proposals submitted.

2. Evaluation Committee. An evaluation committee shall be appointed by the County Administrator. The Evaluation Committee shall be comprised of not less tha n three and not more than seven members. A majority of members shall constitute a quorum.

3. Review of Proposals. The Evaluation Committee shall review all proposals submitted in response to the RFP, and shall make a recommendation for award, based upon the evaluation criteria.

4. Non-Public Proceedings of the Evaluation Committee. If the Evaluation Committee (a) meets to discuss negotiation strategies, or (b) meets with a proposer for the purpose of hearing a presentation, conducting discussions and asking questions, or conducting negotiations, such meetings may, at the election of the County, be held in private; provided, however, that a complete recording shall be made of any non-public portion of the meetings, and no portion of the non-public meetings shall be held "off the record." The recording of the non-public portion of the meetings shall be considered a public record, under chapter 119, Florida Statutes, which is exempt from production to the public until such time as the County provides notice of an intended decision, or until 30 days after opening of the proposals, wh ichever occurs earlier.

5. Negotiation of Proposals. The County may negotiat e with any proposer to revise, value engineer, etc any proposal, provided the revisions do not amount to a

19

33

substantial and material change to the proposal, and provided that such revisions do not unfairly affect other proposers.

6. Award of Proposals. The Originating Department sha ll be responsible for preparing an agenda item submitting the committee's recommendation to the Board for approval. A copy of the agenda item and all supporting documentation shall be provided to the Purchasing Division prior to submission to the Board. The award shall be made to the most responsive and responsible proposer whose proposal is determined to be the most advantageous to the County, based upon the evaluation criteria.

5.2 REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS {RFQ)

Certain professional services are required by the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act to be procured by the use of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ). An RFQ may also be used to procure professional services not covered by the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act.

A. RFQ Process. An RFQ is characterized by an invitation to professionals to submit a summary of their qualifications to perform a general or specific job or service. If the RFQ is subject to the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act, the County shall select no less than three professionals for discussions and, if requested by the County, for presentations. After staff recommendation and approval by the Board, the County shall enter into negotiations for a contract with the most qualified professional(s). RFQs shall be governed by the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act, to the extent applicable. Except as modified by applicable law or this manual, RFQs shall be advertised, received, opened and processed, and shall be corrected, withdrawn and cancelled, in the same manner as bids discussed in Section 4.

B. Evaluation Criteria. The qualifications of each firm responding to an RFQ subject t o the Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act shall be determined in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Act, including, without limitation, the professional ability of personnel; whether the firm is a certified minority business enterprise; past performance; willingness to meet time and budget requirements; location; recent, current and projected workloads; and the volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the County, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate th e principle of selection of the most highly qualified firms. The qualifications of each firm responding to an RFQ which is not subject to the Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act shall be determined in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFQ.

C. Evaluation Committee. An evaluation committee shall be appointed by the County Administrator. The Evaluation Committee shall be comprised of not less t han three and not more than seven members. A majority of members shall constitute a quorum.

D. Review of Qualifications. The Evaluation Committee shall review the submitta ls of all firms responding to the RFQ. If the RFQ is subject to the Consultants' Competitive Negotiations Act, the Evaluation Committee shall select at least three firms (short list) for further discussions.

E. Non-Public Proceedings of the Evaluation Committee. If the Evaluation Committee

20

34

(a) meets to discuss negotiation strategies, or (b) meets with any firm responding to the RFQ for the purpose of hearing a presentation, discussions and asking questions, or negotiations, such meetings may, at the election of the County, be held in private; provided, however, that a complete recording shall be made of any non-public portion of the meetings, and no portion of the non-public meetings shall be held "off the record." The recording of the non-public portion of the meetings shall be considered a public record, under chapter 119, Florida Statutes, which is exempt from production to the public until such time as the County provides notice of an intended decision, or until 30 days after opening of the proposals, whichever occurs earlier.

F. Ranking of Firms. The Evaluation Committee, after any discussions with and/or presentations by each short listed firm, shall vote on the final ranking. The ranking of firms shall indicate the Evaluation Committee's determination of the firms that are most highly qualified to perform the required services.

G. Ranking Reported to the Board. The Evaluation Committee's ranking of the firms shall be submitted to the Board through the County Administrator by the Originating Department. Upon final ranking and selection by the Board, the Originating Department shall proceed with negotiations; provided, however, that if the estimated value of the services is $25,000 or less, the Purchasing Manager, in consultation with the Originating Department, may determine final ranking and selection, and if the estimated value of the services is $50,000 or less, the County Administrator, in consultation with the Originating Department, may determine final ranking and selection,

H. Negotiations. The Originating Department shall negotiate with the firms in the order and manner set forth in the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act, wh ich generally requires that the Originating Department first negotiate w ith the most qualified firm. If negotiations are not successful, the Originating Department shall formally terminate negotiations with the most qualified firm, and shall commence negotiations with the second most qualified firm. If negotiations are not successful, the Originating Department shall formally terminate negotiations with the second most qualified firm, and shall commence negotiations with the third most qualified firm. If the County is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the selected firms, the County may select additional firms responding to the RFQ in the order of their competence and qualification and continue negotiations in the same manner until an agreement is reached.

I. Award of Contract. At the conclusion of successful negotiations, a contract, approved by the County Attorney, shall be submitted to the Purchasing Manager (up to $25,000), the County Administrator (up to $50,000) or the Board (up to and in excess of $50,000) for approval. A copy of the executed contract shall be transmitted to the Purchasing Division for the permanent file.

5.3 RANKING OF FIRMS IN RFP AND RFQ PROCESS

The ranking of firms in an RFP or RFQ process shall be done in the following manner: (a) the RFP or RFQ solicitation documents shall list the evaluation criteria and assign a maximum number of

21

35

points available for each criterion. The total maximum number of points available for all criteria shall be 100, (b) each member of the evaluation committee shall evaluate each firm by assigning a number of points for each criterion and then totaling the number of points for all criteria, (c) each committee member shall then rank the firms on the basis of the total number of points received for all criteria, with the firm receiving the most points being ranked # 1, and (d) the rankings received by each firm from all committee members shall then be totaled and divided by the number of committee members, to produce an average ranking. The firm receiving the lowest average ranking (ie., closest to# 1) shall be ranked the# 1 firm, and the process repeated until all

firms have been ranked according to their average ranking. In the event of a tie, the ranking of the tied firms shall be determined by a comparison of the total number of points received by each firm for all criteria from all committee members.

After interviews in an RFQ process (or in an RFP process, if interviews are held), and based upon information learned during the interviews, each committee member may change the number of points assigned to an interviewed firm for one or more criteria, and change his or her ranking of the firm accordingly.

The evaluation process shall continue until the evaluation committee declares the rankings final.

22

36





6. SUMMARY OF PROCUREMENT

The following is a summary of the above procurement requirements.

A. Less than $1,000. Quotes are not required; blanket purchase orders are permitted; emergency purchase orders are permitted; sole source procurement permitted; sole brand

procurement permitted; annual term contracts permitted; cooperative purchasing (piggyback) permitted; Bid/RFP/RFQ permitted, but not required. The Purchasing Manager, County Administrator and the Board have authority to approve procurements less than $1000.

B. From $1,000 to $4,999.99. Three (3) quotes are required in requisition; blanket purchase orders are permitted; emergency purchase orders are permitted; sole source

procurement permitted; sole brand procurement permitted; annual term contracts permitted; cooperative purchasing (piggyback) permitted; Bid/RFP/RFQ permitted, but not required. The Purchasing Manager, County Administrator and the Board have authority to approve procurements from $1000 to $4,999.99.

C. From $5,000 to $25,000. Three (3) quotes required to be attached to t he requisition; blanket purchase orders are permitted; emergency purchase orders are permitted; sole source procurement permitted; sole brand procurement permitted; annual term contracts permitted; cooperative purchasing (piggyback) permitted; Bid/RFP/RFQ are permitted, but not required. The Purchasing Manager, County Administrator and the Board have authority to approve procurements from $5000 to $25,000.

D. From $25,000 to $50,000. Emergency purchase orders permitted; sole source procurement permitted; sole brand procurement permitted; annual term contracts permitted; cooperative purchasing (piggyback) permitted; Bid/RFP/RFQ are required, unless waived by County Administrator or Board, or required by applicable law. The County Administrator and the Board have authority to approve procurements from $25,000 to $50,000.

F. Over $50,000. The Board must approve all procurements; Bid/RFP/RFQ required, unless waived by the Board, if allowed by applicable law.

G. Construction Projects Over $100,000. Public construction bond required for construction contracts.

23

37





7. PROTEST PROCEDURE

7.1 RESOLUTION OF PROTESTS

Any actual or prospective bidder or proposer who is aggrieved in connection with a competitive selection process may protest to the Purchasing Manager. The protest shall be submitted to the Purchasing Manager in writing within seven (7) calendar days after the bidder or proposer knows or should have known of the facts giving rise to the protest.

A. Decision. The Purchasing Manager shall promptly investigate the basis of the protest and, after consultation with the Originating Department, the Office of the County Attorney and any other person or entity deemed necessary by the Purchasing Manager, shal l issue a decision in writing. A copy of the decision shall be furnished immediately to the protestor and any other party determined by the Purchasing Manager to be directly affected by the decision. The decision shall:

1. State the decision and the basis for the decision, and

2. Set forth the protestor's right to administrative review.

B. Administrative Review. If the protester disagrees with the decision of the Purchasing Manager, the protestor may appeal the decision to the Board. Written notice of such appeal shall be submitted by the protestor to the Purchasing Manager within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the Purchasing Manager's decision. The Board shall consider the appeal with reasonable promptness, and may address the appeal at the same time t hat it considers the Bid/RFP/RFQ award.

C. Stay of Procurements During Protests. In the event of a timely protest, the County shall not award the contract until the administrative appeal is resolved as set forth in paragraphs A and B above, unless the County Administrator or the Board determines that the award must be made without delay in order to protect the substantial interests of the County.

24

38





8. EXCESS/SURPLUS ASSET DISPOSITION

The Purchasing Division shall maintain an electronic list, accessible to all County employees, of excess assets. This list shall be periodically submitted to the Board for approval to declare the assets surplus and to remove the assets from inventory.

Once declared surplus by the Board, the Purchasing Division shall transf er or sell the assets through any method consistent with the laws of Florida or applicable County policies.

25

39

JEFFREY R. SMITH, CPA, CGFO, CGMA Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller Finance Department 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960

TO:

FROM:

THRU:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

DIANE BERNARDO, FINANCE DIRECTOR

JEFFREYR. SMITH, COMPTROLLER ~

January 30, 2014

APPROVAL OF WARRANTS January 24, 2014 to January 30, 2014

In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes, all warrants (checks and electronic payments) 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 Comptroller's office, for the time period of January 24, 2014 to January 30, 2014.

Attachment:

DB: MS

40

CHECKNBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 307885 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 107.75 307886 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 28.84 307887 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 79.02 307888 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 1.28 307889 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 31.21 307890 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 84.02 307891 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 0.00 307892 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 0.00 307893 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 39.58 307894 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 1,094.90 307895 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 31.16 307896 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 85.43 307897 1/27/2014 UT REFUNDS 55.93 307898 1/27/2014 LAURA PETERSON 83.32 307899 1/27/2014 DAVID STEWART 54.27 307900 1/27/2014 FARLESS PROPERTIES LLC 512.19 307901 1/27/2014 HUGH A COX 25.05 307902 1/27/2014 VIRGINIA BISHOP 63.17 307903 1/27/2014 TREVOR SMITH 34.31 307904 1/27/2014 MICHAEL F MARZOUK 78.47 307905 1/27/2014 JAMES A SMALLEY 11.56 307906 1/27/2014 JAIRO A MORALES 42.12 307907 1/27/2014 NICHOLAS R BONO 67.07 307908 1/27/2014 EUGENIA CARLOS 56.11 307909 1/27/2014 HARRY J & PATRICIA M ARNOLD 64.69 307910 1/27/2014 OBED CRUZ 63.65 307911 1/27/2014 CHADEWIDUP 17.99 307912 1/27/2014 ANNE L KOSTYO 57.56 307913 1/27/2014 KINGSGATE LLC 25.75 307914 1/27/2014 KINGDOM HARVEST INC 75.96 307915 1/27/2014 AMANDA & STANLEY CARTER 63.65 307916 1/27/2014 JOHN ONEILL 11.33 307917 1/27/2014 TRICIA KENT 13.99 307918 1/27/2014 TYLER WORDEN 20.58 307919 1/27/2014 MADELINE MC KOANE 48.73 307920 1/27/2014 VERONICA MARTINEZ 40.70 307921 1/27/2014 RICHARD FAIRLY 72.79 307922 1/27/2014 MARIANLOOF 78.51 307923 1/27/2014 DRALMALLC 163.11 307924 1/27/2014 DOUGLAS !POLITO 55.91 307925 1/27/2014 DAVID KROUPA 64.44 307926 1/27/2014 LATOYA RACKARD 17.27 307927 1/27/2014 CINDY EXELBY 33.14 307928 1/27/2014 JAMES & TONYA BROXTON 6.99 307929 1/27/2014 ROSALIE WAITKOS 78.47 307930 1/27/2014 CAROL WOOD 161.20 307931 1/27/2014 DIAMOND RICHARDSON 22.66 307932 1/27/2014 BRYAN OTOOLE 35.32 307933 1/27/2014 SALLY A OTANDER 102.01 307934 1/27/2014 ERMA L DOWNS 69.02 307935 1/27/2014 INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 40.78 307936 1/27/2014 N LEE MC CASKILL 68.06 307937 1/27/2014 MARK P WYGONIK 13.96 307938 1/27/2014 ELIZABETH TOMSIK 164.53 307939 1/27/2014 TODDSADAMS 53.55 307940 1/27/2014 LAURA ROMERO 43.58 307941 1/27/2014 ROBIN K ANDERSON 25.39 307942 1/27/2014 JOHN & MINDY FOLEY 59.07

41

CHECKNBR 307943 307944 307945 307946 307947 307948 307949 307950 307951 307952 307953 307954 307955 307956 307957 307958 307959 307960 307961 307962 307963 307964 307965 307966 307967 307968 307969 307970 307971 307972 307973 307974 307975 307976 307977 307978 307979 307980 307981 307982 307983 307984 307985 307986 307987 307988 307989 307990 307991 307992 307993 307994 307995 307996 307997 307998 307999 308000 308001 308002

CKDATE l/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 l/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 l/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 l/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014

VENDOR PETER A GULYAS CATHERINE SPAHR DAVID D GROSS MICHAELE HAARLANDER VILMA P CAMACHO JAMES BLANDINO OLGASOKOVA YAMELIS CEBALLOS KRISTI COOPER JESSIE MAC CONNELL PAUL & THERESEA OHARE JACK WEST ROSA M DEL VILLAR ETHAN DENNISTON KRISTIE & KRISTOPHER DE VOSS SAS SHA ALCORN RICKY ROBINSON CLARA CYPRESS GARY ALTIZER RICHARD E ANDERSON MICHELE IMBRO ROXY BUSH LOC NGUYEN BAKTHY MICHAEL MOORE TROY BRIGGS HOWARD R YOUSE JOSE LUIS SOTO JONATHAN NOLEN RICHARD HOPE ELIZABETH ZAZZA HALK JUAN DUERI JOHN H JOHNSON SHERRY ROBERTS DOREEN CUMMINGS JESSICA DURKEE BREVARD COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP INC PAUL CARONE LINDSEY GARDENS APARTMENTS CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XVI LTD PINNACLE GROVE LTD VERO CLUB PARTNERS LTD DAVID SPARKS INDIAN RIVER INVESTMENT REALTY INC THE PALMS AT VERO BEACH ED SCHLITT LC JOHN COLONTRELLE ARTHUR PRUETT JOSEPH LOZADA PELICAN ISLES LP HFB OF FLORIDA LLC EARRING POINT PROPERTIES ANDRE DORAWA STEVEN F BERNYK MARK KNOWLES VIRGINIA PINES PAULA WHIDDON GATOR INVESTMENTS DAVID WALSH & ASSOC JAMES WDAVIS NITA EZELL

AMOUNT 65.07 56.54 37.10 62.70 39.86 38.35 32.68 19.90 76.46 22.53 33.06 66.80 89.88 65.23

7.81 91.38 4.47 9.76

78.39 39.89

131.07 22.41 28.56 24.90 3.44

79.81 55.61 41.50 28.18 42.36 39.04 63.74 28.75 35.30 60.33 61.38

4,014.00 744.00 286.00 986.00

1,403.00 544.00 507.00 639.00 544.00 450.00 410.00

2,141.00 475.00 644.00 410.00 545.00 929.00 584.00 438.00 553.00 605.00 558.00 293.00 488.00

2

42

CHECKNBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 308003 1/30/2014 SOUTHERN ASSOCIATES LLC 642.00 308004 1/30/2014 DANIEL CORY MARTIN 1,277.00 308005 1/30/2014 CRAIG LOPES 354.00 308006 l /30/2014 INDIAN RUN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 1,126.00 308007 l/30/2014 MADISON VINES APARTMENTS LLC 518.00 308008 1/30/2014 FREDDA LOZADO 582.00 308009 1/30/2014 MTD4 PELED LLC 441.00 308010 l/30/2014 WILLIAM LEE 481.00 308011 1/30/2014 E EDWARD VAANDERING 1,021.00 308012 1/30/2014 STUARTBREEZESLLC 565.00 308013 1/30/2014 MARK BAER 29,860.00 308014 1/30/2014 TARGET CORPORATION 85.00 308015 1/30/2014 PORT CONSOLIDATED INC 80,622.92 308016 1/30/2014 JORDAN MOWER INC 191.88 308017 1/30/2014 ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY INC 65.59 308018 1/30/2014 TEN-8 FIRE EQUIPMENT INC 8,539.24 308019 1/30/2014 RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND INC 52,404.21 308020 1/30/2014 RANGER CONSTRUCTION IND INC 208.08 308021 1/30/2014 FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY LLC 2,292.00 308022 1/30/2014 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC 23.00 308023 1/30/2014 COPYCOINC 35.52 308024 1/30/2014 RICOH USA INC 173.53 308025 1/30/2014 VELDE FORD INC 2,046.29 308026 1/30/2014 DATA FLOW SYSTEMS INC 4,733.80 308027 1/30/2014 COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS WAREHOUSE 218.78 308028 1/30/2014 SUB AQUATICS INC 140.14 308029 1/30/2014 E-Z BREW COFFEE & BOTTLE WATER SVC 12.98 308030 1/30/2014 GRAINGER 684.70 308031 1/30/2014 AMERIGAS EAGLE PROPANE LP 134.00 308032 1/30/2014 AMERIGAS EAGLE PROPANE LP 2,840 .74 308033 1/30/2014 GAYLORD BROTHERS INC 609.36 308034 1/30/2014 HACH CO 551.71 308035 1/30/2014 MARK WHJLL 749.70 308036 1/30/2014 PHYSIO CONTROL INC 28,779.87 308037 1/30/2014 SWEINC 325.00 308038 1/30/2014 DEEP SIX DIVE SHOP INC 16.00 308039 1/30/2014 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS, LTD 3,106.68 308040 1/30/2014 SCHULKE BITTLE & STODDARD LLC 2,783.24 308041 1/30/2014 PETES CONCRETE 1,450.00 308042 1/30/2014 EGPINC 553.05 308043 1/30/2014 VERO INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INC 13.96 308044 1/30/2014 PROFORMA IMAGING 57.82 308045 1/30/2014 TIRESOLES OF BROWARD INC 591.25 308046 1/30/2014 FIRESTONE COMPLETE AUTO CARE 1,205.72 308047 1/30/2014 BARTH CONSTRUCTION INC 6,537.10 308048 1/30/2014 CHILDCARE RESOURCES OF IRC INC 18,888.88 308049 1/30/2014 CHILDCARE RESOURCES OF IRC INC 480.00 308050 1/30/2014 DELL MARKETING LP 5,967.72 308051 l/30/2014 GENERAL PART INC 2,659.47 308052 1/30/2014 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 1,967.10 308053 1/30/2014 GROVE WELDERS INC 99.88 308054 1/30/2014 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 1,288.70 308055 1/30/2014 NORTHERN SAFETY CO INC 101.32 308056 1/30/2014 FIRST HOSPITAL LABORATORIES INC 357.00 308057 1/30/2014 PALM TRUCK CENTERS INC 103.94 308058 1/30/2014 GO COASTAL INC 140.00 308059 1/30/2014 GREENE INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP LTD 3,114.58 308060 1/30/2014 CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES XVI LTD 3,943.00 308061 1/30/2014 TINDALE-OLIVER & ASSOCIATES INC 36,511.65 308062 l/30/2014 PING INC 424.44

3

43

CHECKNBR 308063 308064 308065 308066 308067 308068 308069 308070 308071 308072 308073 308074 308075 308076 308077 308078 308079 308080 308081 308082 308083 308084 308085 308086 308087 308088 308089 308090 308091 308092 308093 308094 308095 308096 308097 308098 308099 308100 308101 308102 308103 308104 308105 308106 308107 308108 308109 308110 308111 308112 308113 308114 308115 308116 308117 308118 308119 308120 308121 308122

CK DATE 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 I /30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 l /30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/201 4 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/3 0/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014

VENDOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEALTH DEPT MEDICAL EXAMINERS OFFICE VICTIM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ROGER J NICOSIA CITY OF VERO BEACH CITY OF VERO BEACH CITY OF VERO BEACH ILLINOIS STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT UNITED WAY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INDIAN RIVER ALL FAB INC EBSCO INDUSTRIES INC FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY LLC LIVINGSTON PAGE JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA INC PUBLIX SUPERMARKETS WAL MART STORES EAST LP FLORIDA ANIMAL CONTROL ASSOC INC TOTAL TRUCK PARTS INC ACUSHNET COMPANY INTERNATIONAL GOLF MAINTENANCE INC DUMONT COMPANY INC INDIAN RIVER HABITAT SPRINT SPECTRUM LP TIMOTHY ROSE CONTRACTING INC CALLAWAY GOLF SALES COMPANY FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT ACUSHNET COMPANY MIKE CLIFFORD PHILLIP J MATSON STATE ATTORNEY HIBISCUS CHILDRENS CENTER JOSEPH A BAIRD TOCOMA RUBBER STAMP & MARKING SYSTEM CHRISTOPHER R MORA FLORIDA STATE GOLF ASSOCIATION BOATC MEMBERSHIP HENRY SMITH RANGE ROAD MINE LLC MISDU MICHIGAN STATE ALAN C KAUFFMANN FLORIDA DEPT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES ADVANCED XEROGRAPHICS IMAGING ELXSIINC DONADIO AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS SOUTHERN PLUMBING INC ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCTS INC ANDRITZ SEPARATION INC JEFF LOUDERMILK RUSSELL PAYNE INC JOSEPH W VASQUEZ HYDROMENTIA FLORIDA RURAL LEGAL SERVICES INC ALANIITLL POLISH AMERICAN SOCIAL CLUB JOHNS EASTERN COMPANY INC COPYTRONICS INC MBV ENGINEERING INC MICHAEL ZITO AMALIE HENNECH

AMOUNT 44,543.41 22,974.08

4,428.66 1,500.00 5,425.78 2,011.99

11,612.50 142.32 406.47 194.00

12.10 7,600.61

126.00 442.34 230.00 190.00 125.00 389.00 75.75

85,841.06 1,996.00 9,764.72

168.21 207,938.43

5,235.52 123,903.33

534.31 2,663.46

376.96 90.48

8,700.55 2,500.00

515.00 52.50 50.00

110.00 240.00 174.00

1,362.46 445.75 100.00

14,338.46 17,409.68

213.97 5,359.02 1,479 .00 3,658 .00 2,880.92

13.43 459.48 156.00

5,982.62 2,392.64

360.76 1,900.00 8,868.55

202.40 2,950.00

88.87 300.00

4

44

CHECKNBR 308123 308124 308125 308126 308127 308128 308129 308130 308131 308132 308133 308134 308135 308136 308137 308138 308139 308140 308141 308142 308143 308144 308145 308146 308147 308148 308149 308150 308151 308152 308153 308154 308155 308156 308157 308158 308159 308160 308161 308162 308163 308164 308165 308166 308167 308168 308169 308170 3081 71 308 172 308173 308174 308175 308176 308177 308178 308179 308180 308181 308182

CK DATE 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 l/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 l/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 l/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 )/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014 1/30/2014

VENDOR DICKERSON FLORIDA INC ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ADMIN FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT TANTALLON LLC LARRY STEPHENS JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES METRO FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES INC FLORIDA SUPERIOR SAND INC CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS INC DIVERSIFIED INSPECTIONS PETER OBRYAN RICHARD MECKES HFGROUPLLC COMPLETE ALARM INC. JOHNNYB SMITH MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS INC DANE MACDONALD DUPERON CORPORATION FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP GERRY SMITH REDLANDS CHRISTIAN MIGRANT ASSOC RUBY TUESDAY INC SARAMARIA PROVENZALE GASKIN SR, REV JOHN W BENNETT AUTO SUPPLY INC MARINCO BIOASSAY LABORATORY INC KRISTIN DANIELS THE SPIVEY GROUP INC SOUTHEAST POWER SYSTEMS OF ORLANDO FLORIDA E911 BOARD VERASMJTH BRENNTAG MID-SOUTH INC WATERTRONICS TECHNICAL SERVICES BULLEX INC DAILY DOSE CAFE YAMAHA GOLF CAR COMPANY WOERNER DEVELOPMENT INC ATLANTIC COASTAL LAND TITLE CO LLC ACCUTECH INSTRUMENTATION INC BOULEVARD TIRE CENTER DALE SORENSEN REAL ESTATE D R HORTON INC SAFETY SCHELL CORPORATION PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC DELRAY MOTORS FLORIDA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING INC XYLEM WATER SOLUTION USA INC BORO BUILDING & PROPERTY MAINT INC ANYTHING UNDER THE STARS INC MAUNEY & ASSOCIATES LLC VEROTOWN LLC NEWSOM OIL COMPANY GENERAL CHEMICAL PERFORMANCE LLC CENTRAL FLORIDA GOLF CARS INC TIM ZORC AMERICAN IRRIGATION OF IRC INC AMERICAN MESSAGING SERVICES LLC LOWES HOME CENTERS INC LABOR READY SOUTHEAST INC

AMOUNT 702,568.26

208 .80 211 .63 118.08 246.00 144.00 110.04

2,454.36 707.69

33.84 3,672.00

44.49 127.00

3,776.12 152.00 210.00 750.00 198.00 454.62 702.85 126.00

2,147.76 180.00 40.00

7.32 478.23

2,020.00 24.03

787.50 2,971.05 2,119.26

138.00 6,295.08

14,888.00 2,145.00

133.00 260.70 166.50 75.00 19.32

3,150.94 118.77

39,384.00 1,739.85

72.00 158.61

5,666.66 9,974.00 4,720.13

400.00 5,500.00

450.00 484.00

2,593 .74 473 .70

96.89 524.75

19.02 2,684.64 5,555.36

5

45

CHECKNBR CK DATE VENDOR AMOUNT 308183 1/30/2014 BRENT E SIMON PA 26,000.00 308184 1/30/2014 MIDWESTERN FABRICATORS INC 38,000.00 308185 1/30/2014 MITCHELL GODWIN 180.00 308186 1/30/2014 LEARNING ALLIANCE 2,837.61 308187 1/30/2014 TREASURE COAST TURF INC 990.00 308188 l/30/2014 FOCAL POINT SERVICES LLC 850.00 308189 1/30/2014 SCADA SOLUTIONS LLC 1,467.00 308190 1/30/2014 ARLENE V NEWSON 109.75 308191 1/30/2014 DEBORAH CUEVAS 126.00 308192 1/30/2014 VINCENT OUTLER 126.00 308193 1/30/2014 DYNAMIC LIGHTING & ELECTRIC 600.00 308194 l/30/2014 FLORIDA TRAVEL VACATIONS INC 1,190.00 308195 1/30/2014 WILLIAM & MARI PARKER-JENKINS 20.11 308196 I /30/2014 UTREFUNDS 40.05 308197 1/30/2014 UT REFUNDS 59.53 308198 1/30/2014 CHANDA MUNDY 27.96 308199 1/30/2014 VERO HOUSING LLC 3.15 308200 1/30/2014 UTREFUNDS 187.74 308201 1/30/2014 FARLESS PROPERTIES LLC 44.68 308202 1/30/2014 SALVATOREADAC QUESTO 69.70 308203 1/30/2014 ANITA LASSWELL 59.80 308204 1/30/2014 KIM BRENNAN LEE 53.55 308205 1/30/2014 JAMES NOONAN 64.89 308206 1/30/2014 DANIEL KESSLER 75.49 308207 l/30/2014 DIANA MC ANULLA 23.14 308208 1/30/2014 SHARON HIGGINBOTHAM 41.31 308209 1/30/2014 JAMES HICKS 77.07 308210 1/30/2014 MARIA JONES 35.86 308211 1/30/2014 MERCEDES ROBAINA 48.90 308212 1/30/2014 MARK DOCKHAM 43.87 308213 1/30/2014 LARRY MAY 31.24 308214 l/30/2014 ROBERT RAMSDELL 69.43 308215 1/30/2014 H CLIFTON WHITEMAN 48.44 308216 1/30/2014 PEDRO MILO 28.43 308217 1/30/2014 ELIZABETH SCHERF 74.45 308218 1/30/2014 BYRON DONALDSON 58.12 308219 1/30/2014 SHENEATHA DAUGHTRY 2.84 308220 1/30/2014 ROGER MOORE 38.76 308221 1/30/2014 GERALDINE DOMEY 32.28 308222 1/30/2014 PHILIP LARSEN 31.40

Grand Total: 1,874,926.57

6

46

TRANS.NBR 1003325 1003326 1003327 1003328 1003329 1003330 1003331 1003332 1003333 1003334 1003335 1003336 1003337 1003338 1003339 1003340 1003341 1003342 1003343 1003344 1003345 1003346 1003347 1003348 1003349 1003350 1003351 1003352 1003353 1003354 1003355 1003356 1003357 1003358 1003359 1003360 1003361 1003362 1003363 1003364 1003365 1003366 1003367 1003368 1003369 1003370

Grand Total:

tL.tLlKUl~lL t'f\YlVlbNl - Vl:SACAKU

DATE 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/27/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 l/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/28/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 l/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014 1/29/2014

VENDOR PARKS RENTAL & SALES INC PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION SOUTHEAST LLC NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY INC LIGHTSOURCE IMAGING SOLUTIONS LLC MIKES GARAGE & WRECKER SERVICE INC HOMELAND IRRIGATION PRIDE ENTERPRISES POLYDYNE INC REPUBLIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA REPUBLIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA REPUBLIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA REPUBLIC SERVICES OF FLORIDA HENRY SCHEIN INC INDIAN RIVER OXYGEN INC DAVIDSON TITLES INC MEEKS PLUMBING INC ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL LLC SVI SYSTEMS INC COMMERCIAL ENERGY SPECIALISTS PRIDE ENTERPRISES SYNAGRO-WWT INC CAPITAL OFFICE PRODUCTS L&L DISTRIBUTORS CON-AIR INDUSTRIES INC S & S AUTO PARTS EVERGLADES FARM EQUIPMENT CO INC PARKS RENTAL & SALES INC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNATIONAL SAFETY PRODUCTS INC DAVIDSON TITLES INC APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO INC ALLIED UNIVERSAL CORP HOMELAND IRRIGATION HILL MANUFACTURING CO INC ARAMARK UNIFORM & CAREER APPAREL LLC SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE SEBASTIAN OFFICE SUPPLY CO FERGUSON ENTERPRISE S INC COMO OIL COMPANY OF FLORIDA SHRIEVE CHEMICAL CO FLAGLER CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LLC SOUTHERN JANITOR SUPPLY INC AUTO PARTNERS LLC HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS INC

AMOUNT 159.88 372.60 302.40 106.00

1,447.74 148.57 113.63

2,576.00 99,370.6] 99,370.60

119,527.44 119,527.46

6,882.24 184.75 385.39 204.00

2,624.09 458.72 90.00 18.60

2,240.00 54,405.22

1,703.47 176.40

1,696.56 124.68 337.00 295.00 546.36 262.10

1,328.62 300.43 124.75

7,977.73 39.07

1,074.00 1,529.58

26,300.19 49.03

3,284.73 60.08

3 ,041.66 297 .2 1 869 .99 313 .21

14.06 562,261.85

47

TRANS NBR 2806 2807 2808 2809 2810 2811 2812 2813 2814 2815 2816

Grand Total:

.bLbLlKUNlL l'AY 1\/lliN US - Wl.Kb & ACH

DATE 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014 1/24/2014

VENDOR KIMLEY HORN & ASSOC INC CDM SMITH INC R J SULLIVAN CORP JMC SERVICES INC INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BENEFITS WORKSHOP BENEFITS WORKSHOP BENEFITS WORKSHOP BENEFITS WORKSHOP BENEFITS WORKSHOP BENEFITS WORKSHOP

AMOUNT 1,125.00

916.00 78,778.37 41,853.85

215,795.39 288.44 359.11

7,044.05 9,750.22 7,146.05

614.94 363,671.42

48

TO:

DATE:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM


Members of the Board of County Commissioners

February 4, 2014

FROM: Jason E. Brown Director, Office ofM t & Budget

CONSENT AGENDA

SUBJECT: 2014/2015 BUDGET SHOP I HEARING SCHEDULE

Description

Presented below are selected dates for the 2014/2015 budget workshops and the tentative and final budget hearings.

Budget Workshops:

Budget Packet distributed to the Board of Commissioners Friday, July 11, 2014

Scheduled Budget Workshops Wednesday, July 16, 2014

Thursday, July 17, 2014 (as needed)

Budget Hearings:

Public Hearing on Tentative budget and proposed millage Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014 rates at 5:01 p.m.

Final Budget Hearing to adopt budget and millage rates Wednesday, Sept. 17,2014 at 5:01 p.m.

Note: The tentative and final budget hearing dates are preliminary in nature. Once the Indian River County School District sets the dates for their budget hearings, we may need to change these dates to ensure they do not conflict.

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Board of Commissioners approve the budget workshop dates and the dates for the budget hearings for the 2014/2015 budgets.

APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: Indian River Coun

Administrator

De artment

FOR: February 11, 2014 Risk Mana ement

49

CONSENT AGENDA

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY


PURCHASING DIVISION

DATE: February 3, 2014

TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird, County Administ rat or

Jason E. Brown, Budget Director

FROM: Jennifer Hyde, Purchasing Manage

SUBJECT: Approval of First Extension to Agreement for Providing Auction Services

BACKGROUND: On February 19, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners awarded RFP 2013025 for Auction

Services to Associate Auctions, Inc. of Stuart, FL. In addition to fulfilling the County's requirements,

the Agreement is also utilized by several local municipalities under cooperative purchasing. The

first term of the agreement ends on February 18, 2014.

SOURCE OF FUNDS: . No funding is allocated for these services, as auctions are held on an as needed basis, and in

accordance with the Agreement, all associated expenses are paid by the auctioneer (with the

exception of advertising for reserve auctions}.

RECOMMHJDATION: Staff requests the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached First Extension to the

Agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute the Extension after the required certificate of

insurance has been received and approved by Risk Management.

ATTACHMENTS: First Extension to Agreement

APPROVED AGENDA ITEM Indian River Co

BY: Admin

Legal Budget

FOR:

\\F:le.server2\Public\Purc:hasing\8'Lds\2012-2013 FY (2013000)\2013025 RFP for Auction Setvices\Agenda-20 l '+-2015 Renewal.doc

50

FIRST EXTENSION TO AGREEMENT FOR PROVIDING AUCTION

SERVICES FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

This Extension to that certain Agreement to provide auction services is entered into effective as of February 19, 2013 by and between Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("County") and Associate Auctions, LLC, a Florida corporation, having its principal address at 416 SE Cortez Ave., Stuart, Florida 34994 ("Auctioneer").

BACKGROUND RECITALS

A. Effective February 19, 2013, the County and the Auctioneer entered into an Agreement for Auction Services.

B. Article 22 of the Agreement contains the term and renewal provisions. C. Pursuant to the Agreement, the parties desire to renew the Agreement by this Extension.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the County and the Auctioneer agree as follows:

1. The background recitals are true and correct and form a material part of this First Extension. 2. The initial renewal term shall commence effective as of February 19, 2014 and shall end on February 18,

2015; three additional renewal terms are available beyond this first renewal. All renewal terms are

subject to 30-day termination in accordance with the terms of this Contract. 3. All terms and provisions of the Contract shall be and remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be executed effective the day and year

first set forth above.

ASSOCIATE AUCTIONS, LLC

By ____________ _

(Authorized Signature)

(Corporate Seal)

Date _________ _

INDlAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA


By: _____________ _

Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners

Approved as to form and legal sufficiency:

jJ/j[ ; JI F£} r. Ab>~.,/.;

ief·: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney

Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Circuit Court And Comptroller

By: ___________ _

Deputy Clerk

51

TO:

THROUGH:

THROUGH:

FROM:

DATE:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM

Honorable Board of County Commissioners

Joseph A. Baird, Administrator r

John King, Director }\~ Department of Emerg~ cy Services

Brian S. Burkeen, Assistant Chief fajv,) Indian River County Fire Rescue l ". January 30j 2014

CONSENT

SUBJECT: Approval to Authorize Payment for Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy, & Ecker, P.A. for 800 MHz Rebanding.

On December 4, 2007, the Board of County Commissioners approved a Frequency Reconfiguration Agreement between Indian River County and Nextel South Corporation for radio rebanding. As a part of the process Indian River County must authorize payment from Nextel to Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy, & Ecker, P.A. for services provided during the rebanding.

Attached are the Incumbent Acknowledgment and an invoice from Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy, & Ecker, P.A. for services provided to this point in the process.

FUNDING No county funds are being expended for this project. All funds are paid from an escrow account by Nextel.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Incumbent Acknowledgement and authorization that services identified on the invoice have been performed.

ATTACHMENT: Incumbent Acknowledgement Invoice from Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy, & Ecker, P.A.

APPROVED FOR AGENDA

FOR:

BY: oseph A. Baird

County Administrator

Indian River Co.

Legat

Budget

Dept

Risk Mgr.

General Svcs.

52

INCtlMBRNT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Incumbent Name: Indian River County, FL

Deal Number (to be provided b}' Sprint Nextel): DL89l04279(i7

Vendor "Name (as listed on Schedule C of FRA): Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy, & Ecker, p_.A

Vendor Invoice Number(s): _9861 9803

Incumbent Contact Person: Brian Bµrkecn

Incumbent Contact Address: 4225_ 43rd Aven_u0_efQ_Beach, FLJ1967

Contact Person Phone Number: ?72-226-2864

Contact Person Fax Number: 772w226-38§8

FREQUENCY RECONFIGURATION AGREEMENT

Trpc of Good/Services Delivered (Quaiaity a11d Price as identified on Schedule

C of the FRA) ·--- -----

Legal }'ees: Please sec attached invoice 98619803 for details).

t-------·- ···· ·~·• -

------•---··-··--"-· .. ---~~ ·•~--~· -•·-··-·-----

Date or Acceptance of Good/Services by

lncumbent

5/23/13w 12/20/13

TOTAL

Cmt

$234.00

$234.00

··-

l, ______ _ _ ____ ("Incumbent") acknowledge tlrnt ail good!l/scrvices identified ou the Invoice number referenced above and attached to this acknowledgement have been recdvcd/pcrformecl.

By: _ Name: ____ ~ Title: ______ _

APPROVED AS TO FORM ANO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

avG, A,; AEINGOLD COUNTY ATTORNEY

APPROVED

Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller

By:~------- ----Deputy Clerk

53

Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pardy & Ecker P.A.

125 05 Park Potomac A venue 6th Floor

Potomac, Maryland 20854 30 l -230-5200

Fax 301-230-2891 Federal Tax ID No. 52-1008944

Indian River County, Florida 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960

For Legal Services Rendered through 12131113

Re: 800 MHz Rebanding FRA-DL-8910427967

Date Atty Description 05/23/13 ss Email to the TA re: status of contract closeout

09/13/13 ss Review email from the TA re: status of contract closing; research and email response

12/18/13 ss Research status of closing

12/20/13 ss Review email from client; compare Equipment

January 23, 2014 Invoice: 98619803

Client Number: 112451 Matter Number: 00002

Hours 0.30

0.30

0.20

0.50 Incumbent Acknowledgement form against Schedule D of FRA; email response to client

Atty ss Shirley Sutton

Current Fees

Rate 180.00

Total Balance Due Upon Receipt

Hours Value 1.30 234.00 ----'--1.30 $234.00

$234.00

54

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA ITEM

Department of Public Works Division of Facilities Management

--

Date: January 30, 2014 1 CONSENT

To:

Through:

From:

Subject:


Christopher R. Mora, P.E., Public Works Director

Chris Burr, Facillties Manager/Project Manage{1

Final Pay Request Siemens Jail Fire Alarm

BACKGROUND: An agreement with Siemens Industry Inc. (Building Technologies Division) of Palm City, Florida to replace the fire alarm system at the Indian River County Jail was approved by the Board on December 21, 2010. The contract amount was for $356,979.00.

Siemens Industry Inc. has completed all work related to the project. The final pay request in the amount of $27,570.00 has been submitted and the amount confirmed with the Finance Department.

FUNDING: Funding for this project is available in Account #31522019-066510-10010, Optional Sales Tax/Facilities Maint/Jail Fire Alarm System. To date the amount of $329,409.00 has been paid.

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the final pay request to Siemens Industry Inc. in the amount of $27,570.00 which will complete the contract.

Approved Agenda Item

For: February 11, 2014

Indian River Co. Approved Date

,... _,11---\r-. . . .__l:,..\""--··---.i:-lr"":--1 r""II-~ - M--•- -. -&-11'"":--1 --·· I':-.-•---- 1 _ : 1 r-:_ ... A l -- n'""" r.A ....... ..ii• ~--

55

SIEMENS Cust PO No Cust PO Date Quotation No

01/10/2012 NOTICE OF AWARD DATED 1/10/12

Sales Order No 3003636434

Bill To:

Sales Ord Date 01/24/2012

Project No 44OP-106011

Invoice No 5443110966

Customer No 30430244

Sold To:

Date 01/09/2014

Page 1 of 2

Ship To:

COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER

BUILDING B

COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER BUILDINGS 180027TH ST

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ROAD & BRIDGE

180027TH ST

VERO BEACH FL 32960

Remit check payments to:

SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC. C/O Citibank (Bldg Tech) PO Box2134 carol Stream IL 60132-2134

Delivery#:

Ship Date:

-~\Sz2 Remit Incoming Wires To:

Citibank New York

DIVISION 455041ST ST

VERO BEACH FL 32967

Remit Incoming ACH's To:

Citibank New York 111 Wall St. New York, NY 10043 USA ABA# 021000089

111 Wall St. New York, NY 10043 USA ABA# 021000089 SWIFT Code: CITIUS33 Account# 30824211 Credit Siemens Industry Inc - BT/ 4433 Payment for Invoice # 5443110966 Email Detailed Remittance advice to [email protected]

. Account# 30824211

FreightTerms; Prepaid and Add Fed Cont #:

Carrier/Route: Best Way

Credit Siemens industry Inc • BT/ 4433 Payment for Invoice # 5443110966 Email Detailed Remittance advice to [email protected]

Tracking No:

Contract Summary Invoice For Work Completed

Base Contract Amount

Total Extras To Date

Revised Contract Amount

Total Requisitions To Date

Payments Received

Balance Currently Unpaid

Contact : Body, Ivan M Telephone: (954)364-6600 Siemens Industry, Inc. Miami Sales Office 3021 N. Commerce Parkway MIRAMAR FL 33025 USA

356,979.00

0.00

356,979.00

356,979.00

329,409.00

27,570.00

Currency: USO

Invoice for Work Performed On The Installation Of BFL2-FIS-lndian River County Jail F/A

1. Total Work Completed To Date

2. Total Retention

3. Total Earned Less Retention

4. Less Prior Requisitions

5. Amount of Requisition (Before Tax)

State Taxes

Total Taxes

Invoice Total

100%

%

RECEIVED

356,979.00

0.00

356,979.00

329,409.00

27,570.00

0.00

0.00

JAN 2 7 2014

RISK MANAGEMENT

27,570.00

We accept Visa, MasterCard, and American Express. Please contact your local office for details. Siemens Industry, lnc.'S Dunn and Bradstreet number is 01-094-4650

Net Due By: 02/08/2014 We hereby certify these goods were procluced in cor'l'QJ(iance with an applicable requirements of Sect.6,7 and , 2 of the Fair Labor Standards Act,.as amended.and ragulations and orders of the UnJted States Dapartmenl of Labor issued under Sect 14,thereof .rt 1h19 Invoice or packing llst repre&ems an export tram8Ctlon,tt,en ttiese commodlties,tschnolom, or software (rtems)were exp0rted from the Untied States In eooordance with tne Export Admlnlstratiot1 Regulations.In a1I cases, C>lversion cootrary to U.S. law is: prohibited.These Items are not to be used, directty,ln prohibited nuclear, chemicaVbiological or mlssne weapons acWllles. Thie IS to certify lhat lhB Information on !his !nvclce or packl"Q 11$1 ls btle and correct and tnat lhe conteJlts of this shipment are as stated thereon.For snlpment to California "Olsplays exceeding 4• Include thee-Waste recycle fee vp to$10 per item

56

SIEMENS Siemens Building Technologies. Inc.

Our Project# 44OP-106011

CONDITIONAL WAIVER AND RELEASE UPON FINAL PAYMENT

Upon receipt by the undersigned of a check from County Of Indian River in the sum of $27,570.00 -------------- - - --payable to and when the check has been properly endorsed and has been - - ------ --- - ------SIEMENS BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES INC.

paid by the bank upon which it is drawn, this document shall become effective to release any mechanic's lien, stop notice, or

bond right the undersigned has on the job of the _______ l...:..nc.c;d.:.:ia"-n_R--'i...:..ve.:.:r_C_o.:...;uc..:.n.:.:ty"-C.J_a:..:..il..:...F.:.:lr..::.e_A_la.:...;rm.:.:..:... ______ located at

___ ___ ______ 4_5'"'5'""0_4.:...;1_s_t "'-St.c..r...:..ee-'-t'-V_e_ra..:.....:...o...:..B_e_a_ch __ ,:....;F_L _ _ __________ to the following extent. This release

-covers the final payment to the undersigned for all labor, services, equipment, or material furnished on the job, except for disputed

claims for additional work in the amount of _____ $_0_.oo _____ Before any recipient of this document relies on it,

the party should verify evidence of payment to the undersigned.

State of G&orgla County Of Gwlnn&tt

SIEMENS Industry, Inc. 1745 Corporate Drive Suite 240 Norcross, GA 30093

Dated this 13th day of January 2014

BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day, personally appeared Angela Liles of Siemens Industry, Inc subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same for the purposes

and considered therein expressed, in the capacity therein stated and as the act and deed of said corporation.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE, this

CONNiE M CANTRELL NOTARY PUBUC, GWINNETT COUNi'f, GEORGIA

11¥ C-OMMISSION EXPIRES 12;'01,1'2014

My commission expires:

13th day of July 6, 1905 2013

57

SIEMENS

RECEIVED JAN 2 8 2013

FACILITIES MANAGEMENT Siemens Industry, Inc Building Technologies

System Acceptance Sign-Off Sheet

Project Name: BFL2 FIS Indian River County Jail Fire Alarm

Project Number: 44OP-106011

ThJs system has been futly demonstrated and explained i·n accordance with the contract, and is approved for acceptance by the Customer,s Representative on

Date: . rd4~:Jotl/ . . . by J..l ' !J:dam Ba.,'kv This system is a~pted with the full know.ledge ~hat ttle .i11staUation mu~ qn,~go a token debugging period, and the understanding that all items (1f any) oh the following ust will be corrected· in a timely manner from tf)e E:lbove d~te_ I accept this system with e)(ceptions (if any) as noted by the following detailed list.

Customer: Indian River County

Siemens Industry., Inc., Building Technologies Division ---------------

Signature.: ---------------------Title: ---------------Date:

Exception List Attached No D Yes•

D<icui'!\&nt Number.: A03_99]M0027 Version: 1.3

Document Owner: Charles Brown Deparlmehi: Solutions Operations· Standards

O~i&; -~~11 Form page 1 Qf 1

58

SIEMENS

Adam BaUey CQr:rections Special Operations IndJan River County Sheriffs Office 4055 41st Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Project-Address: 4055-41..i Avenue Vero -Beach, FL 32960

Re: Solution~ Warranty Letter


loduSlry FACIUTIES MANAGEMEN Building Technologies Division T

Name

Telephone Fa,c Mo~ile E-mail

Date Project Name Project Number . 1/Vananty Start Oate: Warranty:Ehd Date:

l~nBody PM

813-261~00 81~ 813-918"7491 [email protected]

1/20/2014 Indian RiyerCounty Jall 440P~106011 12/31/2013 12/a0/2014

Siemens has begun the, warranty of your system and completed the instruction and training ofyour personnel

As of this dat~. the .equiproentis in warranty a.nd i$ guaranteed to be free from defects in material and workmanship for a peri~d_of cme {1} yei:ir. Jl1is warranty do~ not Include Jecalibration an!'.! set-up.now that the systems have been cotnitissioned and ate operational. Normal maintenance is the responsibility of the owner. ·

If you feel your system is not performing due to defects in the material or the workmanship provided, please contact:

Slemens Service Department (81)0) f{92.028~ Service Coordinator: Gail Quinones Sel\lice Manager,; RU$$ell Childress Saies Manag~t: Eric Balaban

If you· have any quE!Stioos .on yt)ur ~rranty, p~ contact me at the phone number or email listed above. ~f not, please fiil out the "requested 'inronnation below and send. baGk to me to confirrn your approvijl.

On behalf of outProjie<;t Installation Team, we al)pret:iate. the opportunity to complete the installation of these systems With you. Cur g!3a!ls fo pr9v1f:1e you with a cust<iroefexp.enence that wfll lead-you to reoommehcf Sfeniens to anyone.

Sin.cerely;

Ivan Body ProjeclManager

How are we.doing? The CustomerFeedbac~ Fo1J11 m~Y bie f9und at wwW.usa.siernens.com/customerteedback.

cc: ,Job File

sremens1ndilstry, l11c Bulldlllg T-echnologll!S

8403 Benjamin Road ·$ult~ 'P' T!!mpa, i=t., 3363'1 USA

613-261•8700 813-890-8055 WYJW.fuildingtechno10gies,siemens,com

59

RECEIVED

SIEMENS

JAN i 8 2013

BUILDINGTECHNOLOGIES FACILITIES MANA~~

FIRF Al A~M ~T!S lt-.rui ft .. ' • ni:= ~nM Pl ... 1 n ""

PROTECTED PROPERTY INFORMATION JOB# 44OP-106011 Name of property; INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL FINAL Address: 495.5 41ST AVE VERO BEACH, FL 32960 Descripti:M of property: JAll Oecup~n~y type: ,JAIL Ni:tme of propertv represe.ntative: Lieutenant Adam Bailey ~- { ~.;;,;,1;.. Phone: n247-30334 E-mail: abailev1mircsheriff.ora Fax: 1723786~~0 Authority haviM iurisdicthm over this propeify: Phone: E.,mail: Fax:

Fl.RE.Al.ARM SYSTEM INSTALLATION, SERVICE ANO TESTING INFORMATION Supplier organization for this equipment Siemens Building Technologies Address: '3021 N. Commerce skWv Miramar FL,33025 Phone;· 9543:64:~SQO E~mail; Fax: 954~6767 S¢rvfc» Qtganiz.:ition tor this equi~j'nent: Siemens Building Technologies Ad\'lress: '3,021 N. Commerc:~ pkw\t MJ!'l3mar'FL,33025-Phone: 95436466.00 E-mail: Fax: 954$46767 A@ntractfor test and ino¢cflon iiJ ~ccordalice W1th NFPAcStanda~ds ls. io effect as ot

· C()ntraetjng tespng corr\pa_ny:

TYPE OF FIRE. ALARM SYSTEM OR SERVICE Fire Alarm Svstem Equipment SIEMENS XLS Fire Finder Fire Alarm System Software: ODE:lrati119 firrnwijre rev. 181:i Zeus: 8 Revisfon compl~ed bv: Larry Caseb~r oate: 7/16/201q

1-NFPA72 Chap~er SA & 8,5 system type: Reillote Supeivising Station via DACT OACT Telephone line_ nj:imbers: 1. 2 ..

' PACT Remote. station phone #s: . 1. 2,. [).(CT Receiver Foimat . 412 Conta~t ID Qffi~t Na!Jle-of orgatii?-atl.;,ti receiving_ aiarm signals: !=>hone: F~ E-mail:

4- .SIGNALING 1,..INE CRCUITS (Quantities/Style/Class) M".;NE.T: Net4 H-NET: x~NET: Net4 ALO; OLC:2

5. .4:1..ARM-INlTIATIN.GDE\llCES AND CJRCl;JITS .5.1 Maqu~I Tnitiati,l'lg Oevio~s 5,1:1 M~ou.al Pull i=ltatioo.$ Model# HTRL·M Quantity: 17 TVi:>e Qf -deVice: - Addressable~X Conventional; C()ded:

'$;2 Automatic· Initiating Devices 5.2. 1 Area Smoke Detectors M9de!# H.FP~11 Quantity: 204 Typ~-of de\li~e~ A<tttressable:X Conventional: Coded: TVPe. ¢c.ove;-~ge: .. $page.qty: Control qty: FApanelatY.

5,2.1 ()uct Smoke E>etec_tors Mod.el# AD2-P - Quantity. 26 Typ~ of devi~; Addressable;X Conve-ntional: Code·d; Type p'fcovei'age,: Alarrnaiv: su1>ervis atv:26 W/ri:ilaviiftr.

...

44OP-1060.1-1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL FINAL Record of Comp.xis

60

RECEIVED 44OP-10.6011 INDIAN RIVERCOUNTYJAIL FINAL Record ofComp.Jl\N 4 8 2013

FACILITIES MANAr,i=M~I T

Name of pr<lperty: . INPIAN RIVERCOUNTYJAIL FINAL

~.2.3 Heat Detectors Model# HFPT-11 Quantity: 3 Type of devJce; Addressable: yes Convention!'ili: Coded: Type of coverage: ·space qty: Control qty: Shunt trip qty:

5.2.4 Sprinkler Waterflow Switches and Preaction TYP!! ofinterface .device: Model # HTRI-D / HTRI-R

. ~.2;s Alarm Veiification /Positive Alarm Sequence Ala.rm \lei'ifi(;iiltion Enabled: . Disabled: POS.

6. SUPla;:RVISbRY Sl~NAblNITIATING DEVICES AND CIRCUITS 6~1 Sprinkler Super.tisory Valves type of interface device: Model# HTRJ-D

6,2 Fire Pump - Electric ot Engine-driven Type ot.Jntenaee ~vice: Model# Fire Plll'.llP power Ffre pUrnp running Selectoriwttch :notJn autQ Engine.or Control pan1;Jl trouble

6.3 EnQirie-Driven Generator Type tifinterface ~ice: Engine.orControl panelfiouble Low fuel

6.40ther

7. ANNUNCIATORS

Model # HTRhD

Other

7i1 Afini!iii«:il...ifod Mo<ie! :tt $$•-<; · Type; ·· AddreS$able:: 30 Directory:

7 .3 Anqi!inciatpr ~ Model# ssoce Jype;; Addressable: 32 Directory: 1A Annunclator·2 Mode.I# $$0-C Type: Addressable: 33 DireQtory:

8. ALARM NOTIFIQATION OEViC,ES AND c·IRCUITS 8;1 J:mer.gen·cy Voice Alarm Sel'\iice # of voic:e·alaim channels:

a.2 T~tephone Jaeks # of telephone h~ndsets

8.$ N,mvoiceAuoible $ystEirn Jype.ofcirci!iifs{Style/¢!ass)B

# of speak~r ZQTISS:

# .oftelephQnezones: Model#

Quantity: 27

Enabled: Disabled:

Quantify: 16.

Quantity:

Flre pump i'IJi'lnlng

3 GerteratQr running x

Lo~on: Graphic: Location: CONTRO"'RMS

Lppation:

Lo~on: . CONTROLRflrtD Graphic:

. #ofjacks: Quantity:

# of audible cJrcl)itsJn .PAP~~($);32

121512013 PAGE 2 of3

61


44OP-106011 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY JAIL FINAL Record of C9UJP.)(.l~LITIES t'A'-,;t MANAGEMENT

Name of property: INDIAN. RIVER COUNTY JAIL FINAL

B.4 Types and Quantities of Nonvoice Notifi~tiort Appliances Installed # of ho.rn only: Model# Quantity: # of hom/strobe: Model# ZH-MC-R /ZH~Mc .. cR Quantity; # .of t:hir:ne c:inly: Model# Quantity; # of chh,ne/strobe: Model# Quantity: # of strobe only # pther tievice: Model# Qy;mtity:

EMERGENCY CONTROL FUNCTIONS ACTIVATED # HoJd-open ~t>otdevices: M6del# PSC12 Quantitv: # Poor unlocking Model# # Smoke conti-oi .

#AHU Shutdt>wn Mqdl:ll # HTRl-:R Quantity:

.. #Damper. qontrol Model# # Elevator recall Model# HTRH~ ' Quantity;

Modef# HTRl~R Quantity: # E·levator,shunt trip Model# Quantity: #Fear Mode.I # HTRI-R Quantity:

9. SYSTEM POWER SUPPLY 9,J Prima1yPower Location: Noi:n1t1al voltage: 1.20 VAC 2Q. Disc typ~:

9'2Secondary Power Locatie>n; NPllllh.al voltage: Amps; Disc type: Slan(tbybatteryvo~ge: 24VDC AHratiif.9: fOC> Location of emergency gen1a1rat6t. OUTSIDE ·13y MAJN'tENANCE SHOP Lo¢iitioll oftuei sto1"13g1:1; ~o FEET FROM E:lUl_l,QING IN F;RQNTOF GENERATOR

2. RECORD OF SYSTEM INSTALLATION Tl:i$ $ystem h~s been INSTALLED In accordance with the following NFPA standards: NFPAn NFPA7Q. Siemens manufacturer's instructions Oeviatio1;1~ Per prints, RE. Johnson Electric Int, s~ned: D.ate:1JH>1-2013 Printed name: , Kenny H)'att.

3. RECORD OF SYSTEM OPERATION T~e system li~s been TEifTl:::P in accordance with the foJlowing NFPA standards: NFPA 12 . NFPA 79 5l~fll~h~ manufa~l!rer>s instructions l>IQn.eQ: LUI I J. \JtJJI.IJl,I .· Uate: . l•Wf/;c.u J ;;I l"'Ont8(1 name,: L<IU)' 1.i.8$eD8f

AlJT,Ho··. R'' tl,TYTY··· .· .·· J-!A' . -.. . • .. •VJll G JlJ~SPISiTIO ' '',· r.' SiQoed: o(./,(J~ /~lj .1 .v. .... . c, loate:

All

ALL

1

8 3_0

2 ,,, 1

8

12/512013 PAGE$ Of3

62

TO:

THROUGH

FROM:

DATE:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM

Joseph A Baird; County Administrator

,4JS Stan Boling, AICP; Community Development Director

John W. McCoy, AICP; Chief, Curre~~opment

February 3, 2014

CONSEI\T AGENDA

SUBJECT: Mary Rutz's Request for Final Plat Approval for a Commercial Subdivision to be Known as Rutz 2?1h Avenue SW Retail Center [2012120006-71563 I SD-13-09-02]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 11, 2014.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:

Rutz 2?1h Avenue SW Retail Center is a 7.94 acre commercial subdivision project located at the northeast comer of Oslo Road and 2?1h Avenue SW. The property is zoned CL (Limited Commercial), has a C/1 (Commercial Industrial) land use designation, and is being developed for commercial uses through the platting and site plan process.

On September 26, 2013, the Planning & Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the subdivision, which consists of two commercial lots and a future development tract. Development of the lots will proceed under separate site plan applications, and inspections will be conducted via site plan inspection procedures. Certain common subdivision related improvements (access and utilities) are being bonded-out in association with the project's final plat.

The applicant is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted a final plat for the Rutz 27th

Avenue SW Retail Center in conformance with the approved preliminary plat. To support the final plat request, the applicant has submitted:

1. A final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat 2. An Engineer's Certificate Cost Estimate for required subdivision improvements 3. A completed contract for construction ofrequired subdivision improvements

ANALYSIS:

The final plat will establish two lots, a future development tract, a conservation tract, and an easement along the site's 27th Avenue SW and Oslo Road frontages for shared landscape buffer, access, utilities, and drainage improvements. Common subdivision improvements for the project include off-site sidewalks, utilities, and access improvements. Those improvements are included in the contract for construction (see attachment #3) and will be bonded-out to guarantee completion of construction.

F ;\Community Development\CurDev\Final Plats\BCC staff reports\Rutzfinalplat.doc

63

An Engineer's Cost Estimate has been provided for the common improvements. Public Works has reviewed and approved the submitted Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed and approved the submitted Contract for Construction. Financial security, which represents 125% of the estimated cost to construct the required common improvements, must be submitted and approved by county staff prior to recording the final plat. It should be noted that all improvements within the Rutz 27th Avenue SW Retail Center will be private, with the exception of certain utilities facilities that will be dedicated and guaranteed to Indian River County as required by the Utility Services Department.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval for the Rutz 27th Avenue SW Retail Center and authorize the Chairman to sign the final plat.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Final Plat Layout 4. Contract for Construction

Indian River County

APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: Administrator

{( 6/ Legal Budget

Risk Management Department

F:\Community Development\CurDev\Final Plats\BCC staff reports\2014\Rutzfinalplat.doc 2 64

:. - . ~ . ;~.' · .. ,•

. ~·ft<,~Jt>~~ : .. ~x a:w.z >" :.; ·-it~·-.;· __ ···•·.·· ..

. . :/~~T~~:<FLEA$!~)··.· .. 1' '" _.,_. - _ . -· . .• ' . · · .- - : ··-- . · .. ·• · ,.. • .

-~:~~f,f~!~ .-_. : .Jti~-~i~: ;,:::;).

- NAMs' ,>; . '': . ., -- --, -~~t-- , . . ' ' ;·

-·· · -.l?~l)~p~ -~s~.o~~,/ ;s.All)l)~<.:: • _· ..

· · · :,t · -·-:

:~tJ f l· • . ; . . ,··

t~:t\ : • "::V:_T .¥ C ,

~0~~~01t:.,~~~-:~ ·-· ·*::~ ---s~Y'.-;tN~ S~"VLC~S, ·Ute~ ' .. ,

• • • I • •

· ... ·. : > lfiii$:~J.i;i ... :n.: J41~.S - ~I[l\''sr!4.1J! •• , ·' · -

• ' 407 ~ ';J3_;8 .. 1:,i79. ' .. . . ·rll~NU~t) , _

·- ~~j~~.s,:~ -

--w~:)- F·( ·

. -:~~7~_:1:4i;~.-~rr_·•-· · ' '.Ail~ ,, >,.\",::· ..

·---~ -t$~;-·$~.-@~·~:p1 .. Ciff. $'1.~ - -. . ... , . .

.• >;,;

.,·32ci~~~tsfa1iu .-

~ ,:,$~~-- -- ~--~bw~[{'., ~;~.:$~ ---, ~A,ci1~b1.f - .. ~:Pin" . ' .~~~~~~::*'· ,' . ... . .

--t~----

65

.. sm.:l>AROELTAff!D#!S: 3:.3~39'-23-'~{l:(Jt~Q130-.000~:t~1 . . . . -- . . ' ·. ·-, , .

. ·.,c~~.~~~:~~~"·'·""'"'<-·•....... ~~.........,..,..,......,.~......,.,.~ ............ .---,a~

,I)ATI LOPI$&Jei '. L . ·•

' ~-<l;.tP4. '. ' .. . .. .. .. ; J!L-{<~i¢~< ,;-, . ml'~reitoss);Aces=: ·--_,; a,.···. - : · · · ,, . mTN;'MUMB-~tllt~U>~-=·-..··-"'1~__,_.,.-=-...._._.. ~:~~:~l~~:--.?~-~: .;/:_ .··. , .. ..

· · J;)BN'SU'Y~ ·~~CiUQi. •· ~$~~- A~l\~io- :e~t,-'t?t: ~~Il*:Y •.. ~ET. ::<.:· .< ·' °;,' , : ' · . !

' :. •,, ~ , } , A · '. •

·*~(;~J'E·~~~--· . . . . . . ~ .·_ ·, .

. . 1/!JTE: ~1~» sliGU!d:t,~ ~~jg-~:~~ ~~~~.~dJ ·.

>MA~ <YE~ No.· 1. .• . Fee ""$,1400.00 (¢~Jc$ pa,al,Jie11>.:lnii1an~CouniyJ .

:: ~¢~(If.~~)'{"~ ' . ,, \ ' < •;;r •••• •

.

. · __ .::--:· . ~-. .

. . . .

· .~. . .- l1i«91!1111t ,r~:~;~ ,u~/~~~·i.

-•~ .·. e~v~~w.1• ~-•·ovt: · ·

·~===~-.~-;.,or-~+.•~.~:.f .·· .• _M .• :.tft ·--,~.. . . :-_; . ' -~ ;· : ,'

·==~~~· ✓. ·,• · -•· . .

. · --~~~ ~----. . . ;, -.:... £>: . .., ..

A1TACHM!NT . 66

2 lMIW-H3Y11\f r--

'°

I ~rc'W"Cr'"'.P-in.17-: _ _;:l _ __ r11 ·r 1,q• -,~ ,T I . 11~------r

----'- ll_____l--J L... _.....__....,. '-------1{__J5TH ST-SW (REBEL-R[]J"":J>IC:. I • I . •

11 ' . ' " .. ' ' ~----,,-.l~-' "" .. · ·· ·j·p Sta:HA.TERAL•B-6--E ·- ····----- • ---· ··- · ·· · · ---- ---- ·" ·-1· ·· · ·· · · · SUB•UlTERA L-f..7 ·•·- , · '· ""'• ----- ... "" •.. ,, .. --

11

I

11

~ .,

-~

_·, .....

1:, ~~- L_J I .: f.-M . ' c.V) -;:::::, •. =--

ED ...... __

1·/°. ;r :·1··1~ ... 9TH PL S~V~'.. : ~. -~·;, ------=== ' ...--~,--- - ._.. .pj

CL

I I 1I I:::

~ 11---+f-' m -NI

I. .- ,

.___.___, 17.TH ST_ SW

CL

CG

CG

l"',J

CL

. .CL ...

CL

,,•1 ' I

I • - .. •• • p •• •• ~-1

: -i

/1q, ·._ '¾crR.~

/ ,'

.L .. ---

11 !

t-~

l'v . ~WMASWNi ~._,.~

. . .!,..,.,,., ...... , ......... ,.."'' .. , .. -.. - ' , ,, .· ' 00 " ,. .,. •,, ••• ,,, .• ····sus-/.ATERAL'8-7-E ••·-•·_· Ro$ w==7. ;--,

~ '0 .----.. 0 ~ ,.. .. ....J.._..,.- ...... ....,,_ -j

·/ , i:n _ _ ,i ~392600001003000001 .0 --

0'I QC)

-; n :r: • ~

\.N

U,..Jitll1.«:. NO ~"1/UCTION, 1RffS OR SHRU8$ Nl'U IE Pl.ACED IN E'ASEJlt'NfS JW1'/0(JT COi.iNT'/ APPROVAi,. Rutz 27th Avenue SW Retail Center PLAT BOOK _____ _ ~ RCVTINE UA/Jllm,,JANC£ (c.G. illOMW-IG err;.) OF EA5£JJEN1S SHIIU BE ~ R£Sl'ONS1f/N,J1l' or "1£ LOt,IPROPCRrY OMt,IOi'S) MO NOT JNbMN m~ COUNTY.

BEING A REPLAT OF A POR.nON OF mACT IJ, SECnON 23. TOWNSHIP JJ SOUTH, RANCE J9 £AST. PAGE __ ~ THIS Pl.AT. AS PCCORDED IN ITS GRAPHIC r~ JS "fHt OffJCiAt OEPJC1/0N OF THC SU61Dl\ftlro LANDS DacRIBECJ HERON AM:l ltll.L IN NO CJRCUMSTANCE'S ti£ SUPPI.AN1'£(} IN AUTHORl'TY BY ANY O'!HEk CRAPHIC OR DJaTAL FORM (JF 'r14£ PL.A I'.

PLAT OF INOfAN ff!V£R FARMS COMPANY SV8DIVfSfON, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, OF THI! PUBLIC R£CORDS OF ST. LUC/£ COUNTY. Fl.Of/JOA SAi/) LANDS NOW LYING IN /NO/AN RIV£/? COUNTY. FI.ORIOA

~ [==:J

= 5 ' l/1,117'£0 ACCCSS EASEMENT = 10' V>ID£

DOCKET NUMBER ________ _

~ 7HCRt: Jl,_Y 8€ ADDJrKJl,ML liC$1RJCTIONS THAT ARC NOT MCOROCO ON 7HIS PLAT 7"'AT MAY 8£ tOUND IN THC PUBt.JC RCCOltOS or 1HIS COUNYY.

GiU.PlllC SCALE FPL tASE'/IENT s1-m:r _L or _2_ 5)..JJ,Q1JfZ; PROPE/fTY 0~ ARC PROHIBJ'fF(} F1i04I PLANr,,,IC ANY CARIIJ8£AN f'RIAT Fl Y AND ClfR<J$ GR£'(NING HOST PUNTS AS 9fCIF1(P Hl'RCf)N ANIJ ARE REOUIM.O TC REMOVE 1H£ S,U,UIF ANY EXISTS: C!ot1l.E.Y CUAM,t COMM()N CVAVA, LOOUAt. ROSC APPL£ Sl)RtNAM CH£RRY, Cf'llllf:SC 9()X ORANfiE, AND ORANOC .MSI.IJNC.

~ ~ I SECTION ___kl_ lWP. -~s., RANGE _lL_c. (Dlft!ZT)

J 11,n, ~ " II,.

j ;;! I I

I

LANDS Df:SCRtBEO IN OFTICI.AL RECORDS

800K ~14, PAC£ 05.,J

LANDS D€.St:RIB!O rN Of"f1CIAL REcOHoS

8()(/1( 1926, PACC 1107

u.,ms DCS(YHfJCD IN OITJ{:JAJ. Rf'COkVS

BOQI( 2(}41, PAG£ 22J9 ~Ii :;i!;l" :i: ~

'RACT A

LANDS D(Sawea, IN OFT/CJAl. R(CO,,OS

eOCI< 2565, PA.rz <M4S

LANO$ DCSCtNIED JN ~ OITICr..4LRCCOROS '(

SOOK 94:Q. PA.CF t06~

~ LANDS 0£SCRl8£D fN 'I;: Cf'11CIN.. RCCORDS

I ,,._.. SOIJTHWCST CCf#NCR()f'

I SCCTKJN ~,l RJIWSINI .» SOU1H

sefr:,,Afr/~ ~ 21l,a2· -~~1!!!...__.

1-.. -= -- ,,._. L I RN R'.I~ C<Nil/lNO Ct -' ' ROAD ,t/()HT OF WAY

I 1

R/W-

IIE37 /::'or ma;; r:xt::«~'71/_, Of ~ ~ lll"ST lti:r:: OF' SEC'f!ON 2,.\ TOWSHJP JJ SOUTH • a ~ rtJ'1NSHJP J::J SOUTH,

RANG( Jg EASr I R/Wr------~ R/W ------'---- RA, -~-.....-----~ • - RAIVGC.,, CA.ST

_ ..... ~ N00'2t'ol"'E (BASJS or SCARING) ___ /4,.,, ---j ____ 27th AVENUE SW _ s· LIMlrED .ACCESS £ASElmlT ~r fMG11Ji~lA1r LIN£, 2:5.oi,·--l 1~saRf'rarr,~NER 26~ =~: -7 ,,,- ,.O<J. . (R/W VARt£S) --Eifsfi1lG'7:fsf"Rl?Jiir5t irATTiic - --- -- - , t ------

.,, 1 N0071V7"E-, ND0-21'07"E OVl~All 11297~ U29.73' 2

5.Dt? TOPCFt1·c~ """' I). PRlol P<S l5J8.J

roP or,.~ PftUl>LS15JB.J

--=--=--~QO~-=--.=.....,.....:=...--=-- - ..=:..;.::::.-:.:::..-:=a,.~-=---=.-..=..-.=.-..::.-~-~-~-~,,,..~-~- .:::.:--=-_._ E·-=.-~-z..-.:::..-:;:..~~ =----~~ ---=· ·-·. ---=----=--=-~ g <:I. CL_..,22,.J2' (~Kl 88)

=:J ,! 5.00' '> CASrR/'f, l lNC ,;: IJ<,J' £1.•2J.9'' (N•!;/."' ~

i I ~ I ~~~ ~ .. , ~.J ~ ~ W1H 0~ MfN: EASD,,IOJT TCI R/W ' 10.00'

n,• CRDSS ACCCSS, PUfJUC U1NJT'r ANO DRMiAGC t:J.SEUEN:2 t()' Mf)E ff't. CASDIENT o .5.00' R/V ~---

--- - - - -v,~ - - ___, ~ - -- - .~'''1iitL/J1;!~f- - - - _J_ - - - -

~ ·~ .. ~8 !z ~!l ~~ ~I~ ll:1 ~f!lil::~~ iiH€l Iii = I fo" I :tO: ~ ~~ :,i i,t ~ ">,

j!n \,~~iil~i~~H~ 1i i~ I ~~R -, !i:~i,/ I',) ~i q I - -.i~~ ,..,

8 "< .JO' JNGRCS'S/[tllt:~ I i ~

5' INITFD ACCESS (ASOIDIT !to (CROSS HATCHtP) ~

~iii l I .. '!, ~ ~ 8 ~ CASCtlENr ( !"": I '-'I. I~ omctAL ACCORDS i ~ 40.Q ~

LOT 2 1.59£" AOJ£S

~ ~~ ~ TRACT B

~ t[

FUTURE DEVELOPEMENT -4.0.li- ACRES

15' PUIJI..IC DRAINAGI: --1 " umrrr tJ.SfJJfflr I

1.5' LA/IKJ.SC~l'C 8Uf1"FR -1

l ~ --·--.... ~ 69.J.SJ'

€ ---------- l l ~s· rtPf,d'f:optJFTCR JHal.lDJNG OPA011E FrATURE- l26.00' q 25• ~·~.BUFFER rNCLUDtNG 01wJt1t: ff.AT/JR£

!I ~~~~.!~---1- <> ~LL __________ ~---- -------=s --------- ~------------- "001

• '5JT _ _ UPI._ PR[SU{T,,:Rf,.fl,,,,f b.8U ACRfS=-- ----- ~ ~ 1J(J.DD' SOO•z9'53'..,, 1129.54-' -... ~ ~ !!:! FMD. ,. CM M"s1 l.tN£ or BRADFORO Puc£ I 1 ,. "' '"'I 11C; ~ PRJJ PI.S ,s2'J , .,.,,_""'l"""'I"""'-' "• -1 ,3~ ~ ~ ee/.DFtJROPI.ACC §: I ~f.c: ~ <:i Q Pt.AT BOOK :JJ. PAC£ 28-D

I i:lt~ 1;( ; ~ zoo;:~~,"SE ~ t: ~ CONSCltVA 110N (ASEIIENT

I~~~

\ -S!S!

J:: ~

LOT 17

I LOT 1B

Lor 79

' LOT BO

__µ,., LOre,

L0162

11

I: I ,> ~

~ I "ii"' \'i. ~ ~ ~~ ~ t,,;

~ ,s ~ ~·11 ~

. [ ~

;II

,or n

LOT 71

I.OT 70

LOT 69

LfJT ~8

LOT 61

~ COVDW'iTS, ~S~/C11DNS GR RC.sr...-v,.4 DON$ AITCCTtNG ~ OMo/ERSHIP OR usr OF TU~ Pltt:/PcRrY SHO'M' IN 11-11S Pt.A 1 MA)' 8C nt[O tN THE. PUBLIC RECORDS or JNOU.N RIIICR COUNTY, fl.CWlllA. ll.J/QJ1JZ;. ~NO 8!.J1t.DING P!RJ,#T ;tl'l( er rs5UED FON DC'ELOPMl:JtT OF AN 'f LOT OR ~ACT UNLCSS. AND UNtli.. AN /Nin.Al. ,tf.,'I) ANAi. CONCURR£NCY CCRTtnCATE: FDR 0£1,£1.0PMCNT OF 1Ht LOT Of/ 1HA.CT IS OB7AJNED. Ht@IAA RJ',£R CCXJNTr Do£S NOT

'=====1.- CW./lfAN"TrC THAT AIXOUA rt: CAPAQTY MILL EXrST A T THC rn.tl WHEN AN APPUCANT OR APPUCANT'S SU<Xcss-otf CHCJOSf:S rt) APP£. Y F"0R AN() OBTAIN A

- -- - --~. - CONCIJRR£NCY ~Tll1CA1l: . •

s IQ 0 ~ Q " I" I" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ § I

• i!i ~ ~ - - - TRACT F'

:.: ~ !I: ll: 'l ~ II; "' ~ t

STOCIQIRJJJGE SQUARE S. 'If. ½

(PRJVATC R/W VARIES) ' \ lOT 4 7

--

! I ~1: 1~1:1 :1: II: lil:I: \l I LOT46 -... LOT-45 'W l OT -14 ~

I !JRADFURO Pi.AC[

I l ~

LOT l:J6 PLAT BOOI< 21, PAct 2fJ-JJ

l.014.J "" ZONIHGMNO usr -RJ1..-$A-2

,.,, 'le

;.i ;;i"' ~ ~ a,.~~!

dilij!~i~i il:C~;,, ' . 1~,-pi:~~~ ~~(.,j~~i~~

p~fs8!l,1 ... ~"'~ ~~ ~. ~

Rutz 27"' Avenue SW Retail Center

CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS NO. SD-13-09--02-CFC (2012120006-71563)

THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this ·3o "ti/ day of January, 2014, by and between MARY ALGENE RUTZ, TRUSTEE OF THE MARY ALGENE RuTz TRusr utA DAreo MARCH 31 2000 ~ J.o~"efi~titt~r- 'S' ' 'Witief·,,.I .~ ~JJ~ ;:1W/~i~-~t\l ®.fM~lfiii ~rt her~inafte';: ~ef~-rred tcf ~f!oevi;1o~e~;~ and INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, by and through its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter referred to as "County".

WITNESSETH :

WHEREAS, Developer is commencing proceedings to effect a subdivision of land within Indian River County, Florida; and

WHEREAS, a final plat of the subdivision within the unincorporated area of Indian River County shall not be recorded until the Developer has installed the required improvements or has guaranteed to the satisfaction of the County that such improvements will be installed; and

WHEREAS, Developer requests the approval and recordation of a certain plat to be known as Rutz 2ih Avenue SW Retail Center; and

WHEREAS, the required improvements are to be installed after recordation of this plat under guarantees posted with the County.

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND PROMISES HEREIN CONTAINED, the parties agree as follows:

1. Developer agrees to construct on or before January 31, 2015, in a good and workmanlike manner, those improvements described as follows:

See Exhibit "A" attached hereto

or otherwise required by the Indian River County Code in connection with the approval of said plat. A copy of the plat shall be recorded in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida upon the final approval of the Board of County Commissioners and made a part hereof for all purposes.

ATTACHMENT #4

· 69

2. Developer agrees to construct said improvements strictly in accordance with the land development permit, the most recent set of plans and specifications for this subdivision approved by the County and on file in the Planning and Development Division, and all County development regulations and standards, including conditions and requirements of any applicable County right-of-way permit, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof.

3. In order to guarantee performance of this contract, Developer has simultaneously herewith furnished either a cash deposit (with accompanying cash deposit and escrow agreement between Developer and the Indian River County Office of Management and Budget, as the escrow agent) or an irrevocable letter of credit presentable in Florida by a banking institution authorized to transact such business in this state and having an expiration date of not less than ninety (90) days beyond the date set forth in Paragraph 1, in the amount of $97,906.02, which amount is not less than one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the estimated total cost of improvements remaining to be constructed, as determined in accordance with the County's Subdivision and Platting Ordinance. It is understood that the full amount shall remain available to the County and shall not be reduced during the course of construction. Developer may at any time substitute guarantees, subject to the approval as to form by the County.

4. Up to $1,000;ooo.oo, or the limits of any applicable underlying or excess insurance coverage carried by Developer or to be obtained during the course of the construction of the subdivision improvements, Developer agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the County against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including attorney's fees, for property damage, personal or bodily injury, or loss of life, arising from the negligent acts or omissions of the Developer, its officers, employees, agents, or contractors, subcontractors, laborers, or suppliers, relating to the construction of the required improvements, including all those improvements to be constructed on existing publicly dedicated or County-owned property, such as street, sidewalk, bikepath, lighting, signalization, traffic control, drainage, water, or sewer improvements.

5. The County agrees to approve the plat for recordation in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida upon a finding . as to compliance with all applicable provisions of the County's Subdivision and Platting Ordinance and upon execution hereof. The County shall accept those areas specifically dedicated to the County for the purposes indicated on the plat at the time of plat recordation. However, nothing herein shall be construed as creating an obligation upon the County to perform any act of construction or maintenance within such dedicated areas until such time as the required improvements are satisfactorily completed.

Developer shall remain responsible for utility meter boxes to be in good repair and not covered with soil for the 1-year maintenance period commencing after County issuance of a Certificate of Completion. Notice of this ongoing responsibility shall be provided by Developer to any subsequent builder/owner.

2

70

Satisfactory completion in accordance with the land development permit, plans, specifications, and ordinance requirements of Indian River County shall be determined by the County and shall be indicated by specific written approval of the Public Works Director or his designated representative, after receipt of a signed and

~ 9ertificate 01 ~ome..~~" from il~/'~r-~~liiJiiftC,

· 6. In the event the Developer shall fail or neglect to fulfill its obligations under this contract and as required by the Indian River County Code, the Developer, as principal, and the posted security shall be liable to pay for the cost of construction and installment of the required improvements to the final total cost, including but not limited to engineering, construction, legal and contingent costs, including reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the County, together with any damages, either direct or consequential, which the County may sustain as a result of the failure of Developer to carry out and execute all provisions of this contract and applicable ordinances of the County.

7. The parties agree that the County at its option shall have the right, but not the obligation, to construct and install or, pursuant to receipt of competitive bids, cause to be constructed and installed the required improvements in the event Developer shall fail or refuse to do so in accordance with the terms of this contract. Developer expressly agrees that the County may demand and draw upon the posted security for the final total cost of the improvements as well as the cost for the warranty. Developer shall remain wholly liable for any resulting deficiency, should the posted security be exhausted prior to completion of the required improvements and warranty. In no .event shall the County be obligated to expend public funds, or any fund other than those provided b the Develo er to construct and warranty the required im.erovements. rt'''·•' .. :, '"'~;)~~'~£~::t'•<i':··••i•' ...... ' . :

8. Any posted security provided to the County by Developer with respect to this contract shall exist solely for the use and benefit of the County and shall not be construed or intended in any way, expressly or impliedly, to benefit or secure payment

3

71

. .

to any subcontractor, laborer, materialman or other party providing labor, material, supplies, or services for construction of the required improvements, or to benefit any lot purchaser(s), unless the County shall agree otherwise in writing.

9. This agreement is the full and complete understanding of the parties and shall not be construed or amplified by reference to any other agreement, discussion, or understanding, whether written or oral, except as specifically mentioned herein. This agreement shall not be assigned without the express written approval of the County. Any amendment, deletion, modification, extension, or revision hereof or hereto shall be in writing, executed by authorized representatives of both parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the day and year first above written.

--------sign: . e_~_ $ N-..s,..-.r,N~-.1------.. print name: Q..c.....,...:,l 'S f'\.l•~rr-,e,-()0

ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller

By:JJf~ ✓~ Deputy Cleik[/

APPROVED AS TO FO AND '2-LR-"R'II- SU ICI

By:.-AA.=~.=,,;....,=--b=-~

By:~~~ Mary e R ~ r7L.steeofMary Algene Rutz Trust U/A dated March 31, 2000

DEVELOPER


Authority: Resolution No. 2005-121

4

72

. Oii0$lP11Q.N ·. i i ·. .· : · .... ,·•... ·., ·. ······.:····· , : · ··.· ·.·.. QVAN'Ttr ;\)NIT :ow1f¢0~+· .· / :· . Al\Ul)U~t·j'.7 ,} 'MO'~t!JV\TIQN fQ(;li'Yebiel~) ·' ·.· ·.•. ·· ... <>>•. · ? = • .• , . t$O ·~. r '> • .$t):i0Q,QQ l / >.. · .= :'3;.5,o;o:~o: \/ IMf\it,(fjt~NC.lt Qi TRAPFiC, . · . : .•·• ., . .' ii · '. ,.... . 1.00 1.$·. / ;.· $$Jf®.Qtl : $. ·. . . ]},.$Q~'.iQ.O . . Mt'SC!U.ANlzOU$ ~Mt>JNCS: .··.· ' ·•. · .. ·. ' ·: ,,-,, > . · . ·· 1Al'P. :~$ .. ·.· . ·· $~.$PQA)0 ' $. . . . f?,~QJl;OQ tt ltW)l:>l CQN~~Ti $,lPijWALK . . · ;,: ' 7 .. . .i Aa&J)Q t,F . · ·. : :.': ·$tO,I/Jq "I• S.i~f·~Qr::

?7th ,p.\i~ QlijVIWil't'J t4' FRQNtta.w~,;A§l..t; , ··•· · :,J.? • w. vAI..lt;Y¢~$imJ~R . · . ._ \ : · _ / ·: i , ·• •. ·Hf1i.QQ LF .·•·· .·• .. ·. $44Jttr $ 1.a~~11:Wo' " TYP!;$f'CURil ' .· .>: ·.· "·, .· ' ~$.Q'Q !.f ';)'. .$1'3.QQ~ .. , .. > 1.zas.:n0, <

· ryp1; DCURJ · ·. . . · ·•·· , . · : . 58~7o. tf. · , $::f~.~O t·:' .: '· &1~;~~ ./ •sH:rYPE$P1i,5A$PHALJ - .,, . · .. .. ... $71,QQ $¥ · ,. , .• .. · ~.J(j$'• ·,· $.~'$,.80' ia.A$E; $t $\JS~RA.Pif : ' ·,· • . ,, .· .. 7 ·' ~71,00 . SY t : ,$ie..a,a ,: $t '. ,:::t1:Q~t;~~ - :: ,,:,:

... ' . ™R&J:> $TORM\.'v.Al:l;R : ·· · · . · . ·.. . .. :: ." ·· •• ,<-fr .. ··•• _ ... : , . ; • ·•• ·' .fbtAMEt~t{t\/t.A;NH'dLE ······ ;,--. , - .•· z,.1~0. EA .·· , : .$l.2'!5J.iU~.o :$.' ·> ( :2,ijq(!;~o.· t~"' HOP~ $To.i~11;4 Pfc PE . ,• ·_, . ,. , :c:--77 \ · .. ···•· . · 1~J)O- LF ·.·. /, .. $-,4 .. ~ $ ,·_· "··2:~1]:Jt@',tl ,< - ; ;. \ •" :oo~&CO~Cng,N.· .· ,. ·· . ·:i· toQ· Ls·. . $4Q().PJ $- -··· . . < 40.f)sQP

.----- · ·:·. :.: ·:. ··,,: _ _ ; . . ' ... ·

... ,·,··· ::-·.:,::-. .. 1:/t · ...

:,;- QESJGWPER:Mll'Tlf'«& (1°i%-) $. . 7i$1}~.: Tl;STIN.G $ERVlCliS (3o/ol . · · · .• $ t,t4.~i4,6· INSPliC,TJON SERVlCES (.Y/4;)' · $ . · 1~~9-~

•:-,. _.

TOTAL PROBABLECPST $ 18.~{(ifrl .

ffl% SHARED IM====f t '7]J

73

Sheriff Deryl Loar qn

t [)

~--------- Indian River County ------------

February 4, 2014

The Honorable Peter O'Bryan, Chairman Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3388

Re: Request for February 11, 2014 Agenda

Dear Chairman O'Bryan:

This letter is my request to be placed on the February 11, 2014 Board of County Commissioners meeting agenda. I would like to discuss the potential purchase and funding sources for replacement of our high mileage vehicles.

I have enclosed a Vehicle Summary Report and a Proposal to purchase fifty-three vehicles.

Please place this item under Constitutional Officers for the February 11 , 2014 Board agenda. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Sincerel: tJA

~Z:l/ffa-Deryl Loar, Sheriff

DL/ltj

Attachments

4055 41st Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 www .ircsheriff.org

(772) 569-6700

I•-- - - -- Ill ·1

~ -_ - --- ~-- l~-~~~- - .I

SUMMARY REPORT OF PAST VEHICLE PURCHASES

.i_ Vehicles purchased in 2 009 25 Crown Victoria's were purchased in 2010 25 Crown Victoria's were purchased in 2011 0 Vehicles were purchased in 2012 24 Dodge Chargers were purchased in 2013

CURRENT FLEET AS OF JANUARY 2014

205 Marked Vehicles 62 Marked vehicles have over 100,000 miles

78 Unmarked Vehicles 23 Unmarked vehicles have over 100,000 miles

PROPOSAL (53 VEHICLES) CURRENT VEHICLE Marked 80 2001 FORD CROWN VICTORIA

Marked 89 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA


Unmark 101 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA 1--------Marked 121 2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA

Marked 125 ·2003 FORD CROWN VICTORIA







Marked 152 2004 FORD CROWN VICTORIA ..
















Marked 185 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA - -Unmark 186 2005 FORD CROWN VICTORIA

30CHARGERS _ _, __ -· • ..

-MILEAGE REPLACEMENT VEHICLE

127,680 DODGE CHARGER




122,945 DODGE CHARGER ..


122,345 DODGE CHARGER -






















\ 110,177; DODGE CHARGER -·


·- -

COST

$29,269

$29,269 .~

$29,269 ---$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269 -·--

$29,269

$29,269 -·

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

$29,269

_ $878,~~

'-0 r--,

Unmark 515 2005 CHEVROLET MALIBU

Unmark 99 2002 FORD CROWN VICTORIA

2 CHARGERS -





4 TAURUS'

Unmark 112 2002 FORD EXPLORER





5 EXPLORERS

Marked 26 1999 FORD FlSO

1 FlS0 i

I Marked 485 1995 FORD iF450

Marked 110 2005 FORD iF1S0.4X4

Marked 233 2007 FORD F250

Marked 7 2006 FORD F1504X4

Marked 10 2006 FORD F2504X4

S F250 - --

--· ,. ~--

Marked 232 2007 FORD F250 ... Unmark 233 2007 FORD F250

---·· Marked 146 2008 FORD F250 SUPERCAB

3 F250 -~--··

f--- ·-·--

Marked 107 2002 CHEVROLET TAHOE

125,342

124,346

127,975

125,837

125,263

124,450

151,719

140,105

138,896

126,197

114,125

156,286

124,623

i 123,600

180,010

134,216

126,414

! __ ,..

i 114,794

92,944 -

! 108,940 !

I 118,076

DODGE CHARGER

DODGE CHARGER

-

FORD TAURUS

FORD TAURUS

FORD TAURUS

FORD TAURUS

FORD EXPLORER

FORD EXPLORER

FORD EXPLORER

FORD EXPLORER

FORD EXPLORER

FlSO EXT CAB

-·

·-F250 EXT CAB

F250 EXT CAB

F250 EXT CAB

F250 EXT CAB

F250 EXT CAB

---., F250 4DR -

F250 4DR -

F250 4DRI

i -

TAHOf1"

$22,077

$22,077

$44,154

$20,619

$20,619

$20,619

$20,619

$82,476

$23,654

$23,654

$23,654

$23,654

$23,654

$118,270

$23,893

$31,772

$31,772

$31,772

$31,772

$31,772

$158,860

$22,623

$22,623

$22,623

$67,869

$33,085

t-t--

Marked 108 2002 CHEVROLET TAHOE

2 TAHOES

Marked 111 2006 FORD --·----- -

E250 CARGO VAN

1 VAN

- -----~-

125,959 TAHOE

---

119,108 FREIGHTLINER/SWATVAN

-· ·---··

w "

TOTAL

$33,085

$66,170

$75,000

$1,514,762

00 t--

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION REQUEST TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION

/06]__

Any organization or individual wishing to address the Board of County Commission shall complete this form and submit it to the Indian River County Administrator's Office.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION INFORMATION

Indian River County Code Section 102.04(10)(b): as a general rule, public discussion items should be limited to matters on which the commission may take action

Indian River County Code Section 102.07(2): limit remarks to three minutes unless additional time is granted by the commission

NAMEoF1NDIVIDUAL0RoRGAN1zAnoN: (; 1_fbc&_ [c..._oNDNtc µa~/~

ADDRESS: ,4;:JDo Jfo 1;tt,R S~ PHONE: Lf~ 3 r3 / ~ 3 SUBJECT MATTER FOR DISCUSSION: __ \l.......,.,0~\. \.~u l)(J::-= ___ ---,--IS A PRESENTATION PLANNED?

IS BACK-UP BEING PROVIDED

IS THIS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION

WHAT RESOLUTION ARE YOU REQUESTING OF THE COMMISSION?

[Kj vEs

DYES

DYES

ARE PUBLIC FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRED? D YES

WHAT FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS REQUEST?

Transmitted to Administrator Via: Interactive Web Form E-Mail Fax Mail Hand Delivered Phone

MEETING DATE:

• NO

I X I No

0 No

• NO

F:\County Admin\ExecAsst\AGENDA\J'ubJlc Discu sion Items Fonn.doc Board Approved 11n/06

79

Office of the J ~ A INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

ADMINISTRATOR

Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator Michael C. Zito, Assistant County Administrator

TO:

FROM:

DATE:

SUBJECT:

MEMORANDUM


Joseph A. Baird County Administrator

February 5, 2014

Renewal of Employment Agreement

As County Administrator, I operate under an employment agreement with the Board of County Commissioners. The current employment agreement expires March 22, 2014.

Attached is a proposed agreement to be effective March 23, 2014. In summary, the significant changes are:

• Contract tenn reduced from a three year tenn to a 27 month tenn ending June 30, 2016. • Contract eliminates any renewal options.

APPROVED AGENDA ITEM Indian River Co Approved Date

BY: Q (Op ttph M 'J;;(U,nj FOi{) Febru~ 11, 2014

Administrator

Legal

80

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

AND JOSEPH A. BAIRD

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into on March 15, 2011 February 11, 2014 by and between the Board of County Commissioners oflndianRiverCounty, Florida, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter called County, and Joseph A Baird, County Administrator, hereinafter called Administrator, for employment effective March 23, ~2014.

WITNESS ETH

WHEREAS, Indian River County desires to employ the services of Joseph A. Baird as County Administrator; and

WHEREAS, Administrator desires to accept employment as the County Administrator for Indian River County; and

WHEREAS, two employees, the County Administrator and the County Attorney, as County officers, work directly for the Board of County Commissioners; and

WHEREAS, it is compulsory for the County Administrator to be a member of the Senior Management Class of the Florida Retirement System,

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:

SECTION 1. ADMINISTRATOR'S DUTIES

The Administrator shall be responsible for the administration of all departments responsible to the Board of County Commissioners, except the County Attorney and staff. The Administrator shall also be responsible for the proper administration of all affairs under the jurisdiction of the Board. The Administrator's authority and duty shall include, but not be limited to, the powers and duties as found in the County Code Section 101.05.1 (a. through u.) and 125.74, Florida Statutes.

SECTION 2. GENERAL POWERS OF COUNTY

It is the intent of the Board to grant to the County Administrator only those powers and duties which are administrative or ministerial in nature and not to delegate any governmental power imbued in the Board of County Commissioners as the governing body of the County pursuant to s. 1 ( f), Art. VIII of the Florida Constitution.

Page 1 of4

81

SECTION 3. ETHICS

Administrator shall abide by and perform all assigned duties in accordance with the ethical standards applicable to public officers, and all other applicable federal, state, and county laws, regulations and ordinances.

Administrator shall immediately notify the County Commission within three days of contact when an information has been filed by a prosecuting official against him, when indicted by a Grand Jury, or when arrested, for any offense or violation oflaw. The Commission shall determine if it is in the best interests of the County to:

a) Retain Administrator in his regular position pending court disposition; and/or

b) Place Administrator on leave with or without pay until such time as any charges are disposed ofby trial, acquittal, dismissal, conviction, or other judicial action; and/or

c) Initiate disciplinary action up to and including termination.

In the event that Administrator pleads nolo contendere or guilty, or is found guilty of any job related offense or any offense that would adversely impact the County or the employment status of Administrator, or which would tend to affect the Administrator's relationship to the job or fellow workers, or negatively reflect on the reputation of the County, Administrator may be terminated from employment, without severance or compensation per Section 9 Severance of this agreement.

SECTION 4. ANNUAL COMPENSATION

For all services rendered by Administrator, Administrator shall be paid a salary of one hundred ninety thousand, three hundred and seventy dollars and ninety six cents annually, payable in 26 biweekly installments of$ 7,321.96 as adjusted for necessary deductions. In addition to salary, Administrator' s compensation includes a car allowance of $350 monthly in the amount equivalent to that granted to employees eligible for car allowances. Administrator's salary shall be increased by any cost-of-living increase granted other county employees.

SECTIONS. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS

County provides employees with a number of benefits that are set forth in the Indian River County Administrative Policy Manual. These rights and benefits are available to Administrator on the same tenns and conditions that they are available to a full-time, regular non-contract employee; provided, however, specific terms of this employment agreement shall control and govern if there is any conflict with benefits and rights afforded under the County Administrative Policy Manual.

County shall pay all professional dues, continuing education, subscriptions, and certification fees for Administrator, in accordance with the usual and customary practice oflocal governments in Florida. The term continuing education includes travel, lodging, and per diem expenses. Under State law it is compulsory for Administrator to be included in the "Senior Management Service Class" of the Florida Retirement System. County agrees to make contribution into a county approved deferred compensation

Page 2 of 4

82

program equal to the maximum contribution allowable by law. County shall also provide health insurance dependent care coverage.

County Administrator may elect, once per calendar year, to submit to a complete physical examination, including a cardio-vascular examination, by a qualified physician selected by the County Administrator, the cost of which shall be paid by the County.

County agrees to provide and pay for a cell phone for the County Administrator. The County Administrator shall select a cell phone plan (including enterprise exchange and data) most appropriate to conduct the affairs of the County.

SECTION 6. CONTRACT

The Administrator acquires no property rights in employment but has only the contractual rights set forth or incorporated by reference in this employment agreement.

SECTION 7. TERMS

The employment contract i~ for tllree years from the commencement date written above until June 30, 2016. The contract is not continuing in nature. and antst ae reRei.ved for each subseqeent term. ReRO'Nals shall be under the same terms as this agreement or as otherwise a-greed to ay the parties, exeei,t that Seetion 4 Annual Compensation Hli¼)' be iRereased. Cmmty shall provide AdmiRistra-tor at least 30 days vnitten notiee in the e•1eRt of non reRe>1,ral.

SECTION 8. TERMINATION

This contract may be terminated by Administrator at any time and for any reason by resignation with 30 days written notice, in which case Administrator will be paid through the last day worked, or by the County, at any time or for any reason, by giving Administrator 30 days notice of termination. Any accrued sick leave will be paid in full up to a maximum of 400 hours, and accrued vacation leave will be paid up to a maximum of 15 weeks (562.5 hours), when this contract is terminated or not renev1ed. If the vacation cap is reduced to less than 15 weeks for general employees, the County Administrator's maximum vacation cap will be reduced accordingly.

SECTION 9. SEVERANCE

If County terminates this contract at any time, or in the e•;ent of Cooo-ty's failure to renew an effll=1lO:)'ffl.ent oontraet with Administrator under eqeally fa¥orahle terms, County shall pay Administrator five months severance. County shall maintain Administrator's health insurance premiums for the same period of time. In the event Administrator must resign because of serious life threatening illness, certified by a medical doctor, which makes continued employment an impossibility, or under circumstances constituting constructive discharge, Administrator shall be entitled to the same severance package as listed above.

Page 3 of4

83

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be fully executed at Vero Beach on the date set forth above.

Attest: J. K. BartonJeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of the Circuit Court and Comptroller

By -----------Deputy Clerk

Date - -------

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

By ______________ _

Bob SolariPeter D. O'Bryan, Chairman BCC Approved: Mares 15, 2011 ____ _

COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

rnhd.&,nd seph AlBaird

Approved as to legal form and sufficiency

Alan 8. Polackwich, 8rDylan Reingold, County Attorney

Page 4 of 4

84

Date:

To:

From:

Prepared By:

Subject:

Regular Agenda Item

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES

January 30, 2014


Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Service@

Arjuna Weragoda, P.E., Capital Projects Manager '6J

Sewer Feasibility Study for the North Sebastian Area -Results

UCP4101

DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS:

On August 20th, 2013 .. the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Work

Order No. 6 with Masteller and Moler, Inc. to provide professional services to investigate the feasibility of installing centralized sewer services in the North Sebastian area. The subject area was selected due to its proximity to the Lagoon, depth to water table and the economic benefits to the commercial properties.

EDUCATION/RESEARCH:

The Indian River Board of County Commissioners has made cleaning the Lagoon a focal point in their agenda. With regards to helping the lagoon the County has looked at various factors which may be contributing to the elevated nutrient loads and on October 15

\ 2013 the Board of County Commissioners passed a strict landscape and fertilizer ordinance.

Numerous symposiums have also looked at the potential impacts to the Lagoon from existing septic systems. Primarily, sewer systems help to ensure that wastewater that is discharged back into the environment is sanitary, safe and free of potentially harmful pollutants. The presentation on the Nutrients and Water Quality in the Indian River Lagoon by Dr. Brian Lapointe have indicated '- ~ __ ::_) approximately 1-million KG of Nitrogen per year added to the Indian River Lagoon via septic systems. These studies have confirmed that high levels of Aqueous 15 Nitrogen (615 N) in groundwater and surface water are a result of human waste. A well designed and installed centralized sewer system will prevent dissolved nutrients from entering the water table and ultimately help reduce the nutrient loading into the Lagoon.

ANALYSIS/ENGINEERING:

Masteller and Moler, Inc. evaluated three alternatives in the Sewer Feasibility study for the North Sebastian Area. The three alternatives included the evaluation of a gravity system, vacuum system and a low pressure system. Also, the low pressure system included the evaluation of the Septic Tank Effluent Pumping (STEP) system. The North Sebastian area evaluated in the subject study encompassed an area generally described as having a western limit of US Highway 1, an eastern limit of the Indian River Lagoon, a Northern

85

Limit of Indian River Drive connection to US Highway 1, and the Southern Limit as Main Street. Also, included in the study is an area known as Ercildoune Heights located north of Roseland Road west of US Hwy 1 primarily consisting of residential parcels. Since, the corridor along US Hwy 1 contained commercial developed and undeveloped parcels the analysis evaluated the cost of each alternative based upon an Equivalent Residential Unit or ERU versus per parcel cost. The subject study estimated a potential of 720 ERU's for the study area. The following table summarizes the findings for each alternative:

Alternative Project Cost Per ERU Cost

Gravity $ 5,000,000.00 $6,944.44

Vacuum (Gravity along US 1) $ 6,600,000.00 $9,166.67

Low Pressure (Gravity along USl) $ 8,600,000.00 $11,947.44

STEP $ 7,100,000.00 $9,861.11

The subject study recommended the gravity alternative as the preferred method for a centralized sewer system. The construction of the centralized sewer in the north Sebastian area will be accomplished on a phased approached. The area east of US Hwy 1 will be designed and constructed in the first phase. Ercildoune Heights and the area to the west of US Hwy 1 will be part of phase two. There are numerous benefits to be gained by construction of a sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system in the study area. One primary benefit of the sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system construction in the study area is the ability for many commercial areas to be developed without the need for considering the limitations caused by the use of septic systems which can ultimately serve as an economic benefit to the area and a TMDL reduction to the Lagoon.

FINANCING/FUNDING:

Currently there are no funding programs/mechanisms available to assist homeowners replacing failing systems or installing new systems, other than financing the impact fee. The impact fee can be financed for a 5-year period. Currently projects constructed as part of an assessment can be financed for a 10-year period. Although, the County has not financed any capital cost beyond a 10-year period in the past, other jurisdictions in Florida have financed capital projects for a 20-year period. Therefore, staff included a 20-year option in the table below. Staff has also explored grant prospects as a funding mechanism to offset some of the project cost. One such grant the staff is evaluating is the Cooperative Funding for FY 2014-2015 administered by St. Johns River Water Management District. Obtaining grant funds to help reduce the large capital costs will be critical to ensure project success.

Financing Mechanisms Parcels 5-Yr Plan - Avg 10-Yr Plan -Avg 20-Yr Plan- Avg Connecting- Monthly Payment Monthly Payment Monthly Payment

Share Study Area -Customers 100% $ 133.45 $ 76.23 $ 48.76

Note: The cost per ERU is based on $ 6,944.44 These cost do not include the impact fee charge of$ 2, 796/ERU

86

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the Board to Authorize/Approve the following:

• Determine the next phase.

• Present the findings to the City of Sebastian city council members.

• Publish the study on the County web site.

ATTACHMENT(s):

1. Due to the file size and enormity of the study, only the conclusions and recommendations from the Sewer Feasibility Study dated 1/24/14 are attached as part of the agenda. The entire study is available for viewing at the Board of County Commission Office located at 1801 zih Street, Building A in Vero Beach FL.

Indian River Co.

Administration

legal

Budget

Utilities

Utilities-Finance

F:\Ut ilities\UTILITY. Engineering\Projects - Utility Construction Permits\lRC • Sewer Feasibility Studies UCP # 4101\3. North Sebastian (M&M)\Agenda

· North Sebastian Sewer Feasibility Results.doc

87

ATTORNEY'S MATTERS: 2/11/14 TIME CERTAIN: 10:30 a.m. \ '2. A·

Office of n:;

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ATTORNEY

Dylan Reingold, County Anorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Anomey Kate Pingolt Cotner, Assistant County Attorney

MEMORANDUM

TO:

FROM:

The Board of County Commissioner~~

William K. DeBraal - Deputy County Attorney \

THROUGH: Dylan Reingold - County Attorney ~ DATE: February 4, 2014

SUBJECT: 10:30 a.m. Attorney-Client Session: Pelican Island Audubon Society, Dr. Richard Baker. and Dr. David Cox v. Indian River County and St. Johns River Water Management District, pending with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 13-3601

I request advice from the County Commission regarding settlement negotiations and strategy relating to litigation expenditures with regard to the cases styled Pelican Island Audubon Society, Dr. Richard Baker, and Dr. David Cox v. Indian River County and St. Johns River Water Management District, pending with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, DOAH Case No. 13-3601

Prior to going into private session, Florida Statute 286.011 (8) requires the Chairman to read the following statement:

"This is the commencement of the attorney-client session. The estimated time of the closed attorney-client session is 30 minutes. Present at the meeting will be Commissioners Wesley S. Davis, Joseph E. Flescher, Tim Zorc, Bob Solari and me, Peter D. O'Bryan. Also present will be Deputy County Attorney William K. DeBraal, County Administrator Joseph Baird, and a certified court reporter. At the conclusion of the closed attorney-client session this public meeting will be reopened." _ . _

1

i : 1 ~ - ;.,,t, rl1V?/ C:).

, Legal

·t'~udget Dept

! ,~Rl$k i•.:1 ;r. '-- ---- __ ._ _ __ _, 88

After the attorney-client session the Chairman is required by statute to state the following:

nhm

"The public meeting is hereby reopened; and the attorneyclient session is now terminated."

2

89

Dylan Reingold, County Attorney Wilham K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Kate Pingolt Cotner, .Assistant County .Attorney

County Attorney's Matters - B.C.C. 02.11.2014

Office of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

ATTORNEY [oB

MEMORANDUM

TO: Board of County Commissioners

FROM: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney \J~ DATE: February 5, 2014

SUBJECT: City of Vero Beach ("City") Water, Wastewater and Reclaimed Water Agreement

BACKGROUND.

On March 5, 1987, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board1o) adopted, and the City of Vero Beach (the "City") agreed to, Resolutions 87-13 and 87-14, in which the County granted franchises to the City to provide water and wastewater service to certain unincorporated areas of the County - namely, the south barrier island and areas on the mainland adjacent to the City ("Unincorporated Areas"). These franchises are set to expire in 2017.

Since mid-2012, former County Attorney Alan Polackwich and County administrative staff had on-again, off-again discussions with the City Manager concerning service to the Unincorporated Areas after 2017. Those discussions stalled. After a presentation by former County Attorney Alan Polackwich, the Board voted to present a water, wastewater and reclaimed water franchise agreement directly to the City Council.

The Board voted to propose that the City continue to serve the Unincorporated Areas, charging County rates. The Board also proposed that the City eliminate the 10% surcharge. The Board also voted to evenly split the City equalization charge and the County franchise fee with each party receiving 3%, so that rates would be consistent for all areas where County rates apply. Finally, the Board proposed that if during the life of the agreement the City was unwilling or unable to charge the County rates, the City could terminate the franchise agreement with termination resulting in the transfer of the water, wastewater and reclaimed water system in the Unincorporated Areas to the County. ·

Approved for February 11, 2014 B.C.C. Meeting County Attorney's Agenda

-----.. County Attorney

F:tA.11on1~Ji1l.,inda\GE.NERAL'tB C C\Agenda Mtmo-slU1ilitieJ (Waler & Sew,r /uuu) 1-29-14.dac

INDIAN RIVER CO. APPROVED

Administration

Coun Attorne Budget

Utilities De t . Risk Management

90

Board of County Commissioners February 5, 2014 Page 2 of3

On January 21, 2014, the County Attorney presented the Board's proposal to the City Council. At the meeting, the City Council voted to unilaterally charge County rates and eliminate the 10% surcharge. The Council, however, rejected the split of the equalization charge and franchise fee and the County's operation of the utilities in the event the City could no longer maintain County rates. Thus, although the City Council voted to eliminate the 10% surcharge, the City intends to charge a 6% equalization charge. The City Council directed City staff to negotiate a water, wastewater and reclaimed water agreement with the County that is similar to the agreement between City and the Town of Indian River Shores (the '"Shores Agreement").

The County Attorney now seeks guidance from the Board as to how to proceed with negotiations with the City. The County and the City have significant differences of opinion as to the ownership of the utility facilities, the value of the City's water and sewer and reclaimed water utility system and the right of the City to serve the Unincorporated Areas after 2017. The City Council's decision leaves the Board with three options.

The first option is to enter into a new franchise agreement with the City that is similar to the Shores Agreement. This agreement would bind the City to their unilateral decision to charge County rates and eliminate the 10% surcharge. The franchise agreement would also require the City to match the County rates, even if such rates are modified by the County in the future. The franchise agreement also would include the ability to terminate or renew the agreement after 15 years. If the Board chooses this option, I recommend that the franchise agreement should include whereas clauses that acknowledge that the City and the County disagree with respect to issues of ownership and the permanent ability of the City to serve the Unincorporated Areas and that the franchise agreement in no way is to be deemed as a waiver by either party's right to raise those issues in the future.

The second alternative would be to authorize the County Attorney to pursue the appropriate litigation to resolve the key disputed issues. Both the City and the County have received legal opinions from their respective outside counsel that support each side's position. Such litigation could be lengthy and costly for both the City and the County as it will most likely involve both parties hiring outside counsel with specific expertise in utilities law.

The final option would be to take no action at this time. The franchise agreement is not set to expire until 2017. Although the constituents in the Unincorporated Areas would not have the protection of a franchise agreement that could be used to enforce the City's unilateral decision, the County would not be bound by a long term franchise agreement.

RECOMMENDATION.

The County Attorney recommends that the Board authorize the County Attorney's Office to negotiate a franchise agreement with the City that is similar to the Shores Agreement. The franchise agreement however should include whereas clauses that acknowledges that neither party is waiving its rights to their respective positions with regards to ownership of the utility facilities and the City's alleged right to permanently serve the Unincorporated Areas. Such a franchise agreement would bind the City to its commitments to our constituents and at the same time avoid protracted, expensive litigation between the two public entities.

F: '.At:amey\Lind1J\GENERAL\B C Cl4ge,ida M,mto.r\Utilili~~ (WQler &: &w~r lUM11.) J-29-14.doc

91

Board of County Commissioners February 5, 2014 Page 3 of3

ATTACHMENT(S).

• Water, Wastewater, and Reuse Water Franchise Agreement between the Town of Indian River Shores, Florida and the City of Vero Beach, Florida, dated October 1, 2012

DTR:LAC Attachment( s) as noted above

F:1.Attom,y\Llndo\GEN£fUL\B C C\Agt11d!>M.ent.f».lUlilititf (Water & .s:e--, J:uues) J-29-14.doc

92

;

ji WATER, WASTEWA'fER, AND REUSE WAT!;R FRANC,H,~E.AGREl:MENT ,., . : . . . . . . .. . . . . - . ·· . .-. . .

jJ BETWEEN

THE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER.SHp~E$, F~QRIDA

AND

THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, FLORIDA • , • : • • • ~ > •••• · -· ••• ' ,·. ' •• :

;:: . . THIS WATI:R, WASTEWATER, AND' REl}SE WATER .'FRANCHISE AG~EEMENT (hereinafter "Fra'nchise Agreeimerf) is er,t~r~q :ibtiu~s ofthe 1st ~ay of odfober; 2012~ (hereinafter "Effecli\'.e bate.'') :byJ:lfld betw~_eri 1hf?~X6wri .. o[lnclian River Sh.or~$: Florida (hereinafter "INDIAN RIVER SH0RE§''):and 'lhe City· of Vero Beach, Flq}ida;(herein~ftel'"VERO BEACH"). . . . . . . .. . .· . .

J~ \~Hl=R.EAS, .IN0IAN RIVER SHORES andVEROJBEA.CH:,are municipal COQ)Of~t}Qn$t(uly ir1corporated, validly e~i$tihg; a114'.iQ g~q~:-ii~ij~frig\~ija~rtb~.laws of th~:$ffit~ ·pfflprida, with: all .governmental, ce>rpC>~a,t~;-;~[:i<t pr6r>,'ti~ta&.:poW~rs:tQ $nab!¢· . tl ·· , - - .. - . ·· ....... -~ . ... _, . ... _ . ... t'-:.., .. i- , . - , ,, .. !,, ... -· ! - ~~y- _ •. .

th~tn? fo condlJ.ct municipal government, ,perform .' rni.ir:iic.lp-~tJun'cti,ons; ·and render m~pidp~I s~rvi~s . a~d, consi!tent therewith; er.tph :,h~_s \h_¢i-~p6w~r #rj~ .• aut~9rily . to ex~cqt~ and deliver this Franchise Agreementand to .earl)' ou11ts.respect1ve obhgat1ons hefeu:nder; and · · · ·

:,, • l

_:-,. .. 1~; .

U- ; WHl=REAS,pursuantto such municipal_p_ow~rs:VE~QJ~EBCHjs:in the.business off(Utni$hing water,.·.w~s.tewater, and. reu~e Watef µ~jlify '.s~ryic~s'ia11~"~ny'.comp6nent of su¢h :service$Within and withoutthe corporate limits:.'<>f\ii;.R6J3'S,A.cif and . -·~ -· ; . . . .' • . ·. - . ', : .

1;; ~ .

:~ • YJHE~EAS, VERO BEACH provides 'N~Je~ c!.l'ld '«a~tf;!'tJ.~te.r,.utilify s~r:vlce$ within th~;- co.rporate. limits of INDIAN RIVER SHORl::S -: plJr$u~ntJo,·f@ncJii~·e§ , gijnted by INSIAN RIVER SHORES in those certain franchlse:tesolu:tions numbered 412' and '413 datecLbctober -30, 1986; and .

lfi •· WH~REAS, in addition to such services, VERQ ·a gAQH;prpvides rew~e water utij!Jy~ervi~~withintne INQIAN RIVER SHOREScommunity;·and· ..

i;; : :; .· WHEREAS. pur$uant to said franchise resoluti9ns the -f~n~hises ~re set to

· ~xpire )n October 2016; and 1: .

i' WHEREAS, In anticipation of the expiration.of those franchises, INDIAN RIVER SHORES and VERO . BEACH have negoti~ted in 990~ faith together ang have delemiinec;I it to: be a,ppropriat~ and in the besti11t~r~it-ofthe_idespective municipalities toi,(~nter into a new franchise agre~ment together·:tpr .wat~r; VJEi$tewat(,3r, and reuse w~ter utility service within the corP.orate limits of INDIAN RIVER SHORES; and

,, WHEREAS, this Franchise Agreement has been duly authorized by all action required to be taken respectively by each party1 has been duly executed and deliv~red

Page 1 of 9

93

.,.

ll .U . i:!

:-·~ !(

by (:\h~~. anQ ponstitutes a valid and binding ob1igc1tion. of ec1¢h party enforceable in accprd~nce with its. terms, · ·

Vi . ~ .

ii :NOW, JHEREFQRE, in •consideration :?f-tt1eJoreg,qing ~11<ftht mutµaJ. l:>.~nefrts to be/i;d~~ived from compliance by the p~rties W~h. fbf'~~y~~~flff'.C9ntain,~d.: t:,ereln, and ot~~riifood. and valuable consiq_eratjon, the r~¢eipf:~rj~.,~i:Jffi_ci~nqy 'of.~hich are hereby .ackno.wledged by the parti.es, .the parties agree ·asfolloWs: · · . ·

. ; ~ . ''"! . ; . . . ":i

•.!

Section 1. Adoption of ."Whereas" Clauses. The for~going _·"Wher~a~".- clauses ·are adbptfcfahd lncorporatecfhereiri.. . . .. . .· . .. . . . . . . .

}j -~ j . . . .

sehtit>h 2. e~nditlons _ Precedent. Notwiths~n~i.ng;~c!-f.'lY.tNrigJ9.;1~. q~:mtr~ry,: contained hefoih} ihjs:· F'rahehise Agreem~nt shall m}f . bec9_m~'~e.ffe~tlv.e?iilitil'-\·and ,unless the · ai:!PrC>P:riate: fr.anchi$e ordinance o_r resolution· js fq,ifr@}y):1dpP,t~4:_b.t fhe"T~wri Council of JNDIAN. RIVER SHORES approving this Franctiise:-AgreementJ~·nq_;gr~nting ·to VERO E}~C~ the Franchis~ contemplated ·herein. . . . ·. .. ..

r, ,. ; . sJhti6n 3. "Franchise Grant INDIAN RIV·'=~- $HQ~E$. hereby· grants to VERO BS,A~ff,: with· all -rights : and privileges a_ttend~nt-tt:1er~t9;. :an exclusive· Fran<;hise to cohstruct, maintain, a"rid operate water, wa,~iew~i~r~ ary_~-j~u~~'-V/?t~r uti_lity. flY$t.ems w~hin''the corporate limits of INDIAN:_RIVER :SHORE:S:,(h.er~i!J~fte~:;,$ _~.rvice. ~rea") and to~provide water., wastewater, and reuse wafer :~tilify \serv1c:esi to customers-'·currently _sejved by VERO BEACH. INDIAN RIVER SHORES may grant addition.al non-.exclusive r~u$~ water·franchises to customers not currently being served by VERO BEACH,. and m~y .' g"rant . further non-exclusive reuse water . franchises . w.ithin the John's Island c9!11rn!,inity.: :Such water, w~stewater, and r~u~~y,r~J~t;9!i!!1Yt~Y,$feril$ ,$h~ll:c~nslst of all w~t~r;( wast~water, and reuse water faciliti~~ ,(inclugilig/,pip~¢(.~xtlires, :mains, valves, meters, t.ank$, lift stations, .etc,, and tel~phQIW _ao~i .electric,Hnes/fpt.wqt~r.·w-astewater, ·and -f ~use· w.ater utili.ty system use) fe>r the-purt>bse: :o,fsu.pplyf~g :w_a_tE=lr(W~~teWater, _and re,ps~ ;wate"( utility· serv.ice. to _INDIAN . RIVER" S~H-OR.E:$~~Jtifilnhabit§lrits ,'thereof, and p~rso11s ano entities beyond the corporate Hmits ·ther~of.'.Atth~,enq :ofthe· franchise

. p~i'iqo, incJu.ding any extensio"n thereof, all water. a:nd,.w~tew~teffacliities in INDIAN R,IY.i=~ SHORES, uriless specifically ex~lud~d, sha:U:b~.the·ptop:erly of)NDIAN RIVER S.~OijES . . Qwnership by INDIAN RiV_ER SH.OR;!tsll~U .rj_~t ihclude the storage_ tanks, tij~ ,n..orth riV¢.i' crossing, the transn,i$slon m~ins -a~s9.cia,Je,d yiiith lhe nonh river cros$lng ·and :the eigt)l~en~inch (18") tran.smis$ion main.po A:"1~A~$.Puth.•of,Fred· R. Tuerk Drive, ~~ich)conriect the north nver crossing to the. VERQ:$.EACH¾ater .system -south of the. !~DIAN RIVER SHORES lim.i~. on the barrier isl_~rid:_· A.(-t~~ ~nd ·.ofthe Franchise p~ricid, IN.DIAN RIVER ~HORE$ sh,all ow.n · any ·line . lri~t~_lle<f:· during thE! original .f-;r;~n;c~ise for potable w~ter or wastewater; -arici which wasJat~r converte(J to .reuse vi~t~r, Any reuse lines. 1.,1nder this Agreement instalJ~cl byVJ=RO :l3.EAC_H ~t the expense ~frl~QIAN RJ_VER SHORES users shall, at th~ end, ofth~ F.ranctJisf:l, · be the property of !~DIAN RIVER SHO~f;S. · Any reuse lin.es installed ,by VERO•. BEACH under this ~gr~~ment ~tVERO BEACH_exp~n~e snail, atthe end of<the Franchise,:be the property of VERO BEACH. . . d . ;' ti t : f !

Page 2 of9

:.1 · ;

94

....

sehtio~ 4. Initial Franchise Term and Renewal. The iriiti~lterm ofJl')is Franchise Agfe~rnent a_nd the Franchise granted ·hereund¢r :~h~.U-,b~j9r·.·a petiod.9f.Thirty (30) ye~r~·:pommenci~g on the E;ffective Date. l~DIAf\J ,RIX~R .. S.HQRES s?~I' have t~; opt19rrto renegotiate the terms of the Franc:h1se Agr~1?n;ier1t _b~f9re. the:} fifteenth (15 ) ye~rly :anniversary date from the Effective D~te·;or:,t9 ,te.tniiriate,Jh~ Franchise Ag'r,~em,ent on the fifteenth (15th

) anniversary date. IND!AN RIYE;f( SH,9RE;S, should it de~ke to renegotiate or terminate, shall give Fout (4)Y~~rs ~otic~ pefore the fifteenth (t~~):anniversary date, otherwise the Franchise shall cgptinue .. iJr1int~rrµpted under the te@$and conditions of this Agreement. This·Franchjs~Agre.em~nt ant;l the.Franchise g~nt~c;I hereunder shall automati~liy renew for· ~cl~itio_b~I Fifteer\ {1.5) year terms un:iess:eitherparty shall send written notice to the p\h~fparty·arJea~tfour (4) years prifjj"t9. the date of expiration of the initial term anq th~re~fte(su~h s~b~equel)tterm as tnec~~e may be. In no event shall this Franchise Agr~~m~ntpl"th~ Franchise terminate prto.rtq expiration of any Fifteen (15} year period; except as otherwise:,provided herein to(d$fault. . . .

ti ; \ Section S. Additional Customers. VERO B~CH .. n,~y· Provide. water;, wa~tewater,

. ariglo.f.J reuse water utility services to neW·.CLJ~tqh)e,rs :9utsi9~:hf those areas· of the S~fViCe Arei:! '.served by VERO· BEACH as pf _tbej~ffe~tive. :P~t~ :'1:>f ·this Franchise Agr~~rpent only upon request of such new clistorner$· and.after ~pproprfate approvals by;!IND!AN RIVER SHORES. . . .

n. ! .

sJbtio1n 6. Utility Rates and Fees. The rates for Water, wastewater, ~nd reuse water ul!ljty/$erv1ces established and charged by VERO ;~~-C.l:i: f9r>ci:i~omers within the $eJ;V.i~ Area shall be no.greater than the r~tes.forsucfrlltilitys~rvi~~ aspµblished by th~]ridJan River County Department of Utility Sel'.Vfol:!~;or:•its.<sljccessor (hereinafter "IRC uwjties''l for the various rate classifications s~rv~~- u~~wise, anv:ahd all .. other fees and ¢ij~r9e,s established and imposed by VERO BE.A.½H ~lj~)l 'co_rr~sporyd fo ~uch fees and cij~rg~s asses~ed ~y IRC Utilities and shaU be n9 gre~ter tt\~n those imposed by I RC Utiliti~s :in each rate dassification. All .fees and charg.es/rel~ted ·fojire hy~rants, if any,

· sn,~ll)iJso be· in conformance with such fees· or cha[g¢~ :,@pos~c(by lridi'3n River County ofllRP Utilities; The foregoirig rates, fees, and ch~rges s~all; Q°e fJdopted and applied to e~cn<customer's utility billing commencing w.ith tn~:-cµstc:>triefs first i.ltility bill that is p~9d~~ subsequent to Thirty (30) days from th~,:Eff~qtive •D,ate:, · The :rates, fees, :a11d otne.r ¢harge~ assessed shall be adjusted byVERQ'.J3EACH Wttbin a reasonable time a({ef':~ny adjustment .by IRC Utilities of its . corr~~pond.ing :r~t~s,. 9ha,rg~s. and fees. Vl=RO: BEACH shall provide the Town Manager oflNDIAN RIVER$H08ES for review a~cl' :cqm·ment any proposed rate or fee adjustments n6·-·1ess thai:1 Thirty {30) :days before the Jt~justment is scheduled 10 go before .the ·· VERO ·. BEA.CH ·city Council for c?

1hsideration.

S~ctiJn 7~ Developer Agreements. VERO 1;3EAGH .sh.all have the authority ~o enter irit.9. 'agreement$ Witti developers of real estate prqjepts. and .. o.th~r-consumers within INDIAN RIVER SHORES. Developer agreements entered int<> l:>y VERO BEACH shall b~ fai~. Just, and non--discriminatory, and gene1:plly have the sam¢ content as developer agreements for projects within the corporate lir:njts of VERO BEACH and shall require

:: . ; !·

L Page3 of9

95

co~seiht .of INDIAN RIVER SHORES. Such c1greei:i,~nts in~Y in¢1lJd_e ·9µt, fife 'n.ot limited to p,rbVisions relijting to: .

·,,:-j · I

[;j:; (a) Advance payment of·contributiors in . .ai,d pfcp~~!r~c.}[q~ tqJinf:lnce.water, wastewater, or reuse. water utility system,expansio·n }mq/pr.:e~t~hsio,n .· .. · .· .

. ~ • . . . ' ' ' ' . . ' .... : ~=. . . ·~ . . . . :·

;{ /(b) Revenue , gµar~ntees ·or other · such W.raogen,~!lt~:,,.'~s :n,ay ', make . tne exRaiision/eid.~nsion selfsupporting. ·.

1

rrr · · · ...... ·· · · · · · · (c) Capacity reservation fees.

\· ~ .. ri :Jd) . Pro rata allocatiqn of w.a~e.r ,flncJ. ~~st~W~ter, i·p!~ht.;:·~~r.>,a,ns,ion/main

extet:i}lon ch~rges between two o(m.ore ·~evelcip~rs.: · ·· .·· · · · · < < · ·. · · · ·

ri~f 9liiij~ii~YiC!~f~iWJJ,i1it~\ti~c~J~~ . Sel:tion 9, Use of,Facllities . . · INDIAN RIVER:SHORES:grahfa:••toNERO·BEACH .in

.. • cc@9~ptfo'n,~lth'1~~;,frfi~9~is~:~~_rjte,~:~~ti~~~~f~Jili~~li~o~l.gt!,v;J~~~iJq;:9PP~PY/~md· . rutil1?e:;_~IL.ex1sting; watE!L.~.nd wastew~t~r.·. µt1hty ;:c1~s~ts.{~ncl~Ja91hti,es:,oft lNPIAN ·,RIVER · ''s~:oA~$ .~·;\rri~Y. be,>ne~d~~··;'.bf ·y~g9·)~-~~9f.f.{f9(?~~H<irro.~:h~J~iif'J,th,ls/f ~n.c~ise · :>A9feernent;,Jhi~of tcJn~mis~ Agree.ment · doessnot pontem'P.1ate:ff10i}'.sttaUSftt,e'.deemed: to

::1~~r:t1::~n~¾f1t~t::,a;i~,f w~i,,,~.;~•,~,iit~::~ls . ,,,section, 10;,Easements ,: .and ·:Oth_ertRights;, ;YsBQ~_Fl¾.: :.h.~ll;.·b~x~,~ c;\II. :rights,

:pr,v.it~;ge~/:'e'~~~iii~"'~~t,1iq~r;s·e.~l1e~te~91ds}.pi~~,ctipf iye/rlijbt, ......... d 1f g~W·)4 ,'tj•#~ -:pu~uc · a~q :prlv~t~ toa:tis, rjghts":of~w.~y; hig!iway~; stre~t~/apq 9ttiei{a.rea·~,:6jn·ed;;held,. and/or . us~dJii connection with the. constroctioh;·recoi'i'sffoction; :;instaiiatlonffrnaintenance, and

· f~iiW~ri,t:·tA~~t$:;tlt:;;;~;Wit~i~f ~K~~~;\~~~1~;f ~\tf ~?ititr:;:~~~. needed b VER0·.BEACHfor erformance oftnis,Franchis·et.O:::··reemenffl?An ·· ·e •. ense .• ~. ,,,•.:,.: ... Y, . , .. ___, .· ·.· ,._ .· . _.. : _. ;. , , p , .. . •; ··.,c·, · ,, . • . .. ·. ·:· •. • _., .• .. • •... ,,,,, .. .... .. .-., •.. ,·.-:,, ·.•·.~ ----"'· · ·, • • , · . .• _. . , .. . ,., • • · .. y · .. ~ . iOQ~r:r~d by>!Nl?IAN RIVER ~HOR.ES in proviging·such· a~~i_st~nqe-sh~IJ :p~-r~imputsed b 'NERO·BEACH. ... . ... · .· 1r 0:i · ····. · sJ'ction 11; Consideration •. In consi~~r~1ion•ofJhe F'r:t:1riQhlse,~i')~ Jhe_. otjier.rights and tlvile ; es-- ranted tiereirlfo VERO BEACH: . ·. . . ·.· . . . ;. . . . . : . . . .. P, ..... 9 .. .. 9..... . ... ... .... . . . . .-· , r -- · -~-~ ·- i

!-} . . ; • )(a) ·. : Vi;:R0 BEACH ,shall prpyid,e, .·at1_t~}~~9.. ·~~R~fi~e.; ni~·ir:tJe.n~n~e •. r~pair:s, ar:if:l:{~plac~m~nts of -the 'Wat~r. ,wcistewater,.·~nd• r~.u~~;Waterj:utilityl fagiliti~s t.1sed by V~RCf!3EACH in iH; performance of this Fra:nch1~ei.A.gi-~ern~nf · 1

, : . · . • • • ·, . ,, . ... • ... . ... • .

!} . j . , • . - . : . ' ' .• . . . . ·-

ls: ::'.(b) VERO BEACH sh~ll .n9tcharga the.T,en.p~rc.~nt(1.0%) surcharge currently . appli~d to water and wastewater· use ct:iarges 'incutf~q tjy:clJ&totriefs :served by VERO

! -~- . . . . . .

Page4of9

96

,·

,.:

;.i i" ) ' \

BEACH in the Service Area. The elimination of such charg~ stia,JI p§ effectiye with each cuilOmer's first utiUty billing which is subsequent to 30.days after the Effective Date.

;' . .

;, (c) VERO BEACH shall not charge impact fees,, c<mrect1on.:9hc;!rge~. capacity ch~rges,. assessments, capital recovery charge$, or any form the_reof io · customers with1n;th.e Setvice Area that are exi.sting andOrece1virig s.erv:i~eJrom:VEROBEACH on thel·Effective Date.. The expense· for any · cap it~( imptove.rnents · urid~rta.ken. by VERO BEAC_H .wiUiirt the- Service Area to serve such exis1.ing CU$'te;,tjl~rs :shall pe porne solely an~. qqmpletely by VERO· BEACH. Notwithitanciiog)h~ f()re.·goJ11g:Jarig~~ge to the coijtr~ry. Su.ch restriction on fees, ·charges, and. oth~r:a~~es?.m~nl~. sh~ll riot apply'tO aliy·ne~ conne.ctions for any n~w services, whether a~ existing or 'iie\Y customer.

i:.t : : . . . ·-. -· . j;; ·.'' -

Seetii>n 12~ Service Standards. VERO.BEACH:shaU.constr,uct; m_aintain, ahd operat~ all}}ji$ter~ W.a~teWatet; and reuse water facilrtie$ ~nd ,systems !IJ -~coord?-nce with the applica~le, re9ul~Wons. of the Fed.~ral Government·::~n~ Jtl~J3~t~.>q(Fl_ori_da:;: as well as me~t.:~Jl lev~l"'.of-s~rvlce standards' pursuant let appljc~ple,cqrnpr¢hf:!risi\ie1 p.lans. The qu~niify ~hd · qµ~lity of water deliv~red ·shall at aU tlrnef~~- ~rl~:_i'~i:Q.a~t1 )1otinferior to the

:ap'RliC.~b]e .~t~[)qards for public water supply a11d: o,h,er..iapplic.~~ le, \TIJl~~;-:r~g1Jlati¢n$ a i1d st~~d~rds now or hereafter adopted by t1_1e Fe,der~J: G9ve,rrfm.~nt:"and· the · State of Flor.id~l The quantity and quality of wastewatE:!r serv1~e· pro:,i1i:l~d-and sqld shall at all tim~s:·~e and remain ncit inferior to tl)e. appliga~J~; •-st~pdarg~ifor p_4bli~>:wflstewater se'.r§Jic~. and.'other ~pplicable rules, regulations an~:sta11d~rdifnowpr here~fter adopted .byi~h~jFederal Government-and the. State of .lflqrida; VER.0.:~~0H shall supply all water-to. consum~.rs through meters which ~hall. accurat€:!ly.f·neastJre the amount of w~}er;supplied in accordance with normally accepted utility standards. · . H . . .

Section 13. · Manner of Service. ln performance of th!s Frar.ichlse Agreement VERO B'itACH shall: . . . . .

!!. ··: .

!:j ja). -Provide continuous (subject to unavoidgble. ,.interruptions or outages), aqfq~~te, _a11d . pusto~ary water, ·_wastewatE)r, . :ary~·. re4s~>iw.~t~r.:::~tiHty . services to customers 1n, the Serv1ce Area. Water shall be provided at a minimum of 40 PSI at the i~- • •• . 1• ' • • • • • a ·. , ' • • •• • • • •

m¢.ter:pfany user. n . ; lJ ; ;(b) Operate, regularly m~intaln. an9 .. Prornptly.:r~p~ir.:~he_ri ;riecessal)' th~

w~t~(. ;-wastewater, and reu$e water utility fac;ilities and. sy$ten:i$.' in order to continue aq~qLi~t~ service to the Service Area.. ·

! •l' . · l

[;! ; kc) .. :Maintain s_1,1fficlent waterpre$SLJl'l;t and water .m~lhs of-sufficient size with fir~ hydrants and .other fa~ilities nepessary in the . water · i.Jtmty sy~tE:}m -t~ ·. allow fire pf;Qte~ion at all. areas within the Service Area receiving seryice~ from VERO BEACH.

\:i : ' .. . . .

H · .. ;(g) Maintain wholesale emergency iriterconn~~t :agr~ements and int~rcqnnects as appropriate in Qrder to contim.ie tt:> pr.<>vide adeq·uat~ ~ervic;:e to the S~rvi6e Area in the event of outages,. excessive demand, or othe(related events.

. ' . :! ::;

Page 5 of9

97

. : (e} Deal with customers in the Serv.ice Area in a manner no less favorable thJn VERO i3EACHiS dealtng~ with its customers served inside Its own corporate botihdarie.s.

;;_:

s~~tion 14. Capital. lmprovement Plan. Vl;R9 ~EACH sh~II annually provide the draft ·bf its detail.ad. Five. (5) . year .c.apital improy~inefrit plan, ~pecifip to .. the water, wastewater; ~nd reuse water utility systems Witnin th,e Ser:yice Area, to the INDIAN RIYERt SHORES Town Ma_nag~r :and ·Town .. Plrmner ·to( reyi$w' and ~mment. Such cofuments shall be provided to VERO- BEACH within Thirty (3.0) clEiy:rfor, consideration ln !lits:bompletion- of the. capital improvement plan, whi&h 'plan sliall thereafter_ be pr6;vJded to INDIAN RIVER SHORES Town Manager.

!.,· ,: t

;:;

S~'ction 15. Location of Facilities. All wat'3r; wa.ste~~t~r. ~ndre(.!se water utility sy~terrt·taqiHti~s shall be ·so located· and so cp11itr4c;\~d · as )o.JnterfE3re as little as pr~ctip?bfe with. traffic over the str~~ts, a,ll~ys, .. Q,ri~~¢s;>a.nclj:luplic, pla~es, and with re~sOnable egress from .ahd ingress lo abutting prop;erfy; The ,l9c~ti9ni~r relop?tion of am~su'ch facilities shall be made under the supe.r,vi~i9h:a_nd :wit!:l]h~·appre>val .of such retfre$~!'1tatives as the governing body of -INDIAN RN'ER ~HORl;S inay: ·designate for th~. putpose,·:but not so as unreasonably to. inter:fereJNith. the pro,pet construction, m~in~ehance, repair; or .operation of the water, w~~t~wa~er, ,pr reuse water utility sy~te.his by VERO BEACH. Wh.ell ~my. portion e>f(~. stte~tJs. ~x~ayated by VERO B~Cf;I in the .location or" relocation qt any utiliw.fa.cilW~~(th~:Oportio.rf of.the. street so ex~ay~t~d shaHf within ·a reasoriable time and :~s i~arty. ·as,_'prc1qtk;able after such ei~ay*ion, be .replaced byVERO BEACJ; at- it;; expensei,t;lnd· in :as:0goqd :condition. as it w~~;;,a(tlle ·timE;! of s~ch ~xqavation; Provided; h,ov.ievef_,:th~tE16.thing :;herein contained shiillpe construed fo. tn~_ke INDIAN RIV~R:SMORESJi~l;>I~ to YERO 'Bl=ACH for any cq~tqf.: expense·. in• ccmnection with the constrllCtio.n/'r~con~fri.iction, •repair· or relocation ofiJhe utiiity facilities in street~. highways, or otberpuQl\q'.plapes rnaci~ r1eqe~sary·by the wi~Jenihg, grading, paving or"oth~rwis.e irnproying.J>YJNP.lf.N RIYEFtSHQRES of any of th~ Pt~enf6i' future stre.ets, avenue.s, an~ys, tl,ritig~~/highw1:1ys; e~s~ments, or ,e>ther p4pli~!pl~~es used or occupied PY VERO BEAOH,·,eicept;: ,hoviever/VERO BEACH s~~lhbe enthled to reimbursement of its costs as .may be p'rovided bf l~w. · ~ . . . .. ('!

Siction· 16; ,,Liabi!ity and Indemnification •. . lf\l,Dlt\N Rl"tE~ ~HORES s11aU in no way bijHici~le. or resp:oilsible for ariy acc_id~nt or datn,~g~ tha( h1ay ·QCCLlr ih ,the construction, mijlntenanCt:l,c or operation by VERO HEACH'· qfJhe ut1Hty facilities hereunder, and the a¢cep\ance of this .Franchi~e shall be de¢mtad ~n :ilgr~etn~htpnJhe part· of VERO Bf;ACH to ·indemnify IN DiAN RIVE;R SHOR~S and h~id it .hf:l.rrt1l~~s against any and all li~bmty; loss, ·co$t; d~til~g~ or ~xpe.n$~ whiGtl may accrue.to lNPIAN 'RI\/ER SHORES by\ re·~son of the negllgemt:~ or misconduct of VERq BEACH in the. construction, maintenance; repair, ·or operation- of the water, wastewater, or reuse water utility sy'~tems pursuant to this Franchise Agreement. .

S~ction 17. Quantity of Reuse Water. VERO BEACH sh~II commit to providing a mj,iirriµm of 2.4 MGD a~nual average daily flow (ADF) of reuse water capacity to

Page 6 of9

98

.;'-·::·('_.::· _:·:.-::· .-_:::·:·~j:: '.

. ' .. ---_..: '. ;.~: ~;;.·:_:-:)~}{:.~\ /:/ _-~ _,:::-·:\-··. --~ --i· ~:

- ·_;;_(,_:_ -\;_;,,::-: .- -:-; ~--,

_ ... :,- 1,. ' · • -,t fevfous'.'a -t ·-- ,- ntiJ5&tweerf;\IERO-BEAC8 arid 'INDIAN RIVER-SHOBEs::t,f''ardih ·· .. -'._',~•-f,:_,_;_•z ,_,;_:::,:•-:_:,,·._: __ :_:,_·_:_:._:_:,,.•_•;_•.): -' . · .. J~ch seNl,g~ '61fi~'iiv"t!Nbii\N a1vi::~4sHoRES Resoibi16bs~u'rn ?,,t,,·?'2il~~cfi1Jl . . - - . .- · . -·/da)kd '&bfo~' ,30~:t1'~'.se·1lsti~l(termlh~t~Ya'.~d',be$l,1BeIS8.:-<•· .. ;cr,:~ ~:if'. __ .. ,.· ,''iq',WbfthJ · -~itrr! •·· .·· .. 'TO~,~Oiiricifof,JNDL<\N R1vE\(S1J08E$9r~ntln~;t~~- . ·. .• • . ,e,~,;rhere;d.

~--•,:~- .. -::;--,~;- -;,•-''";-:' ~ ::··

\-~}/:~\{(:; .. ..

;~~:t~?:l}~:.;,? /t.:. -- . ~~:~t:;l~-~-:-.~~ ·: .. : ·-: \;--

;- ~, : ·• ·.:. ·,·.· __ , . ..

:\Y;\.-._, ,._ . .:_;_. · ~f}tpelive&,)vhen _made by reg)ste~ed :·or~.-~ttifi~d;,io:tal s:b~ll~o~~fdeemed :-~omplet~

·-... ·.- .. .

Page7 of 9 · ·

99

to~);tern;iination, the parties shall negotiate in goop_J~itn a n:~sqlutiou of such dispute and faiffng/fesolution will submit the dispute to non~l:iirJqi_ng m~diatipr, Witti_ ~ Florida Circuit CdurtrcerlifiecJ. mediator with the cqst of such n,edi9tion dividC3d. eql:la.lly l:>etween the pa'ctles'. If the-recisonableness or propriety of the teJTn\n~tion :ii &till frf ai$pute thereafter, eit~et,-P,attY may- seek. redress in a .cpurt·otcomp~t~~ullris_~i~t;qr, (vvith .. right.of appeal in eittiettjlarfy); ,No,withstanding ·-the .foregoing, the: parti~tin.:_Jh_eir.: qwn qi~ctetion may · g1nf1~u~h -~?c!itiohaft1me to·the other P~rt)' fqr: ~e>~pljanq~:ts\n~Pe.ssities in the .. case r!:}q1JJ.~.prov19ed1 however, thatthe prov1s1ons pfth1s·.$~ct1on snall .. not be construed as irryp~i_r\hg any alternative right or rights which lNOIAN 81\/1;!3 ~H.PR;f may have with r~~p~ct to the granthig or forfeiture of franchises tinderthe ConstitLition ·or general laws ot.1il~ri

1cia. ·

s,ction 24. · No .Waiver. The failµre of eith~r p~rty :here~o. to e,11force any of the prgvi~jgns of_:this ,Franchise Agr~ement or 'th~ w.~iv~i.th~reof·in atty :instance by either pa);fy'(~tiall . riot be construed as a ,general W$iver or [~iiQ~t;!ishrn~rjt ohJts part of ~ny sti.gh provisions, put the s~rn.e shall, nevertheless, be arid remain -iii full force and effe<;t.

k · . .: . . . . Sectioh 25. Binding Affect. All ofthe provisipn~ ofthis. F~anphis~ ,Agr.E;!ement shall be biMin:l;J ,_ii'po"rfand·:jn~reto 'tt,e benefit .of_and beenfor.ceable t?ythe. legal rePresentatives, · stioce~sors; assigOs·, and .nbmin$es of tne parties. . m..) .. _.· .. ··. ,. . . . .. . . . ·.· · ·•. . . . . , Se'ction. 26.·· Governing Law; Venue; Attorney Fees. ,,This F.JaDc.h is.e Ag r:eement shall

· be,;,lce>ri$ti'tieij-/goverried, and :interpreted' ac;cordirig :to the:J13Ws< bf Hie State: of· Florida . . . V~o~~:<for ot$se>lution pf any dispu.te arising 4rid~r t~is Frcin~hi~~ ;~grf.letnent or the

Fr~i1¢bise si'iaU·be in Indian River_.County; F.lotiQft ?fh~'-,patlie:s ,shatt:each bear their . OW..D ~~otnety.fees in any dispute arising underthis Franchise AgteeqienL .

e:=" . :: t · -_ · · - · -· -_ ~ · :S~ttidn. 27-. Entire .Agreement;.Amendments. _ This 1nstrumeritcons~it1.Jtes the entire · agte.~111ent, ·''\b.E!tweert _. the <parties _arid · sup~~ie<:les: ~11/.-pr:evious . .. discussions, u~~~f~tandi~~$, and _agr~ernents .betwe:en th<(p~ffti~•f:r~la#~ijj~,:.lhiiiu~!~.ct matter of

·· th1r:f:ranch1se ·Agreement· ·Arnendrnent~; t9:anci wa1\l~rsJ0Jb~. ·cprov1s1ons of this . Fr:~QghisE! Agreement sh.all be m~de by the partie$ .prily .in wri,ipg;_~yjqrni~Lamendm.ent. . Tljjs;f.raoc:ljj$e Agreement may· b.e exec:uted in, separat~ q9iml¢rp;:jrts, each of which -~~:~IIA~ d~$med to b~ an orlginal and all ofwhich_tog~ther.st)~ll constitute ._on~anq the same instrument. · tr ~ .. ~· · _ ... ·

-i~l SIGNATURE PA.GI: ,FOL;LQ.V\f~

Pages of 9

100

· }'' ,;· :.c." .,::{Xe:%' '· < :, ~~· ,, ,;J,:;,~:~'::1?':kl~t,

,1z,;illi'.:~:1~ , . ~:i1,~~t ,;~:~~~i~1iil1i~:-~$J~~R~91:,ith~P~lti~H~:':~'~fJ!t~t~B~J&t~~~~~~~ii,~~;;i~te ,,,, .•. . ,-.l\eTIESJ . . , - ,,\I~k::y}~l~I~~~

. :-~· ,. : --':':•

:;Jlr!:~:;;:, ,t.

' '•,, .···"'~." .. '. .. . _ . . _.-

... . ·,~\ ·~:· T,hQOJ~.§>VV ~ _f#._$Q9~tl :-~ .);:( .

. . . ,': ··•.·•· .. : / ,]1~~~§0~;;;~~,~~~R

. •.,.?:·•.' ; • :-., . '":· .-.· ... ·~·.;•"'·'.:f•';r,··,\:~',.,.,,i,•, ·r. __ )_· ... ·.. . . ·":c,• :1s \· .-~ : •• ~----- , ..... ·.:-a· l -

>::::j:/

.. ,;. -~ . . . . . ..

: ... ?<;~11}!/: {~s;sJit :. , - .-...

r.~ ·, _::::.:-,...,{--~.

·. :·t~'.i;,~, ~ 9tlt'·/ -:' : • . £ ,- .• .•

101

TO:

DATE:

BCCAGENDA February 11, 2014

ITEM 14.D{j,)

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM


January 27, 2014

SUBJECT: Oslo Boat Ramp

FROM: Commissioner Bob Solari

Some items related to the Oslo Boat Ramp have been discussed over the past years but there has not been a Board level discussion of the boat ramp project since April 17, 2007, before two of the present Board members, including myself, joined the Commission.

Given what has happened to the Lagoon over the past two years it seems to me that our most immediate step should be to do no further harm. I do not know if the project will do any harm or not, but at present I do not believe that the possibility of further harm is worth the risk.

I do know that the work on the Oslo Boat Ramp is using a lot of Staff time and County resources, which I believe can be better utilized doing something that we know will be positive for the Lagoon.

My hope is that the Board will support tabling the project for three to f ive years until we know more about the needs of the Lagoon, that we are more certain that the project will not harm the Lagoon and the Lagoon is in better health.

Thank you.

~

102

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

February 11, 2014 ITEM 14.E.1


INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM

TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners

DATE: February 5, 2014

SUBJECT: Optional One-Cent Sales Tax Fund

FROM: Tim Zorc Commissioner, District 3

I would like to request discussion on purchasing ambulances and fire trucks from the Optional One-Cent Sales Tax Fund.

103

Date:

To:

From:

Prepared By:

Subject:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT

BOARD MEMORANDUM

January 30, 2014

Joseph A. Baird, County Administrator ~

Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Services W ¥ ~~ Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E., Managing Director, Solid Waste Disposal Districtt

Request to Apply to the Florida Green Building Coalition (FGBC} for Green Local Government Recertificat ion


On Tuesday March 5, 2009 the Florida Green Building Coalition, lnc.(FGBC} awarded Indian River County the gold level certification as a Florida Green Local Government, thereby recognizing Indian River County as a Government th,at incorporates multiple environmental, ecological and renewable features throughout the various functions it performs to achieve environmental stewardship.

The designation is approaching the 5-year expiration of the FGBC certification on March 4, 2014. Staff is requesting Board approval to apply for recertification to the FGBC to maintain the Florida Green Local Government designation.

Currently there are 46 cities and counties that have achieved the Florida Green Local Government certification. We are proud to say that Indian River County was the second County in the State of Florida to obtain the Gold level designation. The recertification process does allow for a 90 day extension for submittal, has a more streamline expedited process, and is now good for 10 years. The cost ofthe recertification is $5,000.00.

ANALYSIS:

In 2009, there was considerable effort by County staff, volunteers and a private donor that led to the Green County certification. The process not only highlighted what Indian River County was doing but also led to some policies and practices that would eventually enhance our efforts. Example projects that show our continued efforts to enhance and protect our local environment include: 1) placing recycling containers at all County parks which previously had no recycling services; 2) creating a partnership with INEOS to create electricity and ethanol from vegetative waste; 3) using innovation and simplicity we worked on the Spoonbill Marsh Project to mix brine water with lagoon water which results in better water quality on the discharge; and 4) furthermore, our upcoming Osprey Marsh project will process brine water and canal water through an Algal Turf Scrubber to improve the discharge water quality.

Additionally, our procurement procedures were enhanced to ensure that we purchased environmentally preferred products. We also adopted an administration policy which required

SWDD Agenda - Request to Apply for FGBC Green Govt Recertification-ao Page 1 of 2

104

that new County buildings be built to "green" standards. This led to the Indian River County Transit facility being built to FGBC Commercial Standards. Overall, the most significant achievement is that Indian River County saved $678,162.00 from the energy/water conservation upgrades made in the 2008-2009 time period. This effort certainly demonstrates that Indian River County is leading by example.

The recertification process will give us another "report card" on how we are doing, as well as additional steps we can take to continue our commitment to preserving our community. The recertification can be utilized by the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce to promote ecotourism & eco-industry to our area.

As in the past, we have also received volunteer commitment from Sustainable Indian River to assist us, as needed, with the recertification process.

Overall, staff recommends that we pursue the recertification to maintain our Green Government status with the Florida Green Building Coalition.

FUNDING:

Funding for the FGBC recertification is available in the sustainability portion of the Other Professional Services account in the SWDD Recycling Fund which is funded from SWDD assessments and user fees. The account has a total budget of $623,300 for the 2013/2014 fiscal year with $10,000 allocated for sustainability efforts.

ACCOUNT NO.:

Description Account Number Amount

Other Professional Services 41125534-033190 $5,000

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the SWDD Board approve to apply for a recertification from the Florida Green Building Coalition along with $5,000 fee in order to maintain our Green Local Government status.

ATTACHMENT{s):

1) Letter from Florida Green Building Coalition

APPROVED FOR AGENDA:

Indian River Co.

Administration

Legal

Budget

SWDD

SWDD •Finance

SWDD Agenda - Request to Apply for FGBC Green Govt Recertification-ao Page 2 of 2

105

January 9, 2014

Mr. Himanshu Mehta Indian River County 1325 74th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960

Dear Himanshu,

Florida Green Building Coalition 1415 E. Piedmont Drive, Suite 5 • Tallahassee, FL 32308-7954

Telephone: 850-894-3422 • Fax: 850-671-4897

We are contacting you with a reminder that your FGBC Green Local Government Designation is approaching the 5-year re-certification date. Re-certification should occur within the six months prior to certification expiration. The certification expiration date for Indian River County is 3/4/2014.

When re-certifying, submit using the current version in effect at the time of your submittal. Review your prior certification documents and verify those credits still apply, plus determine if any new credits can be achieved. There are now two options for recertification: (1) Submit a complete package indicating all of your claimed points,just as when you applied originally, or (2) Use the new expedited recertification process, which will be released by the end of January 2014. Fees are the same for either method, but the expedited recertification process reduces the amount of required documents and relies on affidavits from the city manager, which become public records of the certification.

The FGBC Green Local Government Standard documents are available for download from the FGBC website (www.FloridaGreenBuilding.org) under the "Certification" tab, "Local Governments" link. Download files are listed in the right-hand column.

This program is an opportunity for you to affect a lasting contribution to your community by establishing sustainable practices that will extend beyond election terms and benefit the community for years to come. Your leadership in this effort will help protect and conserve natural resources, enhance the efficiency of government thus reducing the cost to taxpayers, and raise public awareness about the benefits of environmental stewardship- creating a more livable, resilient community. Tangible benefits include:

• Reduced capital outlay for energy & water • Conservation of water resources • Improved stormwater and waste management • Provides affordable housing • Measurable CO2 Reduction

If you need help meeting this requirement or wish to hire a consultant to help you complete the process, please feel free to contact me. FGBC is here to off er any assistance we can to facilitate your local government's certification.

Sincerely,

l.11_. 4. ~ ~ Cook, CAE, IOM Executive Director

www.FloridaGreenBuilding.org

106

Date:

To:

INDIAN RIVER COU"'TY


BOARD MEMORANDUM

January 30, 2014

from:


Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Services @ .

Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E., Managing Direct~r, Soli~ Waste Dispc;,sal District 1d 'Yh • Prepared By:

Subject: Final Pay for CDM Smith Work Order No. 7 - 2013 Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring & Reporting


On January 15, 2013, the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) Board approved Work Order No. 7 to CDM Smith. to provide for Engineering Services with the 2013 Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring and Reporting. The authorization was executed with a not to exceed budget of $84,800.00.

ANALYSIS:

CDM Smith has satisfactorily completed all the assignments described in the scope of work for a total invoiced amount, including the final invoice of $1,188.20. After final payment, the total amount paid to CDM Smith will be at the cost of $82,798.00, which is under budget. Attached is CDM Smith's letter report describing in more details the services provided under each task.

FUNDING:

Funding for this work is budgeted and available in the Engineering Services account number which is funded from SWDD assessments and user fees. · ·

ACCOUNT NO.:

Description Account Number Amount Engineering Services 41121734-033130 $1,188.20

RECOMMENDATION:

SWDD staff recommends that its Board approve CDM Smith's final invoice amount of $1,188.20.

ATTACHMENT(s):

1. CDM Smith Project Completion Report & Final Invoice

SWDD Agenda - Final Pay CDM Smith WO No 7 - 2013 Annual Permit Compliance Monltorlng & Reporting Page 1 of 2

107

APPROVED FOR AGENDA: lndlan River Co. Approved Date

Administration

Legal

Budget

SWDD SWDD •Finance

SWDD Agenda - Final Pay CDM Smith WO No 7 - 2013 'Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring & Reporting Page 2 of 2

108

1701 Highway A"l-A, Suite ao1

Vero Bt>acri, Flo.r1da 3296"~

tel: ,;-1 77;! .23i-430l

fax:+ l 772 231-4332 cdmsmltluom ·

January 27, 2014

Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta1 P.1~ . . Managing Director Ind.ianRiver County Solid Waste Disposal District 132514th Avenue SW Vero Beach, Florida 32968

Subject: Indian Rivet Coµnty Solid Waste PiSposal District . 20·13 Annual Permit Compliance and Monitoring Final Invoice · ·

Dear Mr. Mehta:

Transmitted herewith is a project completion report for the above referet1ce project. This work was completed in accordance with the Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services between Indian River County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) and CDM, Smith Inc. (CDM Smith), forwerly Camp, Dresser, and McKee Inc., dated December 6, 2011, under Work Authorization No. 7 dated January 15, 2013. The finalinvoice (Invoice No. 80480559/12) was submitted to IRC SWPD on January 24, 2014; This project completion report is to serve as additi<mal information to the final invoice.

lRC SWDDis required to perform environmental compliancemonitoring and reporting for water and air quality in accordance with the IRC Landfill's operating permits. During calendar year 2Q13, IRC SWDD was required to submit semi-annual reports of grounclwater, surface water, and leachate quaUty at the lRC I.,andftll to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in . accordance with Chapter 62~ 701.510, F.A.C. and the Monitoring Plan Implementation Schedule (MPlS)of Permit Nos. so:u.01i8769~O14 / 5031·0128769~018 and $C31·0128769·019 and SO31 • 0128769·0Z0,

The !RC Landfill operates under a Title VAir Operation Permit (PermitNo. 0610015-004·A\1J, which was issued on July 16, 2012, that contains monitoring and reporting requirewents related to the landfill gas coUection and control system. IRC SWOP is required to prepare and submit the following to FDEPand the US. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 4:

1)1392.daot ~ • @

WATER+ ENVIRONMENT+ TMNSPORTATION +ENERGY+ FACILITIES . . 109

Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P,E. 'January 27,201.4 Page2

• Annual Statement of Compliance.,

• Annuill Op:erating Report,

• Annual Emissfon Fee,

• Results ofan qnnual flare visible emissions test,

lRC SWDD ls also required to perform miscellaneous sampling and monitoring activities in compliance with the solid waste operations permit and the Multi-Sect-or Generic Permit (MSGP} for stormwater discharge.

This project included provlding the required permit compliance and monitoring services under the following tasks:

•• Task 1.0 - Project Quality Management

• Task 2, 0.; Semi-Annual Water Quality SampHng and Reporting,

• Tas!{ 3.0 • Title V Reporting Permit Compliance and Reporting,

• Task 4. 0 • General Technical and MisceUaneous Permit Compliance Monitoring and Reporting

TASK 1.0 - PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Activities performed under this task co11sisted of those generally administrative functions required to assure that the project remained on schedu]e, within budget, and that the quality of the work products defined within this scope was consistent with CDM Smith's standards and tRC SWDO's expectations.

CDM Smith coordinated with lRC SWD D staff for project planning. Preparation of invoices and project administration was also performed under this task.

TASK 2.0 -SEMl•ANNUAI, WATE'Rc QUALITY SAMPLING AND REPORTING

Under this task, COM Smith assisted IRC SWDD with the semi-annual water quality sampling, monitoring, and reporting in accordance with Chapter 62~ 701.510, F.A.C. The January 2013 sampling eventwas performed in accordance with the Monitoring Plan Implementation Schedule (MPIS) of Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and S031-0128769-020. The July 2013 sampling event was conducted in accordance with the March 7, 2011 M'.PJS, as moditieci by Florida Department of

+.-' c .. DM.=t.··h.· .. sm1 ... · ..

Mr: fnmanshuH.Mehta, P.E. January 27, 2014 Page3

Environmental Protection (FDEP) correspondence regarding the permit tenewa1 application for the COn$tructjon and Debris landfill at the lRC facility entitled. "Second Request for Additional Information, Permit RepewalApplication S031-0128769-021" dated July 5, 2012 and the response by CDM Smith on behalf of IRC dated July 16, 2012.

COM Smith contracted With [deal Tech Service !nc.{ITS) to perform the groundwater, surface water1 and leachate sampling. CDM Smith/JTS performed the January 2013 and July 2013 semiannual sampling of the Class 1 and construction and demolition (C&DJdebris landfill groundwater monitor wells for the list of semi-:annualgroundwater parameters e>f the MPIS.

CDM Smith/ITS collected water level data for the groumiwater monitor wells and staff gauges prior . tQ the sampling events. COM Smith/ITS also performed the 2013 semi-annual Oanuary and July) sampling of the two surface water sites for analysis of the list of semi;.annual surface water ,panuneters and annual leachate sampling from the leachate monitoring sites for analysis of the list of annual leachate parameters;

CDM Smith assisted IRC SWDDin coordinating the analytical testing activities with lRC's laboratory (EnvjronmentalConservation Laboratories), notified FDEP prior to sampling as required by the · MPIS, reviewed and evaluated the analytical test results, and prepared the semi-annual reports. The January 2013 Water Quality Sampling Event reportwas submitted to FDEP on March 13, 2013and the July :2013 Water Quality Sampling Event report was submitted to FDEP on September 27, 2013.

TASK 3.0 -TlTLEV PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING

The Title V Air Operation Permit (Permit No. 0610015,-004-AV) for the IRC Landfill contains monitoring and reporting requirements related. to the landfill gas collection and control system. In accordance with the Title V permit, CDM Smith assisted IRC SWDD, as described below, in fulfilling all air permit requirements and conditions within the required regulatory timeframes. ·

Statement of QompUaru:e

CDM Smith prepared and submitted the Statement of Compliance for the reporting period of January through December of 2012 for the lRC Landfill to FDEP on February 26, 2013 in accordance with Rule 62~213.440(3)(a)(2), F.A.C.

--f-_ : CD.· .111 .... ·.··h·. sm, ..

Mr; Himanshu. H. Mehta, P.E. Janua.ry 27, 2014 Page4

AonµaJ Qperatin& Repqrt

CDM Smitb prepared an~ submitted the Electronic Annual Operating Reports for the 2012 reporting year for the IRC Landfill to FDEP on March 20, 2013.

Annual Emt~SjQUS Fe~

CDM Smith prepared and submitted the Title V Fee Holiday Discount Fprms for the 2012 calendar year emissions to FDEP February 2i, Z013.

Visible Emi~sionsTesting

COM Smith contracted with TRCEnviron01ental Corporation to perform the 2013 c1nnual visible emissions tests in order to determine the opacity of the flare. The 2013 visible emissions testwas performed on April 5, 2013 and submitted to FPEP on April 22, 2013.

TASK 4,0 ... GENERAL TECHNICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT C.OMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

CDM Smith provided general technical and permit compliance assistance to IRC SWDD staff on an as needed.basis. Under this task, CDM Smith mphitared the landfiU gas migration monitoring wells located at the !RC Landfill site boundaryf as well as enclosed structures located on site, and submitted reports of the results to .fDEP on.a quarterly basis. The reports were submitted to FDEP on April 3, 2013, June 19, 2013, September 17, 2013, and December 13, 2013.

COM Smith provided general technical assistance with regard to the Multi•Sector Generic Permit (MSGP) for storm water discharge. COM Smith coordinated with FDEPstaff to confirm that that Year 4 (2013) monitoring was not required. A "Low Concentration Waiver" Will be submitted to FDEP forthe Year 4 monitoring in Ueu of.monitoring data.

CDM Smith also submitted a request to FDEP on August 13, 2013 to modify the monitoring plan Implementation schedule (MPlS) to eliminate the leachate monitoring pursuant to the rule change outlined in 62~ 701,,FAC and update the Mf'IS to reflect changes in the water quality moni~rlng · program associated with the construction of Cla$s I landfill, Segment III, approval to integrate elements of the evaluation/assessment monitoring.for the C-5 Canal into the routine monitoring program as proposed by CDM Smith_, and other revisions made to the monitoring program as described in correspondence from FDEP dated July 5, 2012 regarding the Technical Report prepared by COM Smith and the cbM Smith response dated July 16, 2012. FDEP is processing the request.

: @ l -r:;

~- . -

, c.D. •. =. t·· ·h· . sm1·· · Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P£. January 27, 2014 Pages

CDM Smith appreciates the opportunity to provide these services to IRC. If you have any questions orrequlre additional information on the above project, please contact me.

sm~~-----

evtn N. Vann, P.E., BCEE Senior Project Manager CDM Smith Inc.

KNV/jj . File: · PW_PL1_6706~9643l~02,01

ill3924tl~

ic.CDMth Sml 2J01 Maitlarid Center Parkway, .Suite. 300

Maitland, Florida 327:51

tel: +1 407: 660-25.52

fax:+i 407875-1161 cdmsmith.c.om

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA MR. HIMANSHU MEHTA, P.E. MANAGING DIRECTOR !325 74TH AVENUE S.W. VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960

Amount Due This Invoke: $1,188.20

Please Remit To:

CDMSMlTH P.O. BOX 100902 ATLANTA, GA 30384-0902

JANUARY 24, 2014

INVOICE NUMBER: 80480559/1 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 96431

PLEASE INCLUDE INVOICE NUMBER ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE

In accordance with the Continuing Contract AgreementforProfessional Services dated December 6,201 land Work Order Number 7 dated January 15, 2013 between Indian River County and COM Smith, Inc., we are submitting the following invoice for Professional Engineering Services as described below:

Re: Engineering Services for Annual Permit Compliance Monitorin.g and Reporting

Services from December 22, 2013 through January 18, 2014. 111is is the final invoice for this project

TASK 1 PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Lump Sum Amount:$

Percent Complete:

Billed JTD: $

Less Previously Invoiced: $

Amount Due: $

TASK 2 ANNUAL & SEMI-ANNUALWATER QUALITY REPORTING

Lump Sum Amount: $

Percent Complete:

Billed ITD: $


Amount Due: $

19,370.00

100.00%

19,370.00

18,982.60

387.40

39,680.00

100.00%

39,680.00

39,680.00

0.00

WATER+ ENVIRONMENT + TRANSPORTATION + ENERGY + FACl~;T~ -,~;~

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA MR. HIMANSHU MEHTA, P.E. MANAG!Nd DIRECTOR 132S 74TH A VENUE S.W. VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960

Amount Dur I $I. Tl

, I 1· ,188,20 us nvo ce: ._ ________ _

Please Remit To;

COM SMITH P.O. BOX 100902 ATLANTA, GA 30384-0902

JANUARY 24, 2014

INVOICE NUMBER: 80480559/l 2 PROJECT NUMBER: 96431

PLEASE INCLUDE INVOICE NUMBER ONALLCORRESPONDENCE

TASK 3 TITLE VPERMIT COMPLIANCE& REPORTING

Lump Sum Amount:$

Percent Complete:

Billed ITO: $


Amount Due: $

TASK 4 GENERAL TECHNICAL & MISC. PERMIT COMPLIANCE REPORTING

Lump Sum Amount: $

Percent Complete:

Bille.dITD: $


Amount Due: $

15,740.00

100.00%

IS,740.00

15,740.00

0.00

10,010.00

80.00%

8,008.00

7,20720

800.80

, 2

--~ 1115

-t·· CDM1.h Sml.

lNDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA MR. HIMANSHU MEHTA, P.E. MANAGING DIRECTOR 1325 74TH AVENUE SW: VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960

ATnh'.oulnt ~uc I $1,188.20 . rs .nvo.1ce: ., ________ ___.

Please Remit T o:

CDMSMITH P.O. BOX 100902 ATLANTA, GA 30384"0902

JANUARY 24, 2014

INVOJCE NUMBER: 80480559/12 PROJECT NUMBER: 96431

PLEASE INCLUDE INVOICE NUMBER ON ALL CORRESPONDENCE

Total; $

Lump Sum Amount: $

Percent Complete:

Billed ITO: $


Amount Due: $

1,188.20

84,800.00

97.64%

82,798.00

81,609.80

1,188.20

I J

···-t:-

Date:

To:

From:

Prepared By:

Subject:

INDIAN RIVER COUN:TY


BOARD MEMORANDUM

January 30, 2014

Joseph A, Baird, County Administrator A"fi})

Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Services ~

Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E., Managing Director, Soli~ Waste Dispqsal District ,d. :""'-• Work Order No. 8 to CDM Smith, Inc. for Engineering Services with the 2014 Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring and Report~ng


The Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) landfill operation is a highly regulated activity, which requires environmental compliance documentation in accordance with several different permits. Many of the compliance reports are prepared and certified by a third party professional engineer. This agenda item requests authorization to engage the engineering firm of CDM Smith, Inc. (COM Smith) to prepare and seal the following reports:

1. Semi-annual, and annual reports to assess the characteristics of ground and surface water at the site generated by the Class I landfill in accordance with the site's landfill permits;

2. Annual reports required by the site Title V air quality permit including the annual operating report and the flare emission testing report;

In addition, a general technical assistance and permit compliance task is included as SWDD often requires engineering, technical and construction services ~ssistance in connection with annual facility upgrade, compliance and operations.

ANALYSIS:

CDM has prepared Work Order No. 8, provided in Attachment 1, for.engineering services detailing the scope of work, budget, and schedule for each of the tasks. The fees to be paid by SWDD for the execution of this work authorization are in accordance with the engineer's continuing consulting services master agreement. The tasks are listed below showing the expected completion dates and their estimated fees.

SWDD Agenda - WO No 8 CDM Smith 2014 Annual Permit Compliance M onitoring & Reporting Page 1 of 2

117

Task 1 Project Quality Management

Task 2

Semi-Annual Water Quality Sampling & Reporting

Task 3 Title V Permit Compliance Monitoring

Task 4 General Technical Assistance

1/1/14-12/31/14 $19,370

March 2014 & September 2014

4/1/14

1/1/14 - 12/31/14

$40,140

$15,740

$10,010

TOTAL (Lump Sum)= $85,260

The costs above are consistent with what SWDD has paid historically for these services. Specifically, the current proposed cost of $85,260 has increased by $460 compared to that approved for the 2013 Annual Compliance Monitoring and Reporting (Work No. 7 approved on January 15, 2013) in the amount of $84,800.

FUNDING:

Funding for the 2014 Annual Financial Reports is budgeted and available in the Engineering Services account in the SWDD Landfill Fund which is funded from SWDD assessments and user fees. The account has a total budget of $250,000 for the 2013/2014 fiscal year.

ACCOUNT NO.:


Engineering Services 41121734-033130 $85,260

RECOMMENDATION:

SWDD staff recommends that its Board approve the following:

a) Approve Work Order No. 8 with CDM Smith, Inc. in the amount of $85,260 to provide engineering services related to the 2014 Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring and Reporting.

b) Authorize the Chairman to execute the same, as presented.

ATTACHMENT(s):

1) Work Order No. 8 - COM Smith, Inc.

APPROVED FOR AGENDA:

By:~~~~· <fj.=A::....::::. Q.,U)_Y,/..:...__ __ _

Indian River Co.

Administration

Approved Date

Legal

Budget

SWDD

SWDD •Finance

SWDD Agenda - WO No 8 CDM Smith 2014 Annual Permit Compliance 1v1orntormg & Kepomng !'age LOT L

118

WORK ORDER NUMBER 8

Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring and Reporting

This Work Order Number 8 is entered Into as of this _ day of ____ _, 20_ pursuant to that certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered Into as of December 61 2011 (the "Agreement"), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/ a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY'1) and COM Smith, Inc. ("Consultant'1) .

The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the professional services set forth on Exhibit A {Scope of Work), attached to this Work Order and made part hereof by this reference. The professional services wlll be performed by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth In Exhlblt B (Fee Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference. The Consultant will perform the professional services within the tlmeframe more particularly set forth In Exhibit A (Time Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference all In accordance with the terms and provisions set forth In the Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement, nothing contained In any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be Incorporated In each lndlvldual Work Order as If fully .set forth herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first written above.

CONSULTANT: COM Smith, Inc.

By: w&C Title:

By:

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

-------------Peter D, 01Bryan, Chairman

BCC Approved Date: ----------Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller

By: ---------- ---Deputy Clerk

Approved as ta farm and legal sufficiency: ~· • :::-:-:::::- . . an T. Relngold, County Attorney

119

f70l .,,ahWl1Y A+A. Si!lt~ 301 Yero l!!!ach, Ftosld;i 32963 tel: +177223H30l ta1(: +1 n2 ;ia·1.43~2 ciln,smlth,com

JaJlQi:Jl'Y 6, 2014

Mr .. Hlmanshu FL Mehta, P.E. . . ' .... , '.. .. '. '• . '

M anagi(!$ Director lndiail $ver Coµnty Solid Was.t~ Disposal District 1325 74th Ave~ue SW Ver9 Beach, Plorlda 32960

Subject; P~tQlit Co.mpliam:~ A~~ist;:inc~f or the C~~nd~r Year '20l4 JngJ~n River ·cq~litY Sqliij Wa-~t~:;I>J~i~Q$~l)Jl$.tfic.~ CUM Smith Wbr~ Or.d~_r,No. 8

Dear Mr. Mehta:

Traosmittecl herewJtb are three copies .of Work Order No, 8·to pr.ovide ~elected annual operating p~.rmlt cQmpli~nce monit.ori11~.setvic~s. which are t.¢'11:tired.btth~ Fl.otid~ Dep.i(rtment of EnvJrPPlll¢)l~a1 Prptef!tlQn (}7,DijP) d.~rfQg ta.Je:ttd~.rye~r ZQlf/th~ servf~e~ provided Jq t,bi~ work order include -.,,nnuaJ aqd SE!ml-a:nnual samp)jng_ A.n~ repqrt!og, Title Vp~rniit compliance and reporting; gen(lraJ t.echnltahnd mJstcll.Mteoµ~ pemdt ct;,rnp.U~nc~ r¢porting. and quarterly ciJ11tandnatlQh ~v~lu~tion,01.onitoring.TJle Sc~p~ qf ~ervJce~ aod.'f.i'Qf~ct Budget are provided Juirewlth ~ E~Jlibits A and B, respe~iveJy.

ff ;y.ou have any quesUons or req~tire additlo11al lnfoririation, plea~e i;all me at your conv:enie11ce.

St~-~~/~. /~7~ .Kev.In N. Vann, P.R., BCEE Sel)lor J>roj'ect·Manag~r CDMS,nlth Im;,

KNV/BJG/Jj Encl9.sU.res (3) File: OOOO·JiJGMl{-MG.IRC

tc: Viocent Burke,JRC

A,PPl'Qvei:I by:

c~~ ErYc ~tke, P.K, BCBE Vtce Preside!)t CDM Smith Inc.

120

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR

ANNUAL PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND REPORTING

WORK ORDER NO. 8

This Authorization, when executed, shall be incorporated in and become part of the Contract for Consulting/Professional Services between the Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District (IRC SWDD), and CDM Smith Inc. (CDM Smith), dated December 6, 2011 hereafter referred to as the Contract.

BACKGROUND

Solid Waste Operation Permit Water Quality Compliance Semi-annual reports of groundwater quality at the IRC SWDD Landfill must be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) in accordance with Chapter 62-701.510, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) and the Monitoring Plan Implementation Schedule (MPIS) of Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and S031-0128769-020 as modified by Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) correspondence.regarding the permit renewal application for the Construction and Debris landfill at the IRC facility entitled "Second Request for Additional Information, Permit Renewal Application S031-0128769-021" dated July 5, 2012 and the response by CDM Smith on behalf of IRC dated July 16, 2012. Water levels are measured and samples of groundwater and surface water are collected in January and July in accordance with MPIS and the Second Request for Additional Information, Permit Renewal Application S031-0128769-021 dated July 5, 2012 and the response by CDM Smith on behalf of IRC dated July 16, 2012. The requirement for leachate sampling and analyses was removed when Chapter 62-701, F.A.C. was revised in August 2012.

Two semi-annual monitoring reports that document the sampling events will be required in calendar year 2014. It is expected that the MPIS will be modified to incorporate the revisions to the monitoring program as described in the Second Request for Additional Information, Permit Renewal Application S031-0128769-021 dated July 5, 2012 and the response.by CDM Smith on behalf of IRC dated July 16, 2012. This is not expected to change the scope of work

Semi-annual sampling of the Class I and construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfill groundwater monitor wells shall be performed in January (41 wells) and July (25 wells) of 2014. The samples from these events shall be analyzed for the list of Semi-Annual Ground Water Parameters identified in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the MPIS and Second Request for Additional Information, Permit Renewal Application S031-0128769-021 dated July 5, 2012 and the response by CDM Smith on behalf of IRC dated July 16, 2012, which is included by reference in Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and S031-0128769-020. CDM Smith understands that additional new or replacement groundwater monitor wells Will be installed in the future under Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and. S031-0128769-020. Sampling of proposed new or replacement groundwater monitor wells required by Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and S031-0128769-020 beyond those currently installed and included in the groundwater quality monitoring program ( 41 in January and 25 in July) are not included this Scope of Services.

A-1 ~1375.docx

121

Samples from six surface water sites shall be collected in January and July. Samples from two of the locations associated with the stormwater pond and outfall will be analyzed for the list of SemiAnnual Surface Water Parameters identified in Paragraph 14 of the MPIS of Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and SO31-0128769-020. Samples from the remaining four locations will be analyzed for the parameters listed in the Second Request for Additional Information, Permit Renewal Application SO31-0128769-021 dated July 5, 2012 and the response by COM Smith on behalf ofIRC dated July 16, 2012, which are included by reference in Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and SO31-0128769-020.

Title V Operation Permit Air Quality Compliance The IRC Landfill also operates under a Title V permit (Permit No. 0610015-004-A V) issued on July 16, 2012, which contains monitoring and reporting requirements related to the landfill gas collection and control system. IRC SWDD is required to prepare and submit the following to FDEP and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Region 4:

w Annual Statement of Compliance (within 60 days after the end of the calendar year); • Annual Operating Report (on or before April 1 of the following year); and • Results of an annual flare visible emissions test (within 45 days of testing).

Effective December 31, 2013, the Major Air Pollution Source Annual emissions Fee will be calculated by FDEP's Electronic Annual Operating Report (EAOR) application that is used to produce the Annual Operating Report listed above. The fee for 2013 is due by April 1, 2014.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

COM Smith will undertake the annual permit compliance monitoring and reporting, which will include the following tasks:

Task 1: Project Quality Management Task 2: Semi-Annual Water Quality Sampling and Reporting Task 3: Title V Permit Compliance and Reporting; and Task 4: General Technical and Miscellaneous Permit Compliance Reporting

The below Scope of Services is based on regulations and monitoring and reporting requirements as of the authorization date of this Work Order. An amendment to this Scope of Services may be needed if there are any regulatory changes that result in additional work.

TASK 1.0- PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT

Activities performed under this task consist of those generally administrative functions required to assure that the project remains on schedule, within budget, and that the quality of the work products defined within this scope is consistent with COM Smith's standards and IRC SWDD's expectations.

COM Smith will meet with IRC SWDD staff monthly for project planning and coordination. COM Smith's project manager will prepare and submit monthly status reports and attend status reporting meetings throughout the life of the project. It is estimated that meetings will be held on the average of once a month. Preparation of invoices and project administration will also be performed under this task.

A-2 ij1375,dcex

122

TASK 2,0 -SEMI-ANNUAL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING AND REPORTING COM Smith will assist IRC SWDD with all sampling preparation activities, including scheduling, staffing, subcontracting, and field equipment preparation. CDM Smith will perform the field testing, sample collection, and water-level measurements. CDM Smith will contract with Ideal Tech Services Inc. (ITS) to perform the groundwater and surface water sampling. COM Smith/ITS will perform the semi-annual (January and July) sampling of the Class I and construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfill groundwater monitor wells (41 in January and 25 in July) for the list of Semi-Annual Ground Water Parameters identified in Paragraph 8 of the MPIS, included in Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and S031-0128769-020 as modified by the Second Request for Additional Information, Permit Renewal Application S031-0128769-021 dated July 5, 2012 and the response by CDM Smith on behalf ofIRC dated July 16, 2012. CDM Smith/ITS will collect water level data for the groundwater monitor wells and staff gauges prior to the sampling event.

CDM Smith/ITS will also perform semi-annual (January and July) sampling of the six surface water sites for analysis of the list of Semi-Annual Surface Water Parameters identified in Paragraph 14 of the MPIS included in Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and S031-0128769-020 as modified by the Second Request for Additional Information, Permit Renewal Application S031-0128769-021 dated July 5, 2012 and the response by COM Smith on behalf of IRC dated July 16, 2012. It is estimated that data collection and sampling will take five days to complete per sampling event. In the event that FDEP requires resampling of groundwater monitoring wells, the labor and materials will be invoiced under Task 4 of this Scope of Services. If the resamp1ing is the result from errors made by the sampling staff, IRC will not be invoiced. CDM Smith/ITS will deliver the samples to the ENCO Orlando office for analysis.

Unless otherwise determined by IRC SWDD, ENCO will perform the laboratory analysis under IRC SWDD's contract. CDM Smith will assist IRC SWDD in coordinating the analytical testing activities with ENCO, notify FDEP prior to sampling as required by the MPIS, review and evaluate the analytical test results, and prepare the semi-annual reports.

CDM Smith will prepare two semi-annual reports that will be submitted to FDEP within 60 days of receipt of valid laboratory results from the laboratory that is contracted by IRC SWDD to analyze samples. Services included in preparing the semi-annual reports entail:

• Review oflaboratory results with respect to FDEP groundwater quality criteria and historical laboratory results. If review of the data indicates potential errors in the results or concentrations of analyses that could potentially result in enforcement action, COM Smith will notify IRC SWDD prior to preparing the report and request confirmatory samples, if needed.

• Preparation of semi-annual monitoring reports for the January and July monitoring events. The reports will include brief discussions of the results, water level contour maps, and copies of the analytical reports. A draft report will be submitted for review, if requested.

• COM Smith will prepare three copies of the final report for submittal to FDEP and will provide one file copy to IRC SWDD.

lRC SWDD will provide copies of analytical reports in electronic format (AdApt, or other electronic format accepted by FDEP).

A-3 JJ1375.qoox

123

TASK 3.0 -TITLE V PERMIT COMPLIANCE AND REPORTING Title V Permit No. 0610015-004-AV, which is the current permit as of the date of this work order, contains monitoring and reporting requirements related to the landfill gas collection and control system. CDM Smith will assist IRC SWDD, as described below. in fulfilling all air permit requirements and conditions within the required regulatory timeframes.

Statement of Compliance

CDM Smith will prepare and submit the annual Statement of Compliance for the IRC Landfill. This document must be submitted to FDEP within 60 days after the end of the calendar year. as required by Rule 62-213.440(3)(a)(2), F.A.C.

Annual Operating Report

COM Smith will prepare and submit the Annual Operating Report for the IRC Landfill. This report must be submitted to FOEP on or before April 1 of each calendar year, as required by Rule 62-210.370(3), F.AC.

CDM Smith will estimate the annual emission rates of non-methane organic compounds and volatile organic compounds from the landfill gas to determine the IRC Landfill's status with regard to operation and reporting requirements of the active landfill gas collection and control system under the New Source Performance Standards requirements.

Annual Emissions Fee

The Electronic Annual Operating Report (EAOR) application used for reporting to FDEP will automatically calculate the annual emission fee for the facility. CDM Smith will notify IRC SWDD of the fee amount. Once the check is in-hand, CDM Smith will submit the fee on IRC SWDD's behalf prior to the April 1 deadline.

Visible Emissions Testing

COM Smith will contract with a certified observer to perform the annual visible emissions test in order to determine the opacity of the flare. CDM Smith will provide oversight of the annual visible emission testing of the flare, notify FDEP of the time and location of the test, and prepare and submit to FDEP a report of the test results.

TASK 4.0 - GENERAL TECHNICAL AND MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

COM Smith will provide general technical and permit compliance assistance to IRC SWDD staff on an as needed basis. IRC SWDD staff is performing a number of the tasks required annually by the current FDEP landfill permits. CDM Smith will provide support as needed for the SWDD staff as they perform these tasks.

General technical and permit compliance assistance tasks may include:

• Reporting required by the Multi-Sector Generic Permit for stormwater discharge; • Quarterly monitoring and reporting of the landfill gas monitoring wells located at the IRC

Landfill site boundary, as well as enclosed structures located on site; • Preparing agenda items for and attending !RC Board of County Commissioners meetings, • Developing annual IRC SWDD budgets, and • Miscellaneous permit renewals or technical support • Sampling and reporting for additional monitor wells, surface water, leachate, etc.

A-4 JJ1375,doo•

124

ASSUMPTIONS

• This Scope of Services and cost proposal is based on solid waste operations Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and SO31-0128769-020 and the groundwater monitor wells, leachate sampling sites, and surface water monitor sites that are installed as of the date of this work order.

• CDM Smith understands that additional new or replacement groundwater monitor wells will be installed in the future under Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and SO31-0128769-020. Sampling of proposed new or replacement groundwater monitor wells required by Permit Nos. SC31-0128769-019 and SO31-0128769-020 beyond those currently installed and monitored (41 in January and 25 in July) are not included this Scope of Services.

• Assistance in revising the MIPS is not included in this Scope of Services.

• Laboratory analysis is not included in this Scope of Services.

• This Scope of Services and cost proposal is based on the Title V Permit No. 0610015-004-AV, which is the current permit as of the date of this work order.

• Tasks 1 through 3 do not include meetings with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

DATA OR ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED BY IRC SWDD

• Existing data available on construction of the existing groundwater monitor wells • Available site surveys • Available record information • Laboratory analytical reports and direct access to laboratory personnel • Access to sampling site • Annual operations data needed for emissions estimating including, but not limited to, tonnages

of waste accepted, quantity oflandfill gas collected, and hours of emergency engine operation • Annual Emissions fee

PROJECT SCHEDULE

The following project schedule has been developed based on receiving authorization on before February 11, 2014.

Task 1: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014

Task 2: March 2014 and September 2014 (Includes sampling events, review and validation of results, and completion/submittal ofreports within 60 days of receipt oflaboratory analysis)

Task 3: Statement of Compliance Annual Operating Report Annual Emissions Fee Visible Emissions Test

March 1, 2014 April 1, 2014 April 1, 2014 May 1, 2014

Task 4: January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014

A-5 ~1375.docx

125

PAYMENT AND COMPENSATION

Compensation for the Scope of Services described herein shall be made on the basis of a lump sum fee. The annual lump sum fee for Tasks 1.0 through 4.0, inclusive, is $85,260 as shown in Exhibits B. CDM Smith will invoice IRC SWDD on a monthly basis based on percent complete of each task. For invoice purposes only, the value of each task is as shown in the Table 1.

Table 1 TASK VALUE FOR INVOICE PURPOSE

TASK DESCRIPTION VALUE 1 Project Quality Management $19,370 2 Annual and Semi-Annual Water Quality Sampling $40,140 3 Title V Permit Compliance and Reporting $15,740 4 General Technical and Miscellaneous Permit Compliance Reporting $10,010

TOTAL WORK ORDER NO. 8 LUMP SUM $85,260

A-6 Jll37S,d ocx

126

PROJECT:

DESCRIPTION: CONTRACT REFERENCE:

Labor Category Officer Associate Principal Senior Professional Professional II Professional I

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT BUDGET


ANNUAL PERMIT COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORTING

WORK ORDER NO. 8

IRC SWDD Annual Permit Compliance Monitoring Reporting Services

Task 1.0 - Project Quality Management

Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and CDM Smith Inc.

.llirnrs Rate 4 $200 4 $190 12 $180 50 $150 30 $130 24 $100

Project Administration 10 $85 Total Hours 134

Total Salary Cost

Other Direct Costs

TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE

Total $800 $760

$2,160 $7,500 $3,900 $2,400

$85Q

$18,370

$1.000

$l9,3ZQ

For the basic services under this Agreement, IRC SWDD agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum fee $19,370. Partial payments will be made on a monthly basis in accordance with the referenced contract.

B-1

127

PROJECT:

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT BUDGET



WORK ORDER NO. 8


DESCRIPTION: Task 2.0 - Annual and Semi-Annual Water Quality Sampling and Reporting

CONTRACT REFERENCE: Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County

Commissioners and CDM Smith Inc.

Labor Category Officer Associate Principal Senior Professional Professional II Professional I Senior Support Staff Support Project Administration Total Hours

Total Salary Cost

Other Direct Costs t,J

Outside Professional Services (Ideal Tech Services, Inc.)

TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE

~ Rate 2 $200 8 $190 24 $180 70 $150 48 $130 22 $100 6 $120

12 $85 12 $85 208

Total $400

$1,520 $4,320

$10,500 $6,240 $2,200

$720 $1,020 $1,360

$28,280

$1,900

$9.960

$4:Q l 4:0

For the basic services under this Agreement, IRC SWDD agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum fee of $40,140. Partial payments will be made on a monthly basis in accordance with the referenced contract.

B-2 ~l,375.docx

128

PROJECT:

DESCRIPTION: CONTRACT REFERENCE:

Labor Category: Officer Associate Principal Senior Professional Professional II Professional I Senior Support Staff Support

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT BUDGET



WORK ORDER NO. 8


Task 3.0 - Title V Permit Compliance and Reporting

Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and COM Smith Inc.

Hours Rate 2 $200 2 $190 8 $180 22 $150 48 $130 8 $100 2 $120 6 $85

Project Administration .a $85 Total Hours 106

Total Salary Cost

Other Direct Costs

Outside Professionals (TRC Environmental)

TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE

Total $400 $380

$1,440 $3,300 $6,240

$800 $240 $510 $680

$13,990

$750

$1,000

$15.Z~Q


B-3 )11575.doc,c

129

PROJECT:

DESCRIPTION:

CONTRACT REFERENCE:

Labor Category Officer Associate Principal Senior Professional Professional II Professional I Senior Support Staff Support

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT BUDGET



WORK ORDER NO. 8


Task 4.0 - General Technical and Miscellaneous Permit Compliance Reporting


Hours ~ 2 $200 4 $190 8 $180

20 $150 14 $130 10 $100 2 $120 4 $85

Project Administration Q $85 Total Hours 70

Total Salary Cost

Other Direct Costs

TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE

Total $400 $760

$1,440 $3,000 $1,820 $1,000

$240 $340 $510

$9,510

$500

$10,010

For the basic services under this Agreement, IRC SWDD agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum of $10.010. Partial payments will be made on a monthly basis in accordance with the referenced contract.

B-4

130

Date:

To:

From:

Prepared By:

Subject:

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY


BOARD MEMORANDUM

January 30, 2014


Vincent Burke, P.E., Director of Utility Services {1j) Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E., Managing Director8 Solld Waste Disposal District ?d, h-..

Work Order No. 9 to COM Smith, Inc. for Engineering Services with the 2014 Annual Financial Reports


The Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) is required by Florida Environmental Protection Department (FDEP) rules to prepare two annual engineering reports certified by a third party professional engineer including:

1. Financial Assurance Report to determine SWDD's annual obligations to fund escrow accounts for the closure and long term care of the County's active landfills.

2. Full Cost Accounting Report to inform residents of the County of the full cost of collection, management and disposal of solid waste in the County.

ANALYSIS:

CDM has prepared Work Order No. 9, provided in Attachment 1, for engineering services detailing the scope of work, budget, and schedule for each of the tasks. The fees to be paid by SWDD for the execution of this ,Nork authorization are in accordance with the engineer's continuing consulting services master agreement. The tasks are listed below showing the expected completion dates and their estimated fees.

TAS~ · ·. ' ... .... ·• · . );.p~~c:;~ury1e>N};i }'l\t: bu~ oATE. ·.· ... ; .1( ' :AMQLfNT · ·•

Task 1 Full Cost Accounting Report March 31, 2014 $10,080- Lump Sum

Task 2 Financial Assurance Report November 1, 2014 $40,210 - Lump Sum

TOTAL (Lump Sum)= $50,290

The costs above are consistent with what SWDD has paid historically to CDM Smith for these services. However, there i~ a $3,400 increase directly attributable to the aerial survey services provided by Masteller, Moler, Reed & Taylor which increased from $13,100 last year to $16,500 this year.

SWDD Agenda - WO No 9 COM Smith 2014 Annual Financial Reports Page 1 of 2

131

FUNDING:

Funding for the 2014 Annual Financial Reports is budgeted and available in the Engineering Services account in the SWDD Landfill Fund which is funded from SWDD assessments and user fees. The account has a total budget of $250,000 for the 2013/2014 fiscal year.

ACCOUNT NO.:


Engineering Services 41121734-033130 $50,290

RECOMMENDATION:

SWDD staff recommends that its Board approve the following:

a) Approve Work Order No. 9 with CDM Smith, Inc. in the amount of $50,290 to provide engineering services related to the Annual Financial Reports.

b) Authorize the Chairman to execute the same, as presented.

ATTACHMENT(s):

1) Work Order No. 9 - COM Smith, Inc.

Indian River Co.

Administration I

Josep~ A. Baird, County Administrator Legal

F ':d,.,,ef.,7 #, .£lrlljl Date

Budget

swoo

SWOD -Finance

SWDD Agenda - WO No 9 COM Smith 2014 Annual Financial Reports Page 2 of 2

132

WORI( ORDER NUMBER 9

Annual Permitting Services 2014

This Work Order Number 9 is entered into as of this _ day of----~ 20 __ _ pursuc1nt to that-certain Continuing Contract Agreement for Professional Services entered into as of December 61 2011 (the "Agreemenf' ), by and between INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida ("COUNTY"} and CDM Smith, Inc. ("Consultant'' ).

The COUNTY has selected the Consultant to perform the pro.fessional services set forth on Exhibit A (Scope of Work), attached to this Work Order and made part hereof by this reference. The professional services will be performed 'by the Consultant for the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit B (Fee Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference. The Consultant will perform the professional services within the timeframe more particularly set forth in Exhibit C (Time Schedule), attached to this Work Order and made a part hereof by this reference all in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in the Agreement ·pursuant to paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement, nothing contained in any Work Order shall conflict with the terms of the Agreement and the terms of the Agreement shall be deemed to be incorporated in each individual Work Order as If fully set forth herein.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Work Order as of the date first written above.

CONSUi.TANT:

COM Smith, Inc.

By: ~-~ Title: ,u Gt, Prer,·J&J

By:

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

----,------------Peter D. O'Bryan, Chalrman

BCC Approved Date: -----------Attest: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller

By: --------------Deputy Clerk

133

CDMth Sm1 1701 l-lighway A.+A. Suite 301

Vero Beach. Floil_da 32963 tel: + 1 n 2 231-4301

ra~: +1 77223.1-4'332

cdmsmith.com

January 13, 2014

Mr. Himanshu H. Mehta, P.E. Managing Director lnil:ian River County Solid Waste Disposal District 1325 74th Avenue SW Vero Beach, ~lorida 32960

Subject; Assistance for the Calendar Year 2014 Indian River County Solid Waste Disposal District COM Smith Work Order No. 9

Dear Mr. Mehta:

Transmitted herewith are three copies of Work Order No. 9 for the above referenced project. This project is to provide selected permitting services, which are required each year by the Florida Departme..ntofEIJ,vlronmental Protection permits during 2014. The services in this pt'oposal include full cost accounting and financial ass~rance. The Scope of Services, Project Budget, and ProjectSchedule are provided herewith as Exhibits A, B, and C, respectively.

We look forward to the opportunity to assist SWDD in performing this project. If you have any questions or require ad~itional information, plec;tse call me at your convenience.

~~-"----Kevin N. Vann1 P.E., BCEE Senior Project Manager CDM S_mlth Inc.

KNV/EJG/jj Enclosures (3) PUe: 0000-EJGMK-MG.IRC

cc: Vincent Burke, IRC

Approved by:

4~·J.~ E~criotke, P.K, BCEE Vice President COM ~i;nith Inc.

jjl;lS/)_\'109.dc,c•

WATER+ ENVIRONMENT+ TRANSf>ORTATION + ENERGY+ FACILITIES

@

134

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES


ANNUAL PERMITTING SERVICES - 2014

WORK ORDER NO. 9

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Each year Indian River County (IRC) Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDO) is required to document environmental compliance in accordance with several different permits. CDM Smith Inc. (CDM Smith) assists SWOO with some of these submittals to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) each year.

This project is to provide permitting services which are required including:

• Task 1.0 - Full Cost Accounting

• Task 2.0 - Financial Assurance

CDM Smith will coordinate with the SWOO in order to provide timely execution of each portion of this project.

TASK 1.0 - FULL COST ACCOUNTING STUDY AND REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 Under provisions of Chapter 62-708.3Q0(3), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), !RC SWOD is required to determine and publicly disclose the full cost of solid waste management within its service area for Fiscal Year 2012-2013.

COM Smith will prepare a report setting forth the full cost of solid waste management for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 62-708, F.A.C. COM Smith will also prepare a draft public notice based on the full cost of solid waste management in SWDD for Fiscal Year 2012-2013.

CDM Smith will provide a draft report and public disclosure notice to SWDD by March 15, 2014 assuming receipt of all data required to perform the study by March 1, 2014. After receipt of comments, CDM Smith will submit the final report and public disclosure notice within 7 calendar days. SWDD is required to inform the residential and nonresidential users oflRC's solid waste management services area of the user's share of the full cost for solid waste management in accordance with Chapter 403.7049 Florida Statutes.

TASK 2.0 - FINANCIAL ASSURANCE SWDD operates a Class I and construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfills through a contract with Republic Services. SWDD is required by Chapter 62-701, F.A.C. to provide financial assurance for each of these facilities annually.

A-1 jj1380_WO9.docx

135

Subtask 2.1 - Financial Assurance Report

CDM Smith will prepare documentation that demonstrates proof of financial assurance for the cost of closing and providing long-term care for the Class I landfill, the C&D debris landfill, and the Waste Tire Processing Center. This documentation will be submitted for review by the SWDD and IRC Finance Department. Two copies of the final document will be provided to SWDD. CDM Smith will meet with SWDD up to four times to discuss issues and to provide needed coordination. CDM Smith will also respond to FDEP correspondence regarding financial assurance.

Subtask 2.2 - Survey and Airspace Assessment

CDM Smith will provide surveys and assessments of consumed airspace, performed by Masteller, Moler, Reed & Taylor, Inc. for the Class I and C&D Landfil1s. The survey work for the Class I waste area will include a complete topographic survey of Segments I, II, and III as well as the ditches and roadways surrounding the Class I area. The topographic survey of the C&D debris landfill site will include the waste area, as well as the fence-line and the surrounding ditches and berms adjacent to the C&D debris site. CDM Smith will review the volumetric modeling and include a summary of estimated waste density based on the results of the survey and volumetric modeling.

Under this subtask, two new aerial targets will be installed to replace those that were demolished due to construction activities. The new aerial targets will consist of concrete pads 3-inches thick and 4-inch X 4-inch square with a set nail and disk in the center to establish horizontal and v

The deliverable from Masteller, Moler, Reed & Taylor, Inc. will consist of a survey identifying the dates the field survey was completed. Airspace consumed and remaining airspace based on the survey and the construction and design criteria shall be specifically identified in the financial assurance report. The survey shall also include the results of the volumetric calculations for the Segment II portions of the Class I landfiU, as well as the C&D debris landfill. Deliverables accompanying the survey shall include:

A 1-inch = 50 feet scale contour map for each site with 1-foot contour intervals in regular weight lines, and 5-foot contour intervals in bold weight lines. Signed and sealed contour maps will be provided on 24-inch by 36-inch paper of each landfill site in 1-inch = 200 feet scale. A Compact Disc (CD) with ASCII file of the survey data in AutoCAD 2004 will also be provided.

For the Class I Landfill (Segment I, II, and III), the financial assurance report shall include an evaluation of the compaction of the waste and an analysis as to whether Republic Services is meeting its contractual compaction requirements. CDM Smith will include escrow account balance recommendations for Fiscal Year 2013-2014, as well as escrow account budget recommendations for Fiscal Year 2014-2015.

A-2 jj1380_ W09.(locx

136

PROJECT:

DESCRIPTION:

CONTRACT REFERENCE:

Labor Cat~gori Officer Associate Principal

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT BUDGET



WORK ORDER NO. 9

Indian River County SWDD Annual Permitting Services - 2014

Task 1.0 - Preparation of Full Cost Accounting of Solid Waste Management Report and Public Disclosure Notice

Agreement between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners and COM Smith Inc.

Hours ~ Total 2 $200 $400 3 $190 $570

12 $180 $2,160 Senior Professional 20 $150 $3,000 Professional II 16 $130 $2,080

Senior Support 10 $120 $1,200 Project Administration 2. $85 ilZQ

Total Hours 65

Total Salary Cost $9,580

Other Direct Costs $500

TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE $10,080


8-1 Jf1380_W09,docx

137

EXHIBIT B

PROJECT BUDGET


PROJECT:

DESCRIPTION:

CONTRACT REFERENCE:

Labor Category Officer Associate Principal Senior Professional Professional II Senior Support Staff Support


WORK ORDER NO. 9

Indian River County SWDD Annual Permitting Services - 2014

Task 2.1- Preparation of Financial Assurance Report Task 2.2 - Survey and Airspace Assessment


Hours Rate 6 $200 6 $190 6 $180

50 $150

70 $130 8 $120

10 $85 Project Administration !! $85

Total Hours

Total Salary Cost

Outside Professionals - Masteller, Moler, Reed & Taylor, Inc.

Other Direct Costs

TOTAL LUMP SUM FEE

164

Total $1,200 $1,140 $1,080 $7,500 $9,100

$960 $850 $680

$22,510

$16,500

$1,200

$1:QZlQ

For the basic services under this Agreement, IRC SWDD agrees to pay the Consultant a lump sum fee of$40.210. Partial payments will be made on a monthly basis in accordance with the referenced contract.

8-2 j/1380....\\109.docx

138

EXHIBIT C

PROJECT SCHEDULE


ANNUAL PERMITTING SERVICES 2014

WORK ORDER NO. 9

SCHEDULE

1.0

2.1

2.2

Full Cost Accounting Report

Financial Assurance Report

Site Survey

C-1

Completion Date

March 31, 2014

November 1, 2014

April 15, 2014

jj1380_W09.doi:x

139

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 1

JEFFREY R. SMITH

Clerk to the Board

INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING


JANUARY 14, 2014

1. CALL TO ORDER .............................................................................................................................. 1

2. INVOCATION .................................................................................................................................... 1

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ............................................................................................................ 1

4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS .................................... 2

DELETED: ITEM 10B.1. REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM REVEREND W. MOSLEY AND

MR. BILL RIGBY REGARDING GIFFORD STATE OF AFFAIRS ....................................... 2

5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS .............................................................................. 2

5.A. PRESENTATION BY MISSY ELWARD AND FRANK MANNINO ON ST. BALDRICK’S

FOUNDATION HEAD SHAVE EVENT – MARCH 1ST, 2014 ............................................. 2

5.B. PRESENTATION OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT’S

2013 WATER SUPPLY PLAN BY JIM GROSS, TECHNICAL PROGRAM MANAGER

WITH DISTRICT REGULATORY, ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ......... 2

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES .............................................................................................................. 3

6.A. MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2013 ........................................................................... 3

6.B. MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2013 .............................................................................. 3

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 2

7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS NOT REQUIRING

BOARD ACTION ............................................................................................................................... 3

7.A. RETIREMENT AWARD AND PROCLAMATION HONORING SCOTT SMITH ON HIS

RETIREMENT FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES/FIRE RESCUE WITH

THIRTY-FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE ........................................................................... 4

8. CONSENT AGENDA ........................................................................................................................ 4

8.A. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS – DECEMBER 13, 2013 TO DECEMBER 20, 2013 ................ 4

8.B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS – DECEMBER 23, 2013 TO DECEMBER 31, 2013 ................ 4

8.C. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS – JANUARY 1, 2014 TO JANUARY 3, 2014 ......................... 5

8.D. 2014 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL(TCRPC)

COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS) COMMITTEE

DISTRICT APPOINTMENT MEMBER LISTING .............................................................. 5

8.E. NATIONAL ESTUARY GRANT PROPOSAL – REQUEST TO APPLY ................................. 6

9. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES .................................. 6

9.A.1. LESLIE R. SWAN – INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS:

AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND REIMBURSEMENT REVENUES FOR COSTS

ASSOCIATED WITH CONDUCTING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ......................................... 6

10. PUBLIC ITEMS .................................................................................................................................. 7

10.A. PUBLIC HEARINGS .............................................................................................. 7

10.A.1. MARGARET FULLER’S REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF A 74’ BY ± 33’

PORTION OF DOUBLOON DRIVE THAT FRONTS 9440 DOUBLOON DRIVE, LOT 6,

BLOCK D IN THE SUMMER PLACE UNIT 3 SUBDIVISION (LEGISLATIVE) ..................... 7

10.A.2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) NEIGHBORHOOD

REVITALIZATION PROJECT – WEST WABASSO SEWER AND DRAINAGE

IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 – PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER

OF HOOK-UPS AND RELATED BENEFICIARIES ESTIMATED AT THE TIME OF

APPLICATION (LEGISLATIVE) ................................................................................. 8

10.A.3. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 100.03 “AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES”

OF CHAPTER 100 “GENERAL PROVISIONS” OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 3

COUNTY, CODIFYING AND PUBLISHING THE ORDINANCES TO READOPT THE

CODE UP TO AND INCLUDING SUPPLEMENT 100 (LEGISLATIVE) ................................ 9

10.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS ............................................................................. 10

10.B.1. DELETED: REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM REVEREND W. MOSLEY AND MR. BILL

RIGBY REGARDING GIFFORD STATE OF AFFAIRS .................................................... 10

10.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - NONE ......................................................................... 10

11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MATTERS - NONE ....................................................................10

12. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS ......................................................................................................10

12.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - NONE ...................................................................... 10

12.B. EMERGENCY SERVICES - NONE .............................................................................. 10

12.C. GENERAL SERVICES - NONE .................................................................................. 10

12.D. HUMAN RESOURCES - NONE .................................................................................. 10

12.E. HUMAN SERVICES - NONE ..................................................................................... 11

12.F. LEISURE SERVICES - NONE .................................................................................... 11

12.G. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET - NONE ..................................................... 11

12.H. RECREATION - NONE ............................................................................................. 11

12.I. PUBLIC WORKS - NONE ......................................................................................... 11

12.J. UTILITIES SERVICES - NONE .................................................................................. 11

13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS ...............................................................................................11

13.A. 2014 COMMITTEES VACANCIES – APPOINTMENTS .................................................. 11

14. COMMISSIONER ITEMS ...............................................................................................................13

14.A. COMMISSIONER PETER D. O’BRYAN, CHAIRMAN ................................................... 13

14.A.1. OYSTER REEF PROJECT ......................................................................................... 13

14.B. COMMISSIONER WESLEY S. DAVIS, VICE CHAIRMAN - NONE .................................. 14

14.C. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH E. FLESCHER - NONE ......................................................... 14

14.D. COMMISSIONER BOB SOLARI - NONE ..................................................................... 14

14.E. COMMISSIONER TIM ZORC - NONE ......................................................................... 14

15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND BOARDS .........................................................................................14

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 4

15.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT - NONE ............................................................... 14

15.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ........................................................................ 14

15.B.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2013 .................................. 14

15.B.2. OSLO CONVENIENCE CENTER – BILL OF SALE OF UTILITY FACILITIES .................... 14

15.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD - NONE ........................................................... 14

16. ADJOURNMENT .............................................................................................................................15

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 1

JEFFREY R. SMITH

Clerk to the Board

January 14, 2014

REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS

The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular

Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on

Tuesday, January 14, 2014. Present were Chairman Peter D. O’Bryan, Vice Chairman Wesley S.

Davis, and Commissioners Joseph E. Flescher, Bob Solari, and Tim Zorc. Also present were

County Administrator Joseph A. Baird, Deputy County Attorney William DeBraal, and Deputy

Clerk Leona Adair Allen.

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman O’Bryan called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m.

2. INVOCATION

Deputy Teddy Floyd, Indian River County Sheriff’s Department, delivered the

Invocation.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Commissioner Zorc led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 2

4. ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS

Chairman O’Bryan requested the following change to the Agenda:

DELETED: ITEM 10.B.1. REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM REVEREND W. MOSLEY AND

MR. BILL RIGBY REGARDING GIFFORD STATE OF AFFAIRS

ON MOTION by Commissioner Solari, SECONDED by

Commissioner Flescher, the Board unanimously approved

the Agenda as amended.

5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

5.A. PRESENTATION BY MISSY ELWARD AND FRANK MANNINO ON ST.

BALDRICK’S FOUNDATION HEAD SHAVE EVENT – MARCH 1ST, 2014

Missy Elward and Frank Mannino, volunteer event organizers, showed a brief slide

presentation of last year’s head shaving event, and announced the 2014 annual fundraiser event

for St. Baldrick’s Cancer Foundation, for childhood cancer research, was scheduled for March 1,

2014. They encouraged Commissioners and staff to participate, and stated that further

information would be available at www.stbaldricks.org/events/indianriver2014, or by calling

772-633-4452.

5.B. PRESENTATION OF THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT

DISTRICT’S 2013 WATER SUPPLY PLAN BY JIM GROSS, TECHNICAL

PROGRAM MANAGER WITH DISTRICT REGULATORY, ENGINEERING AND

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

Technical Program Manager at St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD)

Jim Gross outlined the District Water Supply 20-year plan for future water demands and

planning.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 3

Commissioners sought and received information regarding SJRWMD’s scheduled public

meetings, and requested that a meeting regarding the Water Supply Plan be held here in Indian

River County.

Mr. Gross said he would take the request to his District Management.

A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the plan and looking to 2035’s water supply;

seawater desalination; surface water storage; examining the southern boundaries of Region Four

and how to flow the rainwater north instead of south; keeping the rainwater from going into the

lagoon; funding for preliminary design projects; and educational concepts pertaining to water

usage.

6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

6.A. MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2013

6.B. MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 2013

The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes. There

were none.

ON MOTION by Vice Chairman Davis, SECONDED by

Commissioner O’Bryan, the Board unanimously approved

the meeting minutes of November 19, 2013, and

December 3, 2013, as written.

7. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS FROM STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS

NOT REQUIRING BOARD ACTION

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 4

7.A. RETIREMENT AWARD AND PROCLAMATION HONORING SCOTT SMITH ON

HIS RETIREMENT FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES/FIRE RESCUE

WITH THIRTY-FOUR YEARS OF SERVICE

Chairman O’Bryan noted the Retirement Award and Proclamation honoring Scott Smith

on his retirement after 34 years, effective January 18, 2014.

8. CONSENT AGENDA

8.A. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS – DECEMBER 13, 2013 TO DECEMBER 20, 2013

ON MOTION by Commissioner Flescher, SECONDED

by Vice Chairman Davis, the Board unanimously

approved the list of Warrants and Wires issued by the

Comptroller’s Office for the time period of December 13,

2013 to December 20, 2013, as requested in the

memorandum of December 31, 2013.

8.B. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS – DECEMBER 23, 2013 TO DECEMBER 31, 2013




Comptroller’s Office for the time period of December 23,

2013 to December 31, 2013, as requested in the


DRAFT

January 14, 2014 5

8.C. APPROVAL OF WARRANTS – JANUARY 1, 2014 TO JANUARY 3, 2014




Comptroller’s Office for the time period of January 1,

2014 to January 3, 2014, as requested in the memorandum

of January 3, 2014.

8.D. 2014 TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL(TCRPC)

COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (CEDS)

COMMITTEE DISTRICT APPOINTMENT MEMBER LISTING


by Vice Chairman Davis, the Board unanimously ratified

the reappointments to the Treasure Coast Regional

Planning Council (TCRPC) Comprehensive Economic

Development Strategy (CEDS) Committee, and authorized

the Chairman to notify the Committee of the Board

appointments, as recommended in the memorandum of

January 6, 2014.

(District 1: Mark Mathes; District 2: Rich Stringer;

District 3: Helene Caseltine; District 4: Randy Riley; and

District 5: Glenn Heran)

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 6

8.E. NATIONAL ESTUARY GRANT PROPOSAL – REQUEST TO APPLY



authorized staff to submit a request to the Indian River

Lagoon National Estuary Program for grant funding for

total maximum daily load (TMDL) reduction projects at

the West Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP)

wetland treatment system, as recommended in the

memorandum of January 8, 2014.

9. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL

AGENCIES

9.A.1. LESLIE R. SWAN – INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS:

AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND REIMBURSEMENT REVENUES FOR COSTS

ASSOCIATED WITH CONDUCTING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS


Commissioner Flescher, the Board unanimously

authorized the Supervisor of Elections to expend

reimbursement revenues for costs associated with

conducting municipal elections for the City of Sebastian

and the City of Vero Beach, as requested in the letter

dated December 7, 2013.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 7

10. PUBLIC ITEMS

10.A. PUBLIC HEARINGS

10.A.1. MARGARET FULLER’S REQUEST FOR ABANDONMENT OF A 74’ BY ± 33’

PORTION OF DOUBLOON DRIVE THAT FRONTS 9440 DOUBLOON DRIVE,

LOT 6, BLOCK D IN THE SUMMER PLACE UNIT 3 SUBDIVISION

(LEGISLATIVE)

PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR HEARING IS ON FILE IN THE

OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD

Community Development Director Stan Boling provided description, conditions, and

analysis regarding the owner’s (Margaret Fuller) request to abandon a small segment of

Doubloon Drive, located in Summer Place Unit 3 Subdivision, east of A1A, and the intersection

of Doubloon Drive and East Sand Dollar Lane. He recommended that the Board abandon its

rights to the subject right-of-way, with the condition that a utility easement be retained over the

entire segment of the right-of-way.

The Chairman opened the Public Hearing. There being no speakers, the Chairman closed

the Public Hearing.



Resolution 2014-004, providing for the closing,

abandonment, vacation and discontinuance of a 74’ by

±33’ portion of Doubloon Drive that lies in front of 9440

Doubloon Drive, Lot 6, Block D in the Summer Place

Unit 3 Subdivision as shown in Plat Book 7, Page 74 of

the public records of Indian River County, Florida.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 8

10.A.2. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) NEIGHBORHOOD

REVITALIZATION PROJECT – WEST WABASSO SEWER AND DRAINAGE

IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 1 – PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO REDUCE THE

NUMBER OF HOOK-UPS AND RELATED BENEFICIARIES ESTIMATED AT

THE TIME OF APPLICATION (LEGISLATIVE)



Director of Utility Services Vincent Burke recapped the January 6, 2014 memorandum,

providing background, conditions, and analysis for the Board to consider Modification 3 to the

Subgrant Agreement with the Department of Economic Opportunity, to change the number of

accomplishments and/or beneficiaries. He thanked Deputy Teddy Floyd and Julianne Price for

their work in going door-to-door to obtain income survey information for the grant application.

Corbett Alday, Guardian Community Resource Management, Inc., Lakeland, Florida,

conveyed that this public hearing is to consider a modification to reduce the number of hookups

in a current Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that was submitted in 2011. He

provided background and details relating to the West Wabasso Phase 1 Project, the grant budget,

the project area, and the status of the sewer mains and drainage facilities. He recommended that

Modification 3 be submitted to reduce the number of sewer hookups and related beneficiaries

that would allow the grant to close, so staff could move forward with submitting a Phase 2

Project.

A brief discussion ensued regarding the number of unit hookups, and the participation

rate.

The Chairman opened the Public Hearing.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 9

Julianne Price, Health Department, and Deputy Teddy Floyd, Sheriff’s Department,

thanked the Board and Utility Department for being responsive to the community’s needs,

believed the project was successful, and looked forward to Phase 2.

There being no other speakers, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing.



approved Modification Number 3 so the grant can be

closed, and staff can move forward with Phase 2, as

recommended in the memorandum of January 6, 2014.

10.A.3. AMENDMENT TO SECTION 100.03 “AMENDMENT OR REPEAL OF

ORDINANCES” OF CHAPTER 100 “GENERAL PROVISIONS” OF THE CODE

OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, CODIFYING AND PUBLISHING THE

ORDINANCES TO READOPT THE CODE UP TO AND INCLUDING

SUPPLEMENT 100 (LEGISLATIVE)



Deputy County Attorney Bill DeBraal requested that the Board approve an ordinance to

maintain a current codification and an annual publication of all the ordinances in the Code of

Indian River County, up to and including Supplement 100.

The Chairman opened the Public Hearing. There being no speakers, the Chairman closed

the Public Hearing.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 10


Commissioner Flescher, the Board unanimously adopted

Ordinance 2014-001, amending Section 100.03

“Amendment or Repeal of Ordinances” of Chapter 100

“General Provisions” of the Code of Indian River County

(“The Code”), codifying and publishing the ordinances up

to and including Supplement 100 thereto, readopting the

Code, designating the Code as the best evidence of the

current law of Indian River County, Florida, and providing

for severability, codification, and an effective date.

10.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS

10.B.1. DELETED: REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM REVEREND W. MOSLEY AND MR.

BILL RIGBY REGARDING GIFFORD STATE OF AFFAIRS

This item was deleted.

10.C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS - NONE

11. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MATTERS - NONE

12. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS

12.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - NONE

12.B. EMERGENCY SERVICES - NONE

12.C. GENERAL SERVICES - NONE

12.D. HUMAN RESOURCES - NONE

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 11

12.E. HUMAN SERVICES - NONE

12.F. LEISURE SERVICES - NONE

12.G. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET - NONE

12.H. RECREATION - NONE

12.I. PUBLIC WORKS - NONE

12.J. UTILITIES SERVICES - NONE

13. COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTERS

13.A. 2014 COMMITTEES VACANCIES – APPOINTMENTS

Attorney DeBraal recalled that on September 13, 2011, the Board adopted Resolution

2011-072, which assigned the County Attorney’s office the task of monitoring certain committee

member terms and overseeing the process of annual appointments and reappointments. He

requested the Commissioners review the applicants’ resumes and appoint applicants to the

committee vacancies as they deem appropriate.

MOTION WAS MADE by Vice Chairman Davis,

SECONDED by Commissioner Solari, to appoint Linda

Ann Morgan to the Affordable Housing Advisory

Committee, and Larry Thomas Hall to the Construction

Board of Adjustment Committee; both are two-year terms.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 12

Charlie Wilson informed the Board that he would like to speak on this item when the

time is appropriate.

The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the

Motion carried unanimously.



the appointment of Linda Ann Morgan as the public at

large member to the Enterprise Zone Development

Agency; and Mark Saint-Vincent as the public at large

member (with an unexpired term ending January 2015) to

the Enterprise Zone Development Agency.

Charlie Wilson introduced his new endeavor, the formation of the new Vero Beach

Chamber of Commerce (not the existing Indian River County Chamber), which he stated is not a

new business venture, but a new activity that would seek nothing from the County or the Board

of County Commissioners. He explained his position, how the new Chamber would relate to the

County, and indicated that he would appoint a representative from his Chamber to sit on the

Enterprise Zone and/or Economic Development Committee if the Board desires.

There was a brief discussion regarding the membership composition of the Enterprise

Zone Development Agency and the Economic Development Council.

Attorney DeBraal pointed out that both the Ordinance and the supporting Resolution call

for a member from the Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, and if the Board decides to

change anything, it would need to be done by an ordinance amendment.

No action required or taken.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 13

14. COMMISSIONER ITEMS

14.A. COMMISSIONER PETER D. O’BRYAN, CHAIRMAN

14.A.1. OYSTER REEF PROJECT

Chairman O’Bryan requested that fellow Commissioners consider and approve a grant

application to the Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, and authorize County

matching funds in the amount up to $50,000 for expansion of the oyster reef project. He

conveyed that time is of the essence since the application must be completed and submitted by

January 15, 2014 at 5:00 p.m.

MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Solari,

SECONDED by Commissioner Flescher, to approve the

grant application to the Indian River Lagoon National

Estuary Program, and authorize matching funding in the

amount of $50,000 for expansion of the oyster reef

project, as requested in the memorandum of January 7,

2014.

Chip Swindell, Ecotech Consultants, Inc. provided the Board with an update on the

ongoing oyster reef project, the health of the reef, and the water quality.

Discussion ensued regarding the methodology of the project, sharing the data of the

project’s success with the public, and tracking total maximum daily load (TMDL) credits.

Administrator Baird said that he would identify a funding source if the grant project is

successful, and bring it back to the Board.

The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the

Motion carried unanimously.

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 14

14.B. COMMISSIONER WESLEY S. DAVIS, VICE CHAIRMAN - NONE

14.C. COMMISSIONER JOSEPH E. FLESCHER - NONE

14.D. COMMISSIONER BOB SOLARI - NONE

14.E. COMMISSIONER TIM ZORC - NONE

15. SPECIAL DISTRICTS AND BOARDS

15.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT - NONE

15.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT

The Board reconvened as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal

District. Those Minutes are available separately.

15.B.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – MEETING OF NOVEMBER 19, 2013

15.B.2. OSLO CONVENIENCE CENTER – BILL OF SALE OF UTILITY FACILITIES

15.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD - NONE

ALL BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, RESOLUTIONS, AND ORDINANCES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE

OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AND ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES

DRAFT

January 14, 2014 15

16. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned at

10:35 a.m.

ATTEST:

_________________________________ ________________________________

Jeffrey R. Smith, Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller

Minutes Approved: _________________

BCC/LA/2014Minutes

DRAFT

December 3, 2013 1 Solid Waste Disposal District

JEFFREY R. SMITH

Clerk to the Board

December 3, 2013


MEETING MINUTES

The Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) met at the

County Commission Chambers, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, December 3,

2013. Present were Chairman Peter D. O’Bryan, and Commissioners Joseph E. Flescher, Bob

Solari, and Tim Zorc. Vice Chairman Wesley S. Davis was absent. Also present were County

Administrator Joseph A. Baird, County Attorney Dylan Reingold, and Deputy Clerk Leona Adair

Allen.

Chairman O’Bryan called the meeting to order at 12:36 p.m.

15.B.1. WORK ORDER NO. 1 TO NEEL-SCHAFFER, INC. FOR 2014

MASTER PLAN UPDATE

ON MOTION by Commissioner Flescher, SECONDED by

Commissioner Solari, the Board by a 4-0 vote (Vice

Chairman Davis absent) approved and authorized the

Chairman to execute Work Order No. 1 with

Neel-Schaffer, Inc., in the amount of $148,202, to provide

engineering services related to the 2014 Solid Waste

DRAFT


Master Plan Update, as recommended in the memorandum

of November 21, 2013.

WORK ORDER ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD

ALL BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, RESOLUTIONS, AND ORDINANCES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF

THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AND ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES

There being no further business, the Chairman declared the Solid Waste Disposal District

meeting adjourned at 12:37 p.m.

ATTEST:

_________________________________ ________________________________

Jeffrey R. Smith, Peter D. O’Bryan, Chairman Clerk of Circuit Court and Comptroller


DRAFT


JEFFREY R. SMITH

Clerk to the Board

December 17, 2013


MEETING MINUTES

The Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) met at the

County Commission Chambers, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, December 17,

2013. Present were Chairman Peter D. O’Bryan, Vice Chairman Wesley S. Davis, and

Commissioners Joseph E. Flescher, Bob Solari, and Tim Zorc. Also present were County

Administrator Joseph A. Baird, County Attorney Dylan Reingold, and Deputy Clerk Leona Adair

Allen.

Chairman O’Bryan called the meeting to order at 10:20 a.m.

15.B.1. SEVENTH AMENDMENT TO SWDD FEEDSTOCK SUPPLY

AGREEMENT WITH INEOS NEW PLANET BIOENERGY, LLC

(INPB)



and authorized the Chairman to execute the Seventh

Amendment to Feedstock Supply Agreement, as

recommended in the memorandum of December 9, 2013.

DRAFT


AMENDMENT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD

15.B.2. FINAL PAY FOR CDM SMITH WORK ORDER NO. 5 – WETLAND

FILLING


Commissioner Solari, the Board unanimously approved

CDM Smith’s final invoice for wetland filling, in the

amount of $54,847.50, as recommended in the


15.B.3. FINAL PAY FOR CDM SMITH WORK ORDER NO. 9 – DESIGN,

PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW OSLO

CUSTOMER CONVENIENCE CENTER

ON MOTION by Commissioner Flescher, SECONDED by

Vice Chairman Davis, the Board unanimously approved

CDM Smith’s final invoice for designing, permitting, and

construction of the Oslo Customer Convenience Center, in

the amount of $552.37, as recommended in the


A brief discussion ensued regarding the ribbon cutting ceremony for the new Oslo

Customer Convenience Center, and the possibility of using the footprint of the Center for the 41st

Street improvement.

DRAFT


ALL BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, RESOLUTIONS, AND ORDINANCES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF

THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AND ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES


meeting adjourned at 10:24 a.m.

ATTEST:

_________________________________ ________________________________



January 7, 2014 1 SWDD

JEFFREY R. SMITH

Clerk to the Board

January 7, 2014


MEETING MINUTES

The Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District met at the County

Commission Chambers, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, January 7, 2014.

Present were Chairman Peter D. O’Bryan, Vice Chairman Wesley S. Davis, and Commissioners

Joseph E. Flescher, Bob Solari, and Tim Zorc. Also present were County Administrator Joseph

A. Baird, County Attorney Dylan Reingold, and Deputy Clerk Maureen Gelfo.

Chairman Flescher called the meeting to order at 9:59 a.m.

15.B.1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MEETING OF NOVEMBER 12, 2013



the minutes of the November 12, 2013 meeting, as written.

January 7, 2014 2 SWDD

15.B.2. AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO WORK ORDER NO. 7 TO GEOSYNTEC

CONSULTANTS INC., FOR FDEP RELATED CONSULTING

SERVICES AT THE FORMER SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD LANDFILL


by Commissioner Solari, the Board unanimously: (1)

approved and authorized the Chairman to execute

Amendment No. 1 to Work Order No. 7 authorizing

Geosyntec Consultants, Inc., to provide additional

consulting services in the amount of $22,974; and (2)

authorized staff to utilize the project account funding for

disposal of non-hazardous waste into the Indian River

County landfill, as recommended in the memorandum of

December 18, 2013.

ALL BACKUP DOCUMENTATION, RESOLUTIONS, AND ORDINANCES ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE

OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AND ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THESE MINUTES


meeting adjourned at 9:59 a.m.

ATTEST:

_________________________________ ________________________________



BCC/SWDD/2014 Minutes

SANITARY SEWER FEASIBILITY

STUDY AND REPORT

FOR THE

NORTH SEBASTIAN AREA


November 2013

Prepared for:

Indian River County Utilities

Prepared by:

________________________________ Earl H. Masteller, PE, BCEE FL#26658

MASTELLER & MOLER, INC.

~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ 1655 27th Street, Suite #2

Vero Beach, Florida 32960 772.567.5300

November 2013 SANITARY SEWER FEASIBILITY STUDY & REPORT MM # 1351 NORTH SEBASTIAN AREA

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Background Location of Study Area Existing Physical Considerations

GOAL / OBJECTIVES Financial Considerations Indian River Lagoon Pollution Commercial Development Public Involvement

EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM Existing Sanitary Sewer System

COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE Study Area #1 Study Area #2 Construction Cost Estimate EXHIBIT 1A – STUDY AREA #1 Proposed Gravity Sewer Collection & Conveyance System (North Section) EXHIBIT 1B – STUDY AREA #1 Proposed Gravity Sewer Collection & Conveyance System (South Section) EXHIBIT 2 – STUDY AREA #2 Proposed Gravity Sewer Collection & Conveyance System

VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE Study Area #1 Study Area #2 Construction Cost Estimate EXHIBIT 3A – STUDY AREA #1 Proposed Vacuum Sewer Collection & Conveyance System (North Section) EXHIBIT 3B – STUDY AREA #1 Proposed Vacuum Sewer Collection & Conveyance System (South Section) EXHIBIT 4 – STUDY AREA #2 Proposed Vacuum Sewer Collection & Conveyance System

LOW PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES Study Area #1 Study Area #2 Construction Cost Estimate EXHIBIT 5A – STUDY AREA #1 Proposed Low Pressure Sewer Collection & Conveyance System (North

Section) EXHIBIT 5B – STUDY AREA #1 Proposed Low Pressure Sewer Collection & Conveyance System (South

Section) EXHIBIT 6 – STUDY AREA #2 Proposed Low Pressure Sewer Collection & Conveyance System

EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS (ERUs)

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS

PROJECT FINANCING

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS


ii

APPENDIX

COMMERCIAL AREA MAP

SOIL BORING DATA

VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM EXHIBITS TYPICAL LAYOUT TYPICAL VALVE PIT TYPICAL VACUUM STATION SCHEMATIC ROCKRIDGE PHOTOGRAPHS

LOW PRESSURE / GRINDER PUMP STATION EXHIBITS TYPICAL SIMPLEX GRINDER PUMP STATION LOCAL PUMP STATION PHOTOGRAPHS

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON POLLUTION ARTICLES

Press Journal (TCPalm), August 11, 2013, “Investigation: Move over fertilizer; septic tank drainage also contaminating Indian River Lagoon”

Press Journal (TCPalm), October 20, 2013, Editorial: “Counties along Indian River Lagoon should work together on septic tank issue”

Press Journal (TCPalm), September 1, 2013, Editorial: “To help restore Indian River Lagoon, Treasure Coast governments should give more attention to septic-tank issue”

Vero’s Voice - Issue 31, August 2013, “Can We Save the Indian River Lagoon? The Lagoon’s Seagrass Dilemma”

Vero’s Voice - Issue 32, September 2013, “Is The Dream Of A Pristine Indian River Lagoon Gone?”


1

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Background

The Indian River County Utilities Department has requested and authorized Masteller & Moler, Inc.

to prepare a Sanitary Sewer Feasibility Study and Report addressing the North Sebastian area of

Indian River County. The area in question is presently served by an arterial sanitary sewer

collection and conveyance system constructed in the early 1990’s but there remains a large

population of residential and commercial entities which utilize onsite septic disposal systems. The

use of septic disposal systems results in pollution of the groundwater in the study area, which

ultimately flows into the Indian River Lagoon and St. Sebastian River. Numerous articles have

documented that septic disposal systems are polluting the Indian River Lagoon. Several of these

articles are included in the Appendix of this report. In addition, the use of septic disposal systems

limits commercial development which in turn hinders business and employment growth in the area.

The purpose of this Feasibility Study and Report is to provide the preliminary design for

construction of a centralized sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system to eliminate the

existing and future need for septic disposal systems and establish the estimated cost of the

proposed centralized sewer system.

Location of Study Area

The study area consists of two (2) separate segments which will be referred to in this report as

“Study Area #1” and “Study Area #2.”

Study Area #1 is bordered by US Highway 1 as the western boundary, the Indian River Lagoon as

the eastern boundary, Main Street as the southern boundary, and the Indian River Drive

connection to US Highway 1 as the northern boundary.

Study Area #2 includes the community of Ercildoune Heights and approximately 100 acres north of

Roseland Road with Kelso Place as the eastern boundary, 128th Court as the western boundary,

and the shoreline of the St. Sebastian River as the northern boundary.

Existing Physical Considerations

Study Area #1 is presently served by an existing sanitary sewer arterial system located in Indian

River Drive, which borders the Indian River Lagoon. The sewer system was constructed in the

early 1990’s and resulted in the elimination of numerous package treatment plants that had


2

previously discharged directly into the Indian River Lagoon. The existing arterial sanitary sewer

system was originally designed to serve the residential and commercial development in Study Area

#1. The wastewater generated by Study Area #1 is ultimately conveyed to the Central Sub-

Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant which has adequate capacity for additional wastewater

flows. The groundwater direction of flow from Study Area #1 is from west to east into the Indian

River Lagoon. Therefore, there is no doubt that the construction of a centralized sewer system and

elimination of septic disposal systems will result in a significant reduction in the pollution load

presently experienced in the Indian River Lagoon. The centralized sanitary sewer system will be

constructed within the street system and with few exceptions; the streets in Study Area #1 are

paved and publicly owned. The final design of the centralized sewer system must take into

account the existing public potable water supply system; areas with existing storm sewer; and the

special construction limitations to be encountered along the eastern side of US Highway 1.

Study Area #1 contains a significant amount of existing and future commercial development as

shown on the “Commercial Area Map” in the appendix of this report. The commercial development

shown along US Highway 1, north of the Sebastian Cemetery is within Indian River County and the

commercial area shown south of the Cemetery is in the City of Sebastian. Presently, commercial

development is limited with regard to size and type by the use of onsite septic disposal systems.

The availability of a centralized sanitary sewer system will remove this obstacle to commercial

development and the resulting economic benefits.

Study Area #2 is residential in nature and substantially developed. The Ercildoune Heights

community has paved streets and is located on a high bluff overlooking the south shore of the St.

Sebastian River. The onsite septic disposal systems serving the residences of Ercildoune Heights

ultimately percolate into the groundwater which flows into the St. Sebastian River. The

construction of a centralized sewer system for Ercildoune Heights and the elimination of the onsite

septic disposal systems will eliminate a significant pollution load into the St. Sebastian River. In

addition, the homeowners will not be subject to the inconvenience and expense due to septic

system failure and replacement reconstruction and/or malfunction. The other portion of Study Area

#2 is located north of Roseland Road between 128th Court and Kelso Place. This area is less

urbanized and many of the streets are paved with a single lane of paving and several are unpaved.

The area could be described as an old established residential community served by on-site private

potable water wells and septic disposal systems. The existing street network is a grid system with

swale drainage. The construction of a centralized sanitary sewer system will eliminate the existing

pollution load from this community, which presently flows via groundwater into the St. Sebastian

River to the north.


3

GOAL / OBJECTIVES

Financial Considerations

An objective of this study and report will be to prepare preliminary design sanitary sewer collection

and conveyance system alternatives to service Study Area #1 and Study Area #2 and establish the

estimated construction cost of these alternatives. The goal is to determine the best alternative and

seek financial grants to make the project cost affordable to the County and the system users.

Indian River Lagoon Pollution

An objective of the project is to eliminate groundwater contamination caused by existing and future

onsite septic disposal systems. This polluted groundwater ultimately discharges into the St.

Sebastian River and Indian River Lagoon. The pollution of the Indian River Lagoon by septic

disposal systems is well documented and the subject of numerous articles in the news media.

Several of these articles have been reproduced and are included in the Appendix of this report.

The goal of this project is to eliminate the onsite septic disposal systems by construction of a

centralized sewer collection system. The construction of a centralized sewer system will preserve

the Indian River Lagoon and represent a positive impact on all of us with respect to quality of life

and our public economy. The Indian River Lagoon is probably one of the main reasons that most

of us live in this area.

Commercial Development

An objective of the project is to eliminate the present and future use of onsite septic disposal

systems in areas designated for commercial development by construction of a centralized sanitary

sewer collection and conveyance system. The goal of increasing commercial development is to

create additional employment and economic activity in the area.

Public Involvement

An objective of the project is to involve all stakeholders, which includes Indian River County

Utilities Department, City of Sebastian, and the potential system users in the study areas. The

goal is to generate discussion and public acceptance of the project in order that the project can

proceed to completion.


4

EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM

Existing Sanitary Sewer System

Both Study Area #1 and Study Area #2 are presently served with an existing sanitary sewer

collection and conveyance system, which was constructed in the early 1990’s. The total number of

parcels served in Study Areas #1 and #2 by this existing system is approximately (230) of which

30% are undeveloped and 70% are developed. Of the 70% that are developed, approximately

60% have connected to the centralized sewer system and 40% of the parcels have not connected.

The existing sanitary sewer system in Study Area #1 is primarily located in Indian River Drive,

which borders the shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon along the east side of the study area. The

existing sanitary sewer system was originally designed to serve the users in Study Area #1 so the

pipelines have adequate capacity for this project. The wastewater generated by the users in Study

Area #1 is ultimately conveyed to the Central Sub-Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, which

has adequate capacity for additional flows from Study Area #1.

Study Area #2 has an existing sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system along the east

side of the Ercildoune Heights community. The other portion of Study Area #2 has an existing

force main along Roseland Road. The existing sanitary sewer systems have pipeline capacity to

serve the added flows from Study Area #2. The wastewater from Study Area #2 is ultimately

conveyed to the Central Sub-Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility for treatment and disposal.

The plant has adequate capacity for this additional wastewater.


5

COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

There are a number of collection system alternatives available for consideration when preparing

preliminary designs. When possible, it is preferred to utilize gravity flow when compared to other

systems such as vacuum or low pressure since gravity flow does not rely on mechanical elements

to convey the flow.

In general, the advantages and disadvantages of vacuum and low pressure alternatives to gravity

sewers are as follows:

ADVANTAGES

Material and trenching costs are lower because pipe size and depth requirements are reduced.

Infiltration is reduced due to sealed pipe joints

DISADVANTAGES

Requires much institutional involvement because the pressure and vacuum system has many mechanical components throughout the service area.

The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for a pressure and vacuum system is often higher than a conventional gravity system due to the high number of mechanical elements in use.

Annual preventive maintenance calls are usually scheduled for grinder pump components of pressure sewers. STEP systems also require pump-out of septic tanks at two to three year intervals.

Public education is necessary so the user knows how to deal with emergencies and how to avoid blockages or other maintenance problems associated with low pressure systems.

The number of pumps or vacuum valves that can share the same downstream force or vacuum main is limited.

Power outages can result in overflows if standby generators are not available.

Life cycle replacement costs are expected to be higher because pressure and vacuum sewers have a lower life expectancy than conventional systems.

• •

• •

•

•

•

•

•


6

GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

The design professional must consider the topography and natural conditions of the study area in

order to design the most cost-effective sewer collection system utilizing gravity flow. The objective

is to follow natural slopes and maintain minimum depths of the sewer system to service existing

and proposed users by gravity flow. In general, the design sewer depths should be between 3-feet

below grade as a minimum to 12-feet below grade as a maximum. In addition to topography, soil

conditions and water table elevations are also factors to consider due to their impact on project

construction cost. A high water table condition may increase future operation and maintenance

costs due to infiltration of groundwater into the manholes and sewer pipelines as the system ages.

Masteller & Moler, Inc. obtained spot elevations at specific locations throughout Study Areas #1

and #2 to establish the topographical conditions for design purposes. Also, a total of nine (9) soil

borings were taken at selected locations in order to determine the general soil conditions as well

the groundwater elevations. Masteller & Moler, Inc. utilized this topographical information in order

to generate design plan and profiles of the most cost effective gravity sewer system to serve Study

Areas #1 and #2. The results of these efforts are shown Exhibits 1A, 1B and 2 which are included

within this section of the Report. Soil boring results are included in the Appendix of this report.

Study Area #1

Study Area #1 is shown on Exhibits 1A and 1B. The existing sanitary sewer system is shown in

green and the proposed gravity sewer system is shown in red. Study Area #1 has a north / south

sand ridge along the east side of US Highway 1. The result is the commercial users along the east

side of US #1 must be served by a separate gravity sewer system served by a small pumping

station as shown on Exhibits 1A and 1B. Since this proposed gravity sewer system must be

constructed in the eastern right-of-way of US #1, a meeting was held with representatives of

F.D.O.T. in Ft. Pierce to discuss the project. During that meeting verbal approval was provided by

F.D.O.T. for the proposed gravity sewer system. The proposed gravity sewer system along the

east side of US #1 has sewer depths ranging from 4-feet deep at the north and south ends to a

maximum of approximately 10-feet deep at the proposed pumping station location shown on

Exhibit 1A. The construction of the system will provide sewer service to all existing and proposed

commercial users along the east side of US #1 north of the Sebastian Cemetery.

The majority of new gravity sewer in Study Area #1 is located in the area west of North Central

Avenue. As shown on Exhibits 1A and 1B, North Central Avenue extends in a north / south

direction from Roseland Road to the intersection of North Central Avenue and US #1. All of Study


7

Area #1 north of Jackson Street in the North Central Avenue corridor can be served by gravity

sewer connected to the existing sewer system without the need for any new pumping stations.

The maximum depth of the proposed sewer system in the North Central Avenue corridor, north of

Jackson Street is approximately 9-feet below grade. A separate small gravity sewer system is

shown from Jackson Street south along North Central Avenue with a small pumping station

proposed at the intersection of North Central Avenue and Davis Street. Also, several proposed

manholes and a small section of gravity sewer is shown on Exhibit 1B to be constructed on

property owned by the City of Sebastian. The gravity sewer will connect and flow into a pumping

station next to the fish market building owned by the City of Sebastian. This proposed gravity

sewer will serve three (3) properties fronting on US #1.

Three (3) soil borings were taken along North Central Avenue designated as SB-7, SB-8, and SB-

9. These soil borings are included in the Appendix of this report and show a high seasonal

groundwater table approximately 24-inches below the surface. The presence of this high

groundwater table along North Central Avenue will necessitate a dewatering operation as part of

the construction of the proposed gravity sewer in North Central Avenue. The need for dewatering

will increase the time and construction cost of the gravity sewer system in the North Central

Avenue corridor, south of Roseland Road.

Lastly, a proposed gravity sewer system in Study Area #1 is shown north of Roseland Road to

serve the residential users along Ruffner Lane and Bay Street. A manhole and small section of

gravity sewer is shown north of Bay Street to serve the commercial complex including Bay Street

Pharmacy along with the Monett Eye Center to the north. This manhole and section of gravity

sewer would be constructed in an easement. This would avoid the costly construction of additional

gravity sewer along the east side of US #1 and will serve the Monett Eye Center. The proposed

gravity sewer system in Bay Street flows by gravity into the existing sanitary system in Indian River

Drive as shown on Exhibit 1A.

In summary, it is feasible to serve Study Area #1 with a gravity sewer system and two (2) small

pumping stations. The fact that a high groundwater table exists along North Central Avenue will

add to the time of construction and cost of construction due to the need for dewatering operations.

It should also be noted that the presence of this high groundwater table means that many of the

existing septic systems along North Central Avenue are located in the groundwater and are

disposing of polluted water directly into the groundwater, which transports this pollution load into

the Indian River Lagoon.


8

Study Area #2

Study Area #2 is shown in Exhibit 2 with the existing sanitary sewer system shown in green and

the proposed gravity sewer system shown in red. Study Area #2 includes the residential

community of Ercildoune Heights and the area of Roseland, northwest of Roseland Road to the St.

Sebastian River shown on Exhibit 2. In order to develop the gravity sewer design of the sewer

systems to serve Study Area #2, Masteller & Moler, Inc. obtained spot elevations at key locations

to establish topography and obtained four (4) soil borings within Study Area #2 to reflect soil

conditions and the groundwater table elevations.

Ercildoune Heights is a residential community almost totally developed located along the east

shoreline of the St. Sebastian River. An existing gravity sanitary sewer system is located along the

east boundary of the community and serves numerous Ercildoune Heights users as well as some

commercial establishments along the west right-of-way of US #1. In addition, several users are

served by a small collection system and pumping station located at the extreme north end of 80th

Avenue as shown on Exhibit 2. However, the majority of residences in Ercildoune Heights are

served by existing septic systems.

The balance of the residential users in Ercildoune Heights can be served by a gravity sewer

system at reasonable depths with the exception of three (3) properties on 142nd Way and eight (8)

properties on 141st Street. These properties are impacted by a deep ravine sloping from south to

north at a diagonal through the lots and covered by heavy vegetation and improvements. It

appears that a stormwater system exists to convey run-off to the St. Sebastian River but it is

questionable whether legal easements are provided for the stormwater system. Based on these

factors, the proposed gravity sewer design includes two (2) small pumping stations, similar to the

existing pumping station located at the northerly end of 80th Avenue, to serve the properties on

142nd Way and 141st Street. The proposed Ercildoune Heights gravity system connects to the

existing gravity sewer system in 140th Street.

The balance of Study Area #2 as shown on Exhibit 2 consists of two (2) areas of Roseland located

northwest of Roseland Road and extending to the St. Sebastian River. The area generally east of

the F.E.C. Railroad is almost totally developed with residential properties and streets laid out on a

grid-system. Exhibit 2 shows the gravity system design which will serve all of the existing users

and several undeveloped lots by gravity flow. The proposed gravity sewers connect to the existing

gravity sewer system in Kelso Place.


9

Exhibit 2 shows the area generally northwest of the F.E.C. Railroad and extending west to 128th

Court. This area is almost totally developed as residential and includes a church and community

center building. The area is served by a street layout having a grid pattern. The gravity sewer

system as shown will provide service to all of the users and several vacant lots. The proposed

gravity sewer system will include a small pumping station located in a paper street area near the

intersection of 83rd Avenue (Bay Street) west of the community center building.

As shown on Exhibit 2, a total of four (4) soil borings were obtained in Study Area #2. These soil

borings show that in all cases the soil is suitable for gravity sewer construction and the

groundwater levels should not present major time or construction cost impacts.

Construction Cost Estimate

Masteller & Moler, Inc. has utilized the exhibits and in-house work products and performed a take-

off of all construction items necessary to construct the proposed gravity sewer system. The

resulting construction quantities were multiplied by unit prices in order to establish the estimated

project cost. The unit prices were provided by an experience utility contractor named Jobear /

Warden Construction of Palm Bay, FL. This contractor has constructed numerous centralized

sewer projects in Indian River County and is familiar with the study area site conditions. This

information is shown on the next page included in this section of the report. The total estimated

project cost for a gravity sewer system to serve Study Areas #1 and #2 is $5,000,000.00.


10

Sanitary Sewer For North Sebastian Area Indian River County Department of Utilities Services

Gravity Sewer

Item No.

Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price

1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 125,000.00 $ 125,000.00

2 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

3 Stakeout Survey & As-builts 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00

4 Standard Manholes 0'-6' 87 EA $ 3,900.00 $ 339,300.00





9 Drop Manhole 6'-8' (Outside Drop) 2 EA $ 6,500.00 $ 13,000.00

10 Drop Manhole 8'-10' (Outside Drop) 2 EA $ 7,100.00 $ 14,200.00

11 Pump Station #1 1 LS $ 164,000.00 $ 164,000.00

12 Pump Station #2 1 LS $ 164,000.00 $ 164,000.00

13 Pump Station #3 1 LS $ 164,000.00 $ 164,000.00

14 Pump Station #4 (Small Grinder Type) 1 LS $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00

15 Pump Station #5 (Small Grinder Type) 1 LS $ 65,000.00 $ 65,000.00

16 4" Dia. Force Main 2,500 LF $ 15.00 $ 37,500.00

17 Testing force main 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00

18 8" PVC Sewer 0'-6' 11,780 LF $ 22.00 $ 259,160.00

19 8" PVC Sewer 6'-8' 8,160 LF $ 27.00 $ 220,320.00

20 8" PVC Sewer 8'-10' 3,600 LF $ 38.00 $ 136,800.00 21 8" PVC Sewer 10'-12' 915 LF $ 50.00 $ 45,750.00

22 8" PVC Sewer 12'-14' 635 LF $ 75.00 $ 47,625.00

23 10" PVC Sewer 0'-6' 1,590 LF $ 24.00 $ 38,160.00

24 10" PVC Sewer 6'-8' 2,270 LF $ 30.00 $ 68,100.00

25 10" PVC Sewer 8'-10' 2,025 LF $ 40.00 $ 81,000.00

26 10" PVC Sewer 10'-12' 310 LF $ 53.00 $ 16,430.00

27 Testing (TV of Mains) 31,285 LF $ 1.50 $ 46,927.50

28 Dewatering 12,610 LF $ 8.00 $ 100,880.00

29 Single Lateral 267 EA $ 625.00 $ 166,875.00

30 Double Lateral 89 EA $ 650.00 $ 57,850.00

31 Erosion & Sediment Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00

32 Paved Restoration (Open Cut) 20,975 LF $ 50.00 $ 1,048,750.00

33 Un-Paved Road Restoration (Open Cut) 13,910 LF $ 12.00 $ 166,920.00

34 Sod 6,080 LF $ 4.00 $ 24,320.00

35 SUBTOTAL $ 4,075,167.50

36 Design/Permitting – Final Engineering (7.5%) 1 LS $ 305,637.56 $ 305,637.56

37 *Contingencies (15%) 1 LS $ 611,275.13 $ 611,275.13

38 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $ 4,992,080.19

USE - - - - $ 5,000,000.00

* Contingencies include easement acquisition, misc. construction items, etc.

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

N.T.S.

,,. ... ..,,. .~· .,-,,,✓~

SERVICE AREA LIMITS~.//.,.·/

/ ,~,,,,··

. _,.,,_- .

·"rrr11 :;; [!, .tii i---- ---(f',

---- -

v Cl D [! ,, {]

l'.1 (?

(J n

G':J&@lf[§[1[1[§~ ~ G'1]@[1[§~~ •~© •

CONSULTING ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMe3ER 4204

1655 27th STREET, SUITE 2, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 (772) 567-5300 / FAX (772) 794-1106

t;; l: : n u-· l; j

~ 1-'u=-1-!=- ;t : n . D 11

i-:c..l=-'--11 i

"TIUe lo oil dowmenle "'1lch becr the copj<lghl of Mosteller & Moler, Inc. Is wsled solely In Masteller & Moler, Inc. lheae documents ORI

pro'wfded to the owner aolely In connection with thts projecl My other use or reuse of the,e documente or ony reproduction, dlaploy, eale, or other d[apotltlon of these doo.1men t.a by on~• 111 e>cpreaaly prohibited without consent of Masteller & Moler, Inc. puniuont to the Federal Copj<lghl Low."

©2013, MASTELLER & MOLER, INC.

"1B"

NOTE: (GW) REFERS TO EXISTING GROUND WATER ELEVATION

LEGEND: @

e 5B-3

®

EXISTING SEWER ll5J@OO& W•tJW &O:i tJ@:00~& tJ0W@:ll5l PROPOSED SEWER PROP. FORCE MAIN @&~Dll&OOW @@:W@:00. [?@:8@0[IDD0:i•tJW PROPOSED PUMP STATION

SOIL BORING

@tJM@W &~@ 00@:[p@OOtJ ~@00tJO{] @@:[ID8@tJ0&~ 800@:&

N.T.S.

::

CJ INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

SERVICE AREA

IBJ&@L1[§[1[1[§~ ~ IBJ@[1[§~~ •~© •

CONSULTING ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 4204


<\ \ ,.i

'11Ue to oll dOOJmento which boa- tho cop)<lght of Mootelle, & Moler, Inc. lo veoted oololy In Masteller & Moler. Inc. These doeumente ore pro'tlded to the owner aolely fn connection with this projecl My other use or reuse of these documents or any reproducUon, dlaplay, eole, or other disposition of these documents by anyone

· Ta expressly prohibited without consent of Mosteller & Moler, Inc. pursuant to the Federal Cop)<lght Law.•


-I

/

NOtE: (GW) REFERS TO EXISTING GROUND WATER ELEVATION

LEGEND: §~[}{]•(ID•lf ll5l'l](IDll5l EXISTING SEWER @

e 5B- 3

®

PROPOSED SEWER ll5J@OO& WDlfW &[s lf§OO~& lf•W§ll5l PROP. FORCE MAIN @&~Dlf &OOW @§W§OO [?§&@D[ID•(s•lfW PROPOSED PUMP STATION

SOIL BORING

@lfM@W &~@ 00§~@00lf ~@OO!f[}{] @§lID&@lfD&~ &00§&

ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER

~ ~&@u[§[1[1[§~ ~ ~@[1[§~g •~@ •

· ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 4204


"TIUe to oll document, which boor tho cop)<fght of Mootell.- & Mol.-. Inc. lo vealed oolely i'1 Mosteller & Moler, Inc. These documenta ore pro'wfded to the owner aolely In connection wfth this project Any other use or reuse of these documents or any reproducUon, dlaplay, aale, or other dlepoaltlon of these doaimenta by anyone Is e><pnnsaly prohibited without consent of Mosteller &: Moler, Inc. pursuant to the Federal Cop)<fght Law."


ERCILDOUNE \ HEIGHTS

NOTE: (Gv-1) REFERS TO EXISTING GROUND WATER ELEVATION

LEGEND:

N.T.S.

UMP

§~[]:{]DCIDD'u' ll5l~ll5l @ EXISTING SEWER ll5l@OO& WD'u'W &11 'u'§OO~& 'u'DW§ll5l ~ PROPOSED SEWER ............... PROP. FORCE MAIN @&~•'TI' &OOW @§W§OO [?§8@DCIDDl1D'u'W

E> PROPOSED @'u'(!D@)Y( 8~@) 00@:~@00'u' 56

_3

PUMP STATION ~@OO'u'[]:{] @§[ID8@'u'0&~ 800§8 @ SOIL BORING


11

VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE

Vacuum sewers are a mechanized system of wastewater transport and represent a viable option

when the service area has at least (150) users. Unlike gravity sewer flow, vacuum sewers use

differential air pressure to move the sewage. A central source of power to operate vacuum pumps

is required to maintain vacuum on the collection system as illustrated in the vacuum system

schematic included in the Appendix of this report. The vacuum collection system will be located in

the street right-of-way and include a valve pit along with the vacuum sewer pipelines. Each house

or user will have its own sewer lateral identical to the sewer lateral used on a gravity collection

sewer system. In a gravity sewer system, the sewer lateral will connect to a sewer collection

system pipeline in the street right-of-way. However, in a vacuum system, the sewer lateral will

connect to a valve pit located in the street right-of-way but in close proximity to the property line.

When possible, the valve pit will be located in a manner to serve two (2) or more users, but in

cases where lots are large or other conditions do not permit a valve pit serving more than one (1)

user, a valve pit will serve each individual user. Each valve pit has its own collection sump which is

connected directly to the vacuum system pipeline. The sump compartment is separated from the

top valve chamber by a sealed partition. There are no electrical connections required at the valve

pit as the entire system in the valve pit is operated by pneumatic pressure differential. The top of

the valve pit is at existing grade and furnished with a standard 24-inch diameter manhole access

cover. A descriptive drawing of a typical valve pit is shown in the Appendix of this report.

Each of the valve pits discharge into a vacuum sewer system when the collection sumps are full.

The vacuum sewer system consists of vacuum sewer mains constructed of 4-inch and 6-inch PVC

pipe with division valves as required. The vacuum sewer mains are designed to maintain a

generally downward slope toward their ultimate discharge into the central vacuum station. The

vacuum systems is designed on a saw tooth pattern and they can have slops as flat as 0.0020%.

The vacuum sewer mains are constructed at a depth of 4- to 5-feet below grade. The vacuum

sewer main system ultimately discharges into the central vacuum station which is the “heart” of the

vacuum collection system.

The equipment installed in the central vacuum station is similar to that of a conventional sewage

pumping station except vacuum is applied to the wet-well (collection tank) that is sealed. Major

components include the tank, sewage pumps, vacuum pumps, control panel, and stand-by

electrical generator. A typical vacuum station schematic is shown in the Appendix of this report.


12

It is interesting to note that Indian River County Utilities Department has a vacuum collection

system in operation serving the community of Rockridge with approximately 400 residential

customers connected to the system. The Rockridge vacuum collection system was constructed in

2008 to replace a low-pressure pump system which failed to operate during hurricanes and any

other occasions when electric power failed. The Rockridge vacuum collection system has

operated satisfactorily since start-up and has not been adversely impacted by occasional flooding

of the area and periodic electrical power failures. The Masteller & Moler, Inc. staff has visited the

Rockridge vacuum collection system installation and several photographs of the Rockridge system

are included in the Appendix of this report.

Study Area #1

Study Area #1 using a vacuum collection system for the North Central Avenue corridor is shown in

Exhibits 3A and 3B. The existing sanitary sewer system is shown in green and the proposed

vacuum collection system is shown in heavy solid green lines and solid orange lines. The central

vacuum station is shown in purple and the proposed force main is shown as a solid purple line.

Study Area #1 has a north / south sand ridge along the east side of US #1. The result is the

commercial users along the east side of US#1 must be served by a separate sewer system.

Based on meetings with representatives of the F.D.O.T. concerning the location of a sewer system

in the US #1 right-of-way, it was the position of the F.D.O.T. staff that no structures would be

approved within the US #1 right-of-way, but sewer pipe and manholes would be permitted. Since

the valve pits associated with the vacuum collection system may be considered a structure by

F.D.O.T., Exhibits 3A and 3B show conventional gravity sewer being proposed for serving the

commercial users along the east side of US #1. In addition, a small area north of Roseland Road

consisting of residences along Ruffner Lane and users along Bay Street will served by a

conventional gravity sewer system as shown on Exhibit 3A.

The portion of Study Area #1 where the vacuum collection sewer system should be given serious

consideration is the North Central Avenue corridor from Roseland Road south to the intersection of

North Central Avenue and US #1. Since the groundwater table is high along North Central

Avenue, the shallow depth of the vacuum sewer mains will result in a substantial reduction in

construction cost of the pipelines and associated dewatering expenses. Also, the absence of

manholes and the sealed pipeline system associated with the vacuum collection sewer system will

result in the elimination of in-flow and infiltration which reduces future operation and maintenance

expense. Exhibits 3A and 3B show the conceptual design of the vacuum system consisting of 4-


13

inch and 6-inch vacuum sewer mains and a central main vacuum station along North Central

Avenue.

Study Area #2

Study Area #2 with a vacuum collection system is shown in Exhibit 4. Existing sanitary sewer is

shown in green and the proposed vacuum collection sewer system shown as solid heavy green

and orange lines representing 4-inch vacuum sewer mains and 6-inch vacuum sewer mains,

respectively. The main central vacuum station is shown in purple at Kelso Place and Bay Street.

Exhibit 4 shows that all of the existing and future users of a sewer system are served by the

conceptual vacuum collection system layout. High groundwater conditions are not a major concern

in Study Area #2. However, the relative shallow depth of the vacuum sewer mains and resultant

reduction in construction cost and damage to existing improvements are considerations when

compared with a conventional gravity sewer system.


Masteller & Moler, Inc. has utilized the exhibits and information provided by AirVac Systems and

performed a take-off of all construction items necessary to construct the proposed vacuum system.

The resulting construction quantities were multiplied by unit prices in order to establish the

estimated project cost. The unit prices were provided by an experience utility contractor named

Jobear / Warden Construction of Palm Bay, FL. This contractor has constructed numerous

centralized sewer projects in Indian River County and is familiar with the study area site conditions.

This information is shown on the next page included in this section of the report. The total

estimated project cost for a vacuum collection system to serve Study Areas #1 and #2 is

$6,600,000.00.


14


Vacuum Sewer Collection Alternative

Item No.

Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price

1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 2 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 3 Stakeout Survey & As-builts 1 LS $ 80,250.00 $ 80,250.00 4 Standard Manholes 0'-6' 11 EA $ 3,900.00 $ 42,900.00 5 Standard Manholes 6'-8' 10 EA $ 4,500.00 $ 45,000.00 6 Standard Manholes 8'-10' 6 EA $ 5,100.00 $ 30,600.00 7 Standard Manholes 10'-12' 1 EA $ 5,600.00 $ 5,600.00 8 Pump Station #1 1 LS $ 164,000.00 $ 164,000.00 9 4" Dia. Force Main 1,170 LF $ 15.00 $ 17,550.00 10 Testing force main 1 LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 11 8" PVC Sewer 0'-6' 1,175 LF $ 22.00 $ 25,850.00 12 8" PVC Sewer 6'-8' 985 LF $ 27.00 $ 26,595.00 13 8" PVC Sewer 8'-10' 25 LF $ 38.00 $ 950.00 14 10" PVC Sewer 0'-6' 1,590 LF $ 24.00 $ 38,160.00 15 10" PVC Sewer 6'-8' 2,270 LF $ 30.00 $ 68,100.00 16 10" PVC Sewer 8'-10' 2,025 LF $ 40.00 $ 81,000.00 17 10" PVC Sewer 10'-12' 310 LF $ 53.00 $ 16,430.00 18 Testing (TV of Mains) 8,380 LF $ 1.50 $ 12,570.00 19 6" Vacuum Main 10,910 LF $ 21.00 $ 229,110.00 20 4" Vacuum Main 25,755 LF $ 18.00 $ 463,590.00 21 4" Isolation Valve 38 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 45,600.00 22 6" Isolation Valve 17 EA $ 1,500.00 $ 25,500.00 23 Installed Vacuum Station/Building 2 EA $ 600,000.00 $ 1,200,000.00 24 Vacuum Valve Pit 365 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 1,825,000.00 25 Specialized Installation Equipment 1 SET $ 35,000.00 $ 35,000.00 26 Dewatering 3,200 LF $ 8.00 $ 25,600.00 27 Single Lateral (Gravity) 34 EA $ 625.00 $ 21,250.00 28 3" Service Lateral 4,060 LF $ 15.00 $ 60,900.00 29 Erosion & Sediment Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 30 Paved Restoration (Open Cut) 7,140 LF $ 50.00 $ 357,000.00 31 Un-Paved Road Restoration (Open Cut) 1,650 LF $ 12.00 $ 19,800.00 32 Sod 41,330 LF $ 4.00 $ 165,320.00

33 SUBTOTAL $ 5,370,225.00

34 Design/Permitting – Final Engineering (7.5%) 1 LS $ 402,766.88 $ 402,766.88 35 *Contingencies (15%) 1 LS $ 805,533.75 $ 805,533.75


USE - - - - $ 6,600,000.00


INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

N.T.S.

~ G"J&@us0:,0:,s~ fJ1 G"J@O:,B~g mm@•

~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 4204


"11Uo to oll dO<>Jmonto which boor tho cop)'lght of Maotollor & Moler, Inc. lo veotod oololy In Masteller & Moler, Inc. These dcx::umenta ore provfded to the owner aolely In connection with this projecl My other use or reuse of these documente or any reproducUon, dlaploy. sale, or other dlapoaltlon of theH doc:umenta by on~e la expressly prohibited without consent of Masteller & Moler, Inc. pursuant to the Federal Cop)'lght Law."


LEGEND:

<' !

. ~ 4" VACUUM SEWER MAIN -------, I

6" VACUUM SEWER MAIN -------

DIVISION VALVE ---1••: ___ '<

VACUUM STATION I

) ,_<

§~[X]DCIDDtr ii11®& (l5J

"3B"

--@- EXISTING SEWER ii11w &@[ll][ll]Ci'.'i] &[b tr@:00~& tr0W§lll1 ~ PROPOSED SEWER @&~Dtr&OOW @§W§OO IP§&@DCIDD[b0'1rW -- PROP. FORCE MAIN

e SB- 3

®

PROPOSED PUMP STATION

SOIL BORING

@trl!!J@W &~@) 00§[;)@00tr ~@OOtrC=a @§CID&@trD&~ &00§&

N.T.S.

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

:::

SEE EXHIBIT "3A"

~&@u[3[1[1[3~ ~ ~@[1[3~~ •~© •



•nuo lo oil document• which boar tho cop:,,-lghl of Masteller & Mofw, Inc. la vested 11ofely In Maatefler &: Moler, Inc. These documents ore pro>ldod to tho ownor oololy In connocllon with this pro.feel Any other use or reuse of these documents or any reproduction, dleplay, eole, or other dlepoaltlon of these documents by <m~• Is e,cpreasly prohrblted without consent of Mosteller & Moler, Inc. pursuant to the Federal Cop)righl Law."


I

> /

r·"'i ,,, \ J \ -----~

D n

0

VACUUM SYS M LEGEND: 4" VACUUM SEWER MAIN -------

6" VACUUM SEWER MAIN ------

DIVISION VALVE ---1•• ,---VACUUM STATION ~

I / NOTE: (Gl--l) REFERS TO EXISTING GROUND WATER ELEVATION

LEGEND: @ EXISTING SEWER Q~W 8@(ill(ill[!'.')J 8[1 LJ@:00~8 LJ0W§Q~

--®- PROPOSED SEWER @8 ~•LJ 8 00W @§W§OO ~§8 @•[ID•[1•LJW -- PROP. FORCE MAIN

e PROPOSED @LJM@W 8[?t]@) 00§[¥:l@OOLJ 5B-3 PUMP STATION [?t]@OOLJO{] @§[ID8@LJ08ut1 800§8

® SOIL BORING

/~ ,

~ G:'J&@u§[b[b§~ ~ G:'J@[b§~g •~© •

~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS . CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION NUMBER 4204

1655 27th · STREET, SUITE 2, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 (772) 567-5300 / FAX (772) 794-1106

ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER

"TIUo lo all docomonlo whlc:'1 boar tho cop:,rlghl of MoateUer & Moler, Inc. 111 vested aoiefy ., Masteller &: Moh,.-, Inc. These documents ore pro>fdod lo tho owner oolely In conno<:llon wtlh this projecl My other use or reun of these docoments or ony reproducUon, display, aole, or other dlepoaltlon of theaa documents by anyone la expressly prohtblted without consent of Mosteller & Moler, Inc. pureuant to the Federal Cop:,rfghl Low."

©2013, MASTELLER & MOLER, INC,

N.T.S.

4" VACUUM SEWER MAIN -----

6" VACUUM SEWER MAIN -----

~ DIVISION VALVE ---.. •--

VACUUM STATION

rtt . I , y.___

NOTE, (Gw> REFERS w ex1sT1NG GROOND WATER aEVAT1a-1 I @lll!!J@W &00§& m~ I

LEGEND: §~[}{]OCID•ll Q5J~Q5J @ EXISTING SEWER Q5JW &©l!!Jl!!JG':4] &ls lf@:00~& lf0W§Q51

~ PROPOSED SEWER @&~OlJ &OOW @§W§OO [?§£@01]30ls07JW -- PROP. FORCE MAIN

e PROPOSED @lfl!!J@)\'.7 £~@) 00§[p@007J 5B-3 PUMP STATION ~@007J[}{] @§CID&@llO&~ &00§&

® SOIL BORING


15

LOW PRESSURE SEWER SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES

Low pressure sewer systems generally utilize two (2) types; the grinder pump system and the

septic tank effluent pump (STEP) system.

The grinder pump alternative is a system utilizing small simplex or duplex package grinder pump

station located on each sewer user’s property. Residential users can use a simplex (1 pump)

station but commercial and other non-residential users must use a duplex (2 pumps) station as

required by FDEP. These small individual grinder stations periodically discharge the wastewater

into a small diameter force main piping system typically located in the street rights-of-way. Unlike

gravity sewer flow or the vacuum collection system alternative, both of which involve only a sewer

lateral on the user’s property, the grinder pump system requires each sewer user to locate and

install the package grinder pump station on their property and accept responsibility for the

maintenance and operation of the pump station. The pump stations are furnished with grinder

pumps that grind all solids into a slurry. Therefore, the force main system which conveys the

wastewater to the various points of discharge can be designed using force mains as small as 2-

inch diameter. In addition, the small force main system can be constructed with approximately 36-

inches of cover and does not have to be constructed at a gradient. This reduces construction time

as well as cost. Since the force main system must be constructed with water tight joints, it can be

constructed in areas with a high groundwater table without concern for groundwater infiltration.

However, localized flooding can result in inflow into the individual small pump station so they need

to be located with tops above the flood elevation. A drawing showing a typical simplex grinder

pump station and several pictures of a local pump station installation are included in the appendix

of the report.

Low pressure systems with grinder pump stations have been used in Indian River County and

although they operate with reasonable success, there have been problems with regard to

acceptance and satisfaction by the users. As an example, the majority of Indian River Drive in

Study Area #1 is served by a low pressure system with users installing small package grinder

pump stations to serve their residential and commercial properties. This system has been in

operation since the early ‘90s, but expansion of the system to serve users between Indian River

Drive and US #1 has not occurred as anticipated.

As stated previously, another low pressure sewer system alternative is the STEP system which

utilizes small submersible standard (non-grinder) sewage pumps in a holding tank with controls.

However, the septic tank remains in use to collect and store the wastewater solids and must be


16

periodically emptied by the homeowner. To implement the system, the existing septic disposal

element is abandoned and the septic tank discharge is redirected into the STEP pump station.

The STEP system pumps are less expensive than the grinder pumps but the STEP system

requires the retention of the septic tank and its maintenance expense. Otherwise, the grinder

pumps system and STEP system are very similar with regard to the design of the force main

system and construction considerations.

Study Area #1

Study Area #1 using the low pressure collection system with grinder pump or STEP system

stations is shown on Exhibits 5A and 5B. The existing sanitary sewer is shown in green and the

proposed 2-inch and 3-inch force main systems are shown in blue and orange, respectively.

Study Area #1 has a north / south sand ridge along the east side of US #1. The result is the

commercial users along the east side of US#1 must be served by a separate sewer system.

Based on meetings with representatives of the F.D.O.T. concerning the location of a sewer system

in the US #1 right-of-way, it was the position of the F.D.O.T. staff that no structures would be

approved within the US #1 right-of-way, but sewer pipe and manholes would be permitted. Also,

the existence of numerous large commercial users and several large parcels of undeveloped land

create wastewater flows which are too large for a low pressure sewer system to handle in

connection with a small force main system. Therefore, Exhibits 5A and 5B show conventional

gravity sewer being proposed for serving the commercial users along the east side of US #1.

The portion of Study Area #1 where the low pressure sewer system alternative should be given

serious consideration is the North Central Avenue corridor from Roseland Road south to the

intersection of North Central Avenue and US #1 and a small area north of Roseland Road

consisting of residences along Ruffner Lane and users along Bay Street. Since the groundwater

table is high along North Central Avenue, the shallow depth of the small force main system will

result in a substantial reduction in the cost of construction of the pipelines and associated

dewatering expenses. Also, the sealed force main pipeline system associated with the low

pressure system alternative will result in the elimination of infiltration which reduces future

operation and maintenance expense.

Study Area #2

Study Area #2 showing the layout design using a low pressure sewer system with grinder pump or

STEP system stations is shown on Exhibit 6. The existing sanitary sewer is shown in green and


17

the proposed low pressure 2-inch and 3-inch force main systems are shown in blue and orange,

respectively. As can be seen from Exhibit 6, almost all of the low pressure force main system is 2-

inch in size with a small length of 3-inch force main shown on 142nd Street in Ercildoune Heights.

High groundwater conditions are not a major concern in Study Area #2. However, the relative

shallow depth of the low pressure force main system and resultant reduction in construction cost

and reduction in damage to existing improvements are considerations when compared with a

conventional gravity sewer system.


Masteller & Moler, Inc. has utilized the exhibits and information provided by ABS Grinder Pump

Station Systems and performed a takeoff of all construction items necessary to construct the

proposed low pressure system with individual packaged grinder pump stations and the STEP

system pump stations to serve existing residential units with septic tanks. It is assumed that

vacant residential lots will use grinder stations when they are developed. The resulting

construction quantities were multiplied by unit prices in order to establish the estimated project

cost. The unit prices were provided by an experience utility contractor named Jobear / Warden

Construction of Palm Bay, FL. This contractor has constructed numerous centralized sewer

projects in Indian River County and is familiar with the study area site conditions. The estimated

project cost is presented in a tabular form and shown on the next page included in this section of

the report. The total estimated project cost for the low pressure sewer alternative system to serve

Study Areas #1 and #2 is as follows:

Grinder Pump Station: $ 8,600,000.00

STEP System: $ 7,100,000.00


18


Low Pressure Sewer Collection Alternatives

GRINDER PUMP SYSTEM STEP SYSTEM Item No.

Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Total Price Unit Price Total Price

1 Mobilization 1 LS $ 175,000.00 $ 175,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 150,000.00 2 Maintenance of Traffic 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 3 Stakeout Survey & As-builts 1 LS $ 104,450.00 $ 104,450.00 $ 86,750.00 $ 86,750.00 4 Standard Manhole (0'-6') 5 EA $ 3,900.00 $ 19,500.00 $ 3,900.00 $ 19,500.00 5 Standard Manhole (6'-8') 6 EA $ 4,500.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 27,000.00 6 Standard Manhole (8'-10') 5 EA $ 5,100.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 5,100.00 $ 25,500.00 7 Standard Manhole (10'-12') 1 EA $ 5,600.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 5,600.00 8 Standard Manhole (12'-14') 0 EA $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 9 Single Lateral (Gravity) 21 EA $ 625.00 $ 13,125.00 $ 625.00 $ 13,125.00

10 Master Pump Station #1 1 LS $ 164,000.00 $ 164,000.00 $ 164,000.00 $ 164,000.00 11 10" PVC Sewer (0'-6') 1,590 LF $ 24.00 $ 38,160.00 $ 24.00 $ 38,160.00 12 10" PVC Sewer (6'-8') 2,270 LF $ 30.00 $ 68,100.00 $ 30.00 $ 68,100.00 13 10" PVC Sewer (8'-10') 2,025 LF $ 40.00 $ 81,000.00 $ 40.00 $ 81,000.00 14 10" PVC Sewer (10'-12') 310 LF $ 53.00 $ 16,430.00 $ 53.00 $ 16,430.00 15 2" Dia. Force Main 31,115 LF $ 10.00 $ 311,150.00 $ 10.00 $ 311,150.00 16 3" Dia. Force Main 2,485 LF $ 12.00 $ 29,820.00 $ 12.00 $ 29,820.00 17 4" Dia. Force Main 1,170 LF $ 15.00 $ 17,550.00 $ 15.00 $ 17,550.00 18 Testing force main 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 19 Testing (TV of Mains) 6,195 LF $ 1.50 $ 9,292.50 $ 1.50 $ 9,292.50 20 2" Isolation Valve 24 EA $ 300.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 300.00 $ 7,200.00 21 4" Isolation Valve 1 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 1,200.00

22 STEP System Simplex Pump Station 379 EA $ 9,000.00 $ 3,411,000.00

23 Simplex Grinder Pump Station 31 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 372,000.00

24 Simplex Grinder Pump Station 410 EA $ 12,000.00 $ 4,920,000.00

25 Duplex Grinder Pump Station 10 EA $ 30,000.00 $ 300,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 300,000.00

26 Dewatering 3,200 LF $ 4.00 $ 12,800.00 $ 4.00 $ 12,800.00 27 Erosion & Sediment Control 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00

28 Paved Restoration (Open Cut) 7,140 LF $ 50.00 $ 357,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 357,000.00

29 Un-Paved Road Restoration (Open Cut) 1,650 LF $ 12.00 $ 19,800.00 $ 12.00 $ 19,800.00

30 Sod 41,330 LF $ 4.00 $ 165,320.00 $ 4.00 $ 165,320.00

31 SUBTOTAL $ 6,983,997.50

$ 5,804,297.50

32 Design/Permitting – Final Engineering (7.5%) 1 LS $ 523,799.81 $ 523,799.81 $ 435,322.31 $ 435,322.31

33 Contingencies (15%) 1 LS $ 1,047,599.63 $ 1,047,599.63 $ 870,644.63 $ 870,644.63


$ 7,110,264.44

USE - - - - $ 8,600,000.00 USE - - - - $ 7,100,000.00


N.T.S.

INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

~&&tif ~[s[s~~ ~ ~@[s~~g •~© •


1655 27th STREET, SUITE 2, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 (772) 567-:-5300 / FAX (772) 794-1106

•11ue to oll documents which bear the cop}nght of Mastoll..- & Mol..-. Inc. Is wsted solely In Mosteller & Moler, Inc. lheae documenta ore provfded to the owner solely In connection with thl, project. Any other use or reuse of the,e documente or any reproduction, display, Ne. or other disposition of theae documenta by anyone 111 expresely prohibited without consent of Masteller & Moler, Inc. punsuant to the Federal Cop)ffght Low."


LEGEND: @

E> SB-3

®

EXISTING SEWER PROPOSED SEWER PRO. 4" FORCE MAIN PRO. 3" FORCE MAIN PRO. 2" FORCE MAIN PROPOSED MASTER PUMP STATION SOIL BORING

@:~GODCIDD'u' 18®&/li) Q5Jl!:i@W lPOO@:@@Q!JOO@: &ls 'u'@:00~& 'u'O\Yl@:18

@&~O'u' &OOW @@:W@:00 lP@:&@OCIDDCT:iD'u'W @'u'llil@ W & ~@ 00@:lP@OO 'TI'

~@OO'u'[X] @@:[ID&@'u'D&~ &00@:&

N.T.S.

::

__ ,,,...,,

' _,,. ;•"

,,... ..... .,,,.,· ,.,,,--~ .

MATCH LINE:

RIVER LAGOON

SERVICE

_..,.

~&@u~[1[1~[Kl @ ~@[1~[Kl~ •~© •



<\ _,., \.-- .,/

,/ .. ~-... _____ _.-~

r· .. ,.,,.\ .... /·,. ,- -- - ✓ •

___ ,,,--. ....._,_\ ./

0

AREA LIMITS

NOTE: (GW) REFERS TO EXISTING GROUND HATER ELEVATION

"TIUo to oil documents which boor tho copylght of Masteller & Moler, Inc. Is wated solely In Masteller &: Moler, Inc. These documents ore pro-Aded to the owner solely In connection with this project. Any other use or reuse of these documenta or any reproduction, dlaplay, aofe. or other dlapoalllon of these documents by anyone le expressly prohibited without consent of Mosteller· & Moler, Inc. pursuant to the federal Copylght Law."


LEGEND: @

e 5B-3

@

EXISTING SEWER PROPOSED SEWER PRO. 4" FORCE MAIN PRO. 3" FORCE MAIN PRO. 2" FORCE MAIN PROPOSED MASTER PUMP STATION SOIL BORING

@:~lli]Dlfil•lJ llll@[fil!lll 1111[1@W ~[ru@:@@(!!l[ru@: £[1 lf§lru~& 'ir•W§ll'J @&~D'ir &lruW @§W§lru C?1@:&@Dlfil0[10'iJW

@'if (\!)[ID w &~[ID [ru@:~ @[ru lJ ~@lru'irllil @@:lfil&@'irD&~ &lru@:&

@[1[3~ •~© • lf [3[1[1[3~ {;!J. G:'J ~ ~ Q'J&@ ENGINEERS

~ c~~~~~~!~T~N ~u~:;~H~~~~RIDA 32960 CER Tl Fl CA TE T~EET, SUI TE 2, ';~\

9

4-1106 1655 27th S 300 / FAX (77 (772) 567-5

SEBASTIAN RIVER ST.

ch boor the cop>'Jtt documents whf I w1ted solely are •nue to : & Moler, Inc. -i:: ... document•wlth of Mo,tell & Moler, Inc. el In connection th .. , Mo,toller tho owner oo1 Y "' reuse of o,

pro,!dedje~L Any o~u~;!:,,,, dleploy,b;ol~nyone this P':.t, "' ony rep the,o document, ent of d~~,'." dlopooltlonot,':i!1t,d wlthoui to'ui~ Federal ~ expresllly pr Inc. pu"uon toiler & M'/)or, ~)right Law.

STELLER & ©2013, MA MOLER, INC.

N.T.S.


19

EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNITS (ERUs)

The Indian River County Utilities Department utilizes a term of Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs)

to measure the number of connections to its utility systems. The reason for this is to make

provisions for measuring wastewater flows and establish costs in connection with all system users.

A flow rate of 250 gallons per day (GPD) per ERU is used for a typical single residential user.

However, County regulations provide for allocating ERUs for utility users other than residential

users such as commercial buildings, medical offices, churches, etc. “Commercial Area Map” in the

appendix shows the commercial area in Study Area #1. The commercial area shown north of the

Sebastian Cemetery along the east side of US #1 is within the Indian River County and the

commercial area shown south of the Sebastian Cemetery between US #1 and the Indian River

Lagoon is within the City of Sebastian. Study Area #2 is all residential users except for a church

with preschool facilities, post office, and a community building.

The total number of single residential users in Study Areas #1 and #2 is 388; which includes 31

vacant residential lots. There are a total of 57 non-residential parcels of land not served by

existing sanitary sewer in Study Area #1 designated for commercial or other uses of which 9 non-

residential parcels are vacant. Based on the Utility Department’s guidelines for ERUs for non-

residential uses, it is our estimate that approximately 332 total ERUs exist in Study Areas #1 and

#2 including developed and un-developed non-residential uses. Of the 332 total non-residential

ERUs, 192 ERUs have been estimated for vacant non-residential parcels and can be considered

future users.

Based on the above information, the total ERUs in Study Areas #1 and #2 is 720 of which 497 are

existing ERUs and 223 are ERUs for vacant residential and non-residential parcels.

In order to compare the cost per ERU for each of the three (3) alternative sewer systems, the total

project cost of each alternative is divided by the total ERUs of 720 and the results are listed as

follows:

Gravity Sewer System Alternative: $ 6,944.44 per ERU

Vacuum Collection System Alternative: $ 9,166.67 per ERU

Low Pressure Pump System Alternatives:

Grinder Pumps $ 11,944.44 per ERU

STEP System Pumps $ 9,861.11 per ERU


20

OPERATION & MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS

Indian River County Utilities has experience in operation and maintenance of the three (3) sewer

system alternatives (except the STEP system) evaluated in this study and report. The operating

and maintenance expense of the alternatives will be absorbed into the normal operating and

maintenance expense of the utility. In general, the operation and maintenance expense of the

conventional gravity system represents the alternative with the lowest operating and maintenance

expense to the Indian River County Utilities Department. The low pressure and vacuum collection

system alternatives will have a higher maintenance and operating expense due to higher electrical

costs and the need for oversight personnel to monitor the system. The majority of the operating

and maintenance expense related to the low pressure grinder pump and STEP systems is shifted

from the Utility Department to the individual user to maintain and operate the pump stations. In the

case of the low pressure alternative, the user must pay the expense of electrical service, periodic

repairs to the pump station, and replacement of worn out mechanical and electrical pump station

components to maintain their pump station in operating condition. In the case of the conventional

gravity system and vacuum sewer system alternatives, the individual user has no operation and

maintenance expense for the sewer lateral except for occasional removal of blockages which may

occur infrequently in that portion of the system. The fact that the user is responsible for operation

and maintenance of their own pump station is one of the main objections that are commonly made

when discussing the low pressure system.

The conventional gravity system operates without any need for mechanical or electrical equipment.

Wastewater flows by gravity to a sub-regional pumping station. There are operation and

maintenance expenses connected with the sub-regional pumping station but a good gravity sewer

design will minimize the number of these stations.

The operation and maintenance expense incurred by the Utility Department related to the low

pressure system are minimal in the small diameter force main system. Occasional force main

breaks may occur, but they are infrequent. As stated earlier, the major operation and maintenance

expense connected with the low pressure system involves the operation and maintenance of each

individual pump station and that financial burden falls on the shoulders of the individual user.

The operating and maintenance expense of the vacuum system is related to the central pumping

station which involves the electrical expense and maintenance cost of vacuum pumps, sewage

pumps, standby generator, and electrical switch gear. There also appears to be periodic

replacement of pneumatic control elements in the valve pits. The vacuum system manufacturer


21

also has recommendations for purchase of special equipment to periodically clean the pipeline

system and regenerate the system.

In summary, all three (3) sewer system alternatives represent acceptable operation and

maintenance cost to the Indian River County Utilities; however, there is no doubt that the individual

user would find the low pressure sewer system alternative to be the least acceptable.


22

PROJECT FINANCING

Public acceptance of this project is paramount to its success. The public users must be satisfied

that the Indian River County Utilities Department has explored various financial alternatives as well

as determining the design and project cost considerations of the alternatives. Public acceptance of

the project can be expected if the users accept the facts as follows: the project is needed; the best

alternative is selected in order to execute the project; and the selected financial plan result in the

users’ acceptance of their share of the project’s cost.

This sanitary sewer project is a project which not only benefits the local users but also benefits the

community at large due to environmental and economic considerations. The environmental

benefits to the Indian River Lagoon by virtue of the elimination of pollution from septic disposal

systems are unquestioned. The Indian River Lagoon is probably the main reason that most of us

live in this area and it has a major impact on all of us with respect to quality of life and our public

economy. This sanitary sewer project also has a direct impact on the economic development of

commercial properties along the east side of US #1 as well as the riverfront area of the City of

Sebastian. Centralized sewers and the elimination of the need of septic disposal systems will

facilitate commercial development in these areas which in turn will create additional employment

and economic activity. These environmental and economic factors will serve to make this project

very attractive for securing financial grants from state and federal agencies to construct the project.

This Feasibility Study and Report will be a major document for use in the process of preparing

financial grant applications. Due to the high estimated cost per ERU, grant funding will be

essential to the success of this project.

In addition to grant funds, project financing will also be required by Indian River County Utilities

Department either by financial assessments against users benefitting by the project or by the

County Utilities Department securing project financing or some combination of assessments and

County funding.

This project, if undertaken, will have a substantial benefit to the County from an environmental and

economic development standpoint. Therefore, some County contribution to the cost of

improvements can be justified. If sufficient grant funds are secured, a combination of County

funding and project assessments could be developed to facilitate public acceptance of the project.


23

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

This sanitary sewer Feasibility Study and Report for the North Sebastian Area has evaluated three

(3) alternative systems which are in use in Indian River County. They are the conventional gravity

sewer system, the vacuum collection system, and the low pressure system alternative utilizing

grinder pumps or the STEP system. The majority of the collection systems in Indian River County

utilize the gravity collection system. A vacuum collection system with over 400 users is located in

the Rockridge community of Indian River County and there are several scattered developments

and locations including Indian River Drive in Study Area #1 of this report which utilize low pressure

grinder pump systems.

Conceptual designs for each of the three (3) alternative systems are included in the report and are

used as a basis of estimating quantities of the elements needed to construct each of the alternative

systems. Estimated construction costs provided by a local, experience utility construction

contractor were applied to these various elements and the resulting project costs were estimated

for each of the alternatives. The alternatives and their estimated project costs are listed as follows:

Gravity Sewer System Alternative: $ 5,000,000

Vacuum Collection System Alternative: $ 6,600,000

Low Pressure Pump System Alternative:

Grinder Pump System: $ 8,600,000.00

STEP System: $ 7,100,000.00

The gravity sewer system alternative has the lowest project cost estimate. In addition, the gravity

system is the most reliable, does not rely on mechanical components, and is the least expensive to

maintain and operate. Finally, the gravity system does not have the disadvantages of the other

alternatives which include:

Requires much institutional involvement because the pressure and vacuum system has many

mechanical components throughout the service area.

The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost for a pressure and vacuum system is often higher

than a conventional gravity system due to the high number of mechanical elements in use.

Annual preventive maintenance calls are usually scheduled for grinder pump components of

pressure sewers. STEP systems also require pump-out of septic tanks at two to three year

intervals.

Public education is necessary so the user knows how to deal with emergencies and how to

avoid blockages or other maintenance problems associated with low pressure systems.

•

•

•

•


24

The number of pumps or vacuum valves that can share the same downstream force or vacuum

main is limited.

Power outages can result in overflows if standby generators are not available.

Life cycle replacement costs are expected to be higher because pressure and vacuum sewers

have a lower life expectancy than conventional systems.

Therefore, it is our recommendation that the gravity collection system alternative be selected as

the preferred alternative for this project. It is suggested that the Indian River County Utilities

Department schedule a meeting with the City of Sebastian leadership to secure their input and

approval. The City has previously expressed interest in funding a portion of such improvements

from the City’s CRA fund. This funding source should be explored further with City staff at this

time. It is also recommended that a meeting be held with the impacted community in order to

gather input from potential project users. It is important that these meetings take place as quickly

as possible in order not to delay any efforts to prepare applications and make submittals for grant

funds to construct the project. It is important to note that grant funding will be crucial to the

success of this project. Without grant funding, the cost of these projects will likely be too high to

secure support from the local community for funding. If sufficient grant funds are obtained, then a

combination of County funding and property assessments could be achieved.

•

•

•

COMMERCIAL AREA MAP

COMMERCIAL AREA MAP - 10/23/2013

SANITARY SEWER FEASIBILITY

STUDY AND REPORT

NORTH SEBASTIAN AREA


CONSULTING ENGINEERS

SAINT SEBASTIAN

RIVER

N INDIAN RIVER LAGOON

LEGEND

= Commercial Area in Study Area #1 Estimated Parcels - 57

= Commercial Area served by existing sanitary sewer

Seb. Cemetery

MAIN ST.

STUDY AREA #1

D

SOIL BORING DATA

KSM KELLER, SCHLEICHER & MacWILLIAM ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. MARTIN (772) 337-7755 P.O. BOX 78-1377, SEBASTIAN, FL 32978-1377 SEBASTIAN (772) 589-0712 PALM BEACH (561) 845-7445 www.ksmengineering.net MELBOURNE (321) 768-8488 FAX (561) 845-8876 E-Mail: [email protected] ST. LUCIE (772) 229-9093 C.A.: 5693 FAX (772) 589-6469

Revised: October 15, 2013

Earl Masteller, P. E. Masteller & Moler, Inc. 1655 27th Street, Suite 2 Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Re: Sebastian Sewer Feasibility Sebastian, Florida KSM Project#: 131571-sb

Dear Mr. Masteller:

Please see attached boring logs for the referenced project for nine (9) locations. These locations were chosen at random in order to determine the soil profiles and water tables.

The soils consisted mostly of fine grained sand. Traces of shell fragments were also found. No muck, debris or unsuitable soils were found. These soils are considered suitable for the proposed project. The water table which is listed on the boring logs is also considered to be equivalent to the high season water table based on the time of year.

Email To: [email protected]

Ronald G. Keller, P.E.: 37293 / SI Lie. No.: 860 / Julie E. Keller, P.E.: 68366

lo <.'.)

ID :s Cl) :::i 0 IC/)

1-z c3 Cl) lo ...J 0... I ID I (_) UJ lo UJ

KSM KSM Engineering & Testing P.O. Box 78-1377 Sebastian, FL 32978 Tel: (772)-589-0712 Fax: (772)-589-6469

CLIENT Masteller & Moler, Inc., Earl Masteller, P.E.

PROJECTNUMBER~K~S=M-'-'---'-#~1~3'--15~7_1_-b'------------

DATE STARTED _1:.....:0.c....::/8:..:..../1:.....:3;..__ __ _ COMPLETED _1 __ 0_/8'--/~13;..__ __ _

DRILLING CONTRACTOR ______________ _

DRILLING METHOD ________________ _

LOGGEDBY-'D~P_&~D~H ___ _ CHECKED BY -'J=E=K=--------

NOTES North Side of 82nd Ct., 165' West of 129th Ct.

u ::r: :Cc, I- -a.. ii= a..o w- ~_. 0

(.?

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

0 o· ·-.:v Gray Sand with Traces of Roots

-Light Gray Sand

- -· .·

- -

- - . ·

_5 __

. ¥ Dark Brown Sand - - .·

.· Bottom of borehole at 8.0 feet.

BORING NUMBER SB-1 PAGE 1 OF 1

PROJECT NAME Sebastian Sewer Feasibility

PROJECT LOCATION _Sc::....e::..::b:....:ca=st.;;;;.;ia'-"-n.;..,__;_F..:...::lo--'-'ri-=da.:;.c.__ __________ _

GROUND ELEVATION ____ _ HOLE SIZE _in_c_he~s ____ _

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

.sz_ AT TIME OF DRILLING 6.50 ft / 12:92 NAVO --"--'---'-'-=~...c...;;.._;:::__ ______ _

AT END OF DRILLING _-_--_____________ _

AFTER DRILLING --------------------w :::R z ~

A. SPT N VALUE A. a.. 0

>- 0::: >- cnw w 20 40 60 80 1-W o:::- :s;:1-::::> a.. t:c PL MC LL wm wO 0Z-' 1--c

>0 w2 zo I • I _.~ _. ::J ~ :::>S a.. ::J oo::: mo ~- 20 40 60 80 ~z u- u~ u >-<( w 0 0::: • FINES CONTENT (%) • en 0::: a.. 0

20 40 60 80

Al ss- 3-2-2 (4)

······································· . . . .

4~ .... . : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... . . . . .

Xl ss 2-2-3 (5)

. ····································· . . . . ~, .... : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... .

. . .

Xl ss 2-3-3 (6)

. ····································· . . . .

i~ ... . : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... . . .

\!1 ss 3-3-4 7 \] (7) J

······································· . . .

<.'.)L...--------------------------------------------------....1

lo (9

CD :s (/) ::, 0 1-(/)

1-z 0 (/) lo _J

0..

I CD

I (.) w lo w



PROJECTNUMBER_K_S~M_#_1_3_15_7_1_-b __________ _

DATESTARTED_1~0~/8_/1_3 ___ _ COMPLETED 10/8/13 ------DRILLING CONTRACTOR _____________ _


LOGGEDBY_D_P_&_D_H ___ _ CHECKEDBY_J_E_K ___ _

NOTES North Side of Roseland Rd., 90' West of 135th Street

:c ~ I-,...._ :Cc.9 0..¢::: a..o w- ~...J Cl

(9


0 ·. Gray Sand

- - . .· White and Gray Sand

- -

- -

- - .

c-L 'Sl..

Bottom of borehole at 6.0 feet.



PROJECT LOCATION _S_e_b_a-'-st~ia_n_,__F_lo_ri_da ___________ _

GROUND ELEVATION HOLE SIZE inches ----- --------GROUND WATER LEVELS:

Sl-AT TIME OF DRILLING 4.50 ft / 13.77 NAVO --'---'-~~..C....C.....C.---'--",...C....C....Cc...,_ ______ _

AT END OF DRILLING -------------------AFTER DRILLING --------------------

UJ 'cF- z ~ A SPT N VALUE A

a.. >- 0:: >- C/) w UJ 20 40 60 80 1-W o::- $I-:::, a..

!:::i;::::-- PL MC LL wa::i LI.JO 0Z.....J I-<+=' >0 W2 zo I • I .....12 .....1:J~ :::,-3: 0..:::, oo:: coo ::w::::- 20 40 60 80 2Z u- u~ u >-<( w 0 0:: • FINES CONTENT(%) • C/) 0:: a.. Cl

20 40 60 80 :

[XJ ss 3-3-4 (7)

. ................... ·················

....... ! ....... ! ....... i ...... ; ...... . . .

:

v(] ss 3-3-2 (5)

. ····································· . . . .

~~ .... : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... . . . . .

\(1 ss 3-3-3

I \I (6)

. ··························· ........ . . . .

0 ___________________________________________________ ......

a;i r:. l()

;;;

ii' LU > 0:: LU (/)

~ (/)

~ (/) (..)

0 0 (")

u5 LU ....J u::: ~ (/)

¥ > "" I-t--(X) (X)

0 c;::;

"" 'St ::: (")

u'5 0

i-'.. 0 C)

Ill <( ....J (/)

=> 0 I-(/)

I-z 0 (/) I-0 ....J 0... I Ill I (..) LU I-0 LU C)


CLIENT Masteller & Moler, Inc., Earl.Masteller, P.E.

PROJECTNUMBER~K~S=M.:..:....:.:..#~1~3...:...;15=7~1-'-b=--------------

DATESTARTED_1~0--'/8_/1_3 ___ _ COMPLETED _1.:....::0:..:...;/8=-=-/...:...;13=-------



LOGGED BY -'DC,...CP_&=-D_H ___ _ CHECKED BY ~J=E=-=-K-'-------

NOTES North Side of Bay St., 175' West of 135th Lane

u ::c :i: (9 I-.-a.¢:: a.o w- ~_J 0

(9


0 o: .v Gray Sand with Traces of Roots

.' ·--Light Gray Sand

.·

- - ,•

___§__. ,•

- - ,•

. ·

,_ - . 'SJ_

:,·.




PROJECT LOCATION _S_e_b_a-'-st--'ia'--n_,_F_lo_ri-'--da ___________ _

GROUND ELEVATION ____ _ HOLE SIZE _in_c_he_s ____ _

GROUND WATER LEVELS:

.SZ. AT TIME OF DRILLING 11.50 ft /7.30 NAVO --'-~'----'-'---=--=-=~...:...:....:=-----------

AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

w 'cf:. a. >- c::: >- C/) w 1-W c::: .- :S:1-::J wm wO 0z-1 _J ::!? >0 -1::J~ a.:::) QC::: aJO 2Z u- u~ <( w C/) c:::

)(j ss 5-6-8 (14)

~ ss 5-4-6 (10)

Xl ss- 3-3-4 (7)

Xl ss 6-5-6 (11)

rxJ ss 6-8-7 (15)

M ss 6-5-4 7 \I (9)

z ~ w a.

!:: «+=' I-«+=' w.!!? zo :x::- :::,-3; u >-0 c::: a. 0

.& SPT N VALUE .&

20 40 60 80 PL MC LL I e I

20 40 60 80

• FINES CONTENT(%) • 20 40 60 80

: ······································· . . .

. . . . . . . . ...................................... . . . . . . . . . . ....................................... . . . . . . . . .

······································· . . .

. . .. ................................... . . . .

-~~- ... : ....... : ...... .: ....... : ...... . . . .

. . . ....................................... . . . .

. . . ······································· . . .

. . . .... ·································· . . .

. . . ······································· . . .

... ··································· . . . .

--, a.. ('.)

qi

~ l!)

;;;

~ UJ > 0:: UJ en ~ en ~ en (..)

0 0 C')

in UJ _, u::: :a: en ~ > -st f-I'-co co 0 ::::: -st -st

;:::: C')

u'i 0

f-0 ('.)

co <( _, en ::> 0 f-en f-z i3 en f-0 _, a.. :r: co :r: (..) UJ f-0 UJ ('.)



PROJECTNUMBER-'K~S~M.:.,:_:;_#_;;1~3...:..;15:::....:7~1~-b"-----------

DATESTARTED_1_0_/1_/1_3 ___ _ COMPLETED _1.:....:0::.:._/1.:..;_/...:..;13::.__ __ _


DRILLING METHOD _______________ _

LOGGED BY _;D:::....:Pc___.:_;&-=D;...c.H-'------ CHECKED BY -"J'""'E'-'-K ___ _

NOTES North Side of 80th Ave. Across from 143rd Street

I ~ I-,....._ Ic, a.. 4= a..o w- ~_J Cl

C,


0 o: .'v Gray Sand with Traces of Roots

.· ·--Light Gray Sand

- - . .·

- -

- - .·

___§___ .·

- -

- - .·

-.·

I- -

._J__Q_."-Orange Sand

~ - .

I- -

I- -.




PROJECT LOCATION _S_e_b_a_st_ia_n....__F-"lo_ri_da ___________ _

GROUND ELEVATION ____ _ HOLE SIZE inches --------GROUND WATER LEVELS:

.SZAT TIME OF DRILLING 13.50 ft / 5.71 NAVO ---------------AT END OF DRILLING ---

AFTER DRILLING ---

w ~ z ~ .& SPT N VALUE.&

a.. 0

>- 0:: >- Cl) w w 20 40 60 80 1-W 0:: ,....._ :§:1-::> a..

!:::c PL MC wCO wCl 1-c LL >0

0Z_J w.!1 zo I • I _J~ _J::>~ ::> 8 a..::> oo:: c.cO ~- 20 40 60 80 ~z o- 06 () >-

<( w 0 0:: • FINES CONTENT (%) • Cl) 0:: a.. Cl

20 40 60 80

. . .

lX1 ss 3-3-2 (5)

.......................................

~~ .... : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... . . .

xl ss 2-2-2 (4)

······································· . . .

4~ .... ......... : ............... : ...... . . . .

. . .

xJ ss- 2-1-2 (3)

······································· . . . . ~, ..... : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... . . . .

. . . .

fX1 ss 2-?.-2 (4)

······································· . . . . . . 4~ .... . : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... .

. . . .

fX1 ss 2-3-4 (7)

····································· . . . -~ .... : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... .

. . . .

lX1 ss 5-6-6 (12)

...................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . .

······················"''''••········· . . .

M ss 5-7-9 l \I (16)

······································· . . . .

KSM KELLER, SCHLEICHER & MacWILLIAM ENGINEERING AND TESTING, INC. MARTIN (772) 337-7755 P.O. BOX 78-1377, SEBASTIAN, FL 32978-1377 SEBASTIAN (772) 589-0712 PALM BEACH (561) 845-7445 www.ksmengineering.net . MELBOURNE (321) 768-8488 FAX (561) 845-8876 E-Mail: [email protected] ST. LUCIE (772) 229-9093 C.A.: 5693 FAX (772) 589-6469

Date

Location:

DEPTH IN FEET

-0-

-1-

October 3, 2013

Sebastian Sewer Feasibility Sebastian, Florida SB-5, East Side of U.S. Highway 1, 815'

South of Roseland Road

Strata FROM-TO

0" - 8"

8 " - 8 4 "

PEN READINGS

25

DESCRIPTION OF SOILS

Gray Sand with Traces of Roots

Light Gray Sand

-2- 32

-3- 30

-4- 27

-5- 32

-6- 34

-7- ------------------------------------------------------------

Water Table : 74" Below Existing Grade or 14.48 NAVO

Job#: KSM 131571-5sb


lo (9

O'.l

:'.5 (/) ::, 0 I(/)

1-z 0 (/) lo -' a... I O'.l I (.) LU lo LU



PROJECTNUMBER~K~S=M.:.:...:.:..#~1~3~15=7~1~-b:....._ _________ _

DA TE STARTED _1;:__;:0-'--'/8"---/1--"3 ___ _ COMPLETED _1~0_/8_/1_3 __ _



LOGGED BY -'D"-P_&.c..._c_D_H ___ _ CHECKEDBY~J=E=K~----

NOTES East Side of US Highway 1, 2,390' North of Jackson St.

{) I :i:'9 1--a..~ a..o w- ~...J 0

(!)


0 o:··~ Gray Sand with Traces of Roots

.· ·--Light Gray Sand

.·

- - .·

_5 __ .·

. '¥ . ·




PROJECT LOCATION _S"-e'--b_a-=-st=ia'-'-n'-'---F-'--'-lo_ri-'--da"-------------

GROUND ELEVATION ____ _ HOLE SIZE inches --------GROUND WATER LEVELS:

~AT TIME OF DRILLING 6.66 ft/ 16.97 NAVO -----'--"-~~~-------AT END OF DRILLING _-_--_____________ _

AFTER DRILLING _-_--______________ _

w :::R z ~ A SPT N VALUE A

a.. 0

>- 0::: >- C/) w w 20 40 60 80 1-W o:::- $ I-::> a.. t:c PL MC LL wee wO 0Z...J I- C

>0 W2 zo I • I ...J2 ...J=>;; :::> -3: 0..:::> oo::: a:iO ~ ...__. 20 40 60 80

2Z {) ...__. 06 (.) >-

<( w 0 0::: 0 FINES CONTENT (%) 0 C/) 0::: a.. Cl

20 40 60 80

w ss 2-2-1 (3)

······································ . . . ' . . .

~- .... : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... .

)(J ss 1-1-2 (3)

······································ . . .

~- .... : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... . :

)(J ss 2-1-2 (3)

······································ . . . . . . A.~ ..... : ....... : ....... : ....... : ...... .

. . .

\II ss 2-3-3 I \I - (6)

. ································ .... . . . 1 . . -

('.)'----------------------------------------------------'


Date

Location:

DEPTH IN FEET

-0-

-1-

-2-

-3-

October 1, 2013

Sebastian Sewer Feasibility Sebastian, Florida SB-7, East Side of Central Ave. 265'

North of 134th Street

Strata FROM-TO

0" - 18"

18" - 44"

PEN READINGS

27

31

34


Brown Sand with Traces of Roots

Light Gray Sand

44" - 48" Dark Brown Sand -4- --------------------------36--------------------------------

Water Table 15" Below Existing Grade or 7.51 NAVO


Ronald G. Keller, P.E.: 37293 I SI Lie. No.: 860 / Julie E. Keller, P.E.: 68366


Date

Location:

DEPTH IN FEET

-0-

-1-

-2-

-3-

-4-

October 1, 2013

Sebastian Sewer Feasibility Sebastian, Florida SB-8, East Side of Central Ave. 170'

South of 130th Street

Strata FROM-TO

0" - 16"

16" - 40"

40" - 60"

PEN READINGS

34

37

41

40


Dark Gray Sand with Traces of Clay and Roots

Light Gray Sand

Dark Brown Sand

-5- --------------------------44--------------------------------


Job#: KSM 131571-Bsb



Date

Location:

DEPTH IN FEET

-0-

-1-

-2-

-3-

October 1, 2013

Sebastian Sewer Feasibility Sebastian, Florida SB-9, S.E. Corner of Central Ave. and Davis Street

Strata FROM-TO

0" - 6"

6" - 48"

PEN READINGS

30

34

36


Dark Gray Sand with Some Roots

Gray Sand with Traces of Shell Fragments

-4- -----------------------------37-----------------------------




VACUUM COLLECTION SYSTEM EXHIBITS

TYPICAL LAYOUT



TYPICAL VALVE PIT



NOTE: 1N-SUMP BREATIER TS I ll-HSVIEW

FOR CLARITY-SEE AD.JA ELEVATIO AND PLAN VI

2·-2 /4" 'A'

~ BUOYANCY

&-.()• CO LAR

"A"

' ---' 4'-11Z'

'

0 RECORD

SUCTION LINE

TSENSORUNE

CAST IR FRAME A D U RATED FOR H20 TRAFFIC OADING

1 '-11 112" :t1/2"

AIRVAC FL Bl£ CONNECTOR

VACWMS N {DIRECT OF FtOW

I OPAPE )

PIECE LDED SU ASS BY

A" OR tr GRAVITY STUs-OUT 'MTti GLUED CAP (TYP.)

- r 4" G VllY j 8" GAAVTTY

01 ~ ,·~· _L ·- _J

TYPICAL VACUUM STATION

SCHEMATIC



Photo of Top Section of Valve Pit

Photo of Valve Pit with Cover and Vent

Rockridge Vacuum Station

PHOTOGRAPHS OF ROCKRIDGE

VACUUM SYSTEM - 10/23/2013 MASTELLER & MOLER, INC.


LOW PRESSURE / GRINDER PUMP STATION

EXHIBITS

TYPICAL GRINDER

PUMP STATION



17.50'"

I

lo. I

I I

-r---------;-.....;:i""c-____ ....-____ _ 8'1'

4-• N..£'T HUB FED AUm

•

1

'----(1) t- 1/2" ()£0( V 'tf: (HOAmlHTAL)

r----11-(t) ,_ 12·• SQtSO PVC

•

Photo of Simplex System

Photo of Simplex System

Photo of Duplex System

PHOTOGRAPHS OF PUMP STATIONS

LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM - 11/11/2013



INDIAN RIVER LAGOON POLLUTION ARTICLES

~ Article ~

Press Journal (TCPalm)

August 11, 2013

Investigation: Move over fertilizer; septic tank drainage also contaminating Indian River Lagoon

By Scott Wyland

Investigation: Move over fertilizer; septic tank drainage also contaminating Indian River Lagoon

Study found nutrient levels in Indian River Lagoon as high as Boston

Harbor's when raw sewage was dumped there

By Scott Wyland

Sunday, August 11, 2013

PHOTO BY JIM URICK

This chart shows the dissolved inorganic nitrogen levels between 2011 and 2012 in the Indian River Lagoon. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen feeds algae blooms in the lagoon.

An angler launches a boat from his Sebastian waterfront home and zooms across the Indian River Lagoon to where his favorite sea grass bed was once teeming with fish he could almost grab with his bare hands.

But the sea grass and fish are gone. Clumps of algae now mottle the sandy bottom in the nearly barren, tea-colored water.

TCPALM n r fn I~ •

fLORlDAS T!UASUlU COAST AND PALJ.,\ BEACHES Read more al tcpalm.com

16

C CV O"I 12 e ~ z -~ C IC C) 8 ~

0 C

,:, C, > 0

4 ~ 0

DISSOLVED INORGANIC NITROGEN It represents ammonium and nitrate, hich feed

algal blooms in the lagoon.

LJ Dry season 2011

Mosquito Lagoon

Wet season 2011

Wet season 2012

Banana River

Lagoon

North • Central South Indian River Indian River Indian River

Lagoon Lagoon Lagoon • Central Lagoon lo lu es Indian RI r county and orth m St. Lucie County

Harlan Franklin glances at several dolphins frolicking in the distance, a majestic sight for many people but a frustrating one for him. He would rather see fish.

Franklin, a former fishing columnist, blames the runoff funneled through canals into the lagoon for killing the sea grass. Septic tanks that leach into canals, groundwater and the lagoon contribute to the pollution, he said, though he’s not sure how much.

“I moved here to fish,” said Franklin, who has lived near the lagoon since 2006. “It’s a major disappointment.”

PHOTO BY JIM URICK

This chart shows nitrogen isotopes in microalgae from sewage impacted coastal waters.

Researchers at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute in Fort Pierce have found sewage contaminating the entire 156-mile lagoon. Indian River County’s levels are comparable to Boston Harbor’s when raw sewage was dumped there, a new water analysis shows.

Despite growing evidence that septic tanks play a role in the lagoon’s degradation, most elected leaders are hesitant to tackle this part of the problem, largely because many property owners oppose increased septic regulations, a Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers investigation found.

NITROGEN ISOTOPES IN MICROALGAE FROM SEWAGE IMPACTED COASTAL WATERS

9

8

7 ~6 .s ~ 5 a3 4 0,

~ 3 z 2

1

0 .&...,i;;;;-----------------------------Roberts Boston Indian Quashnet Big Pine Sarasota Western Bay, Fla. Harbor. River River, Key Bay, Florida

Mass. Lagoon Mass. Fla. Fla. Bay Source: Harbor Branch Oceanographic In i ute

Some scientists and regulatory agencies point to fertilizers as the main source of the nutrient runoff generating heavy algae in the lagoon. But Harbor Branch professor Brian LaPointe believes sewage carries more of the nutrients spurring algae growth.

“It’s really unclear how much fertilizer is reaching the lagoon,” LaPointe said. “But one septic tank on 4 acres — that’s enough to create a nutrient problem.”

Algal blooms block sunlight that sea grass needs to thrive. As the algae decompose, they deplete oxygen, which can suffocate sea grass and fish, turning clear, biodiverse waters into a murky dead zone.

Local treatment plants discharge some effluent, though most wastewater in the lagoon comes from septic tanks, said LaPointe, who has studied sewage impacts on waterways for 30 years.

There are about 120,000 septic systems on the Treasure Coast, the newspaper investigation found. As many as half were installed before stricter regulations were enacted in 1983, making them more likely to drain sewage into groundwater that ends up in the lagoon, according to data from the counties and Harbor Branch.

No one knows how many systems affect the lagoon, and recordkeeping is sketchier on older septic tanks that could cause the most harm.

One thing is certain: sewage taints the estuary.

LaPointe’s research team took a total of three lagoon-wide samples in 2011 and 2012 and found nitrogen isotopes in the algae, an element directly linked to sewage. Elevated levels of ammonium and nitrate also were detected, LaPointe said,

noting anything above 3 parts per million indicates sewage.

He called the findings a smoking gun.

All three counties on the Treasure Coast showed at least 5 parts per million. Indian River County had as much as 9 parts per million, putting it on par with troubled water bodies such as Boston Harbor, according to the research.

SEPTIC SYSTEM PERMITS

Indian River County: 37,000, roughly half

issued before 1983_ Of

the 900 systems on the

barrier island - where

they're more li kely to be

near waterways - 7 4 7

are more than 30 years

old

St. Lucie County: 45,000, about 18,000

date back before 1983

Martin County: 40 ,000,

offic ials didn't know how

many predate 1983

“I was taken aback by that,” LaPointe said. “We don’t just have a problem, we have a serious problem.”

OWNERS RESIST

North America’s most biodiverse estuary is losing some of its wildlife.

Much of the red algae, known as gracilaria, has a toxic residue LaPointe and other researchers think might have killed 145 manatees, more than 50 dolphins and about 300 pelicans in the lagoon earlier this year in Brevard County. Manatees munched on the stringy algae when it overtook sea grass, their normal dietary staple. Dolphins and pelicans eat fish that ingest the algae.

PHOTO BY JIM URICK

This chart represents the amount of macroalgae recorded in the Indian River Lagoon during 2011 and 2012. It also shows the amount of macroalgae represented when when sewage is present.

Sea grass is a vital part of the lagoon’s food web, feeding small fish and mussels larger creatures eat. An estimated 47,000 acres of sea grass has died north of Fort Pierce since 2007, experts say. In areas where it has vanished, most manatees and many fish species have left in search of better pickings, creating dead zones.

9

C: .2 6 E ,_ QJ Q.

~ a. 3

NITROGEN ISOTOPES • Dry season D Wet season 2011 2011

Wet season 2012

-hres old nd1c • se a e.

I

0 .......,....,. ___ --,1, _______ .......,..,____._ ______ ......., __ __

Mosquito Lagoon

Banana River

Lagoon

North Central South Indian River Indian River Indian River

Lagoon Lagoon lagoon OT£: Indian River County is in the Central. Martin Coun is m e Sooth. Part. of

St wcle Coon is n Centra and part Is In South.

Aside from nutrients — such as nitrogen and phosphorous — sewage also contains coliform bacteria, viruses, prescription drugs and anything else flushed down the toilet, LaPointe said.

A conservationist criticizes what he says is public leaders’ reluctance to impose measures to keep septic sewage from harming the lagoon’s ecosystem.

“They have been neglecting, ignoring these septic systems,” said Richard Baker, president of the Pelican Island Audubon Society in Indian River County. “It’s very frustrating that we don’t see more actions taking place. There’s a lot of evidence that groundwater is carrying sewage into the lagoon.”

One option would be to install public sewer lines in areas that don’t have them and order nearby septic tank users to hook in, Baker said. Another would be toughening codes to require faulty systems to be fixed or scrapped.

Property owners are some of the staunchest opponents to government telling them what to do with their septic systems, especially if the changes cost money. Elected leaders tend to align with their constituents.

Replacing a tank and drainfield costs between $5,000 and $7,000 depending on the size of the home, according to vendors. If soil must be replaced, the cost of trucking in sand can bump the price to $10,000 or more.

“You start telling people they got to pay that, they’re going to tell you to stuff it,” said Franklin, who’s hooked to county sewer but is sympathetic to neighbors with septic tanks.

In 2003, Indian River County attempted to connect residents in Wabasso and Pine islands to county sewer and water lines. County officials backed off when residents complained they couldn’t afford the costs, estimated at $5,000 or more.

SEEKING SUBSIDIES

Indian River County Commissioner Tim Zorc, who wants to restore the lagoon’s health, believes a surgical approach — targeting subpar septic tanks — is less divisive than trying to overhaul an entire area such as the barrier island.

“We want to be practical,” Zorc said. “You have to prioritize your areas. Not all systems have to be replaced.”

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/topic/richard-baker/

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/topic/tim-zorc/

Newer septic tanks have better filtration and funnel less solid waste to underground drainfields, which means less sewage would leach into groundwater and the lagoon, said Zorc, a longtime builder.

Still, even well-functioning systems can pollute the lagoon if they were built too close to the water, Zorc said. In that case, the household should connect to a central sewer.

The main snag is cost, Zorc said.

Baker said there are loan programs that let people pay for sewer connections over time at a lower interest rate. So fees should not be a barrier, he said.

County and city programs differ.

County residents close enough to sewer lines to hook up would pay could pay the $2,800 connection fee over five years at a 5.75 percent interest rate, said Cindy Corrente, county utilities manager.

About 3,000 households in Vero Beach’s service area are on septic, but only 10 have access to city sewer, so the rest would need to pay $15,000-plus to have new lines installed, said Rob Bolton, the city’s water and sewer director.

These customers could spread the payments throughout 20 years while paying interest at about the prime rate, Bolton said.

Grants also might be available to help homeowners pay for upgrades or to hook to a municipal sewer if it protects a major water resource, Zorc said, adding he will ask water management officials, state lawmakers and congressional leaders about possible grants.

However, state Sen. Joe Negron, R-Stuart, said he’s not inclined to change people’s methods for sewage disposal or pursue state and federal grants to pay for the changes. He said he voted to repeal the state law requiring septic tank inspections, believing it was undue government intrusion.

Negron, who spearheaded a state Senate committee to study the lagoon’s ills, said he wants to concentrate on restoring the Everglades and countering the harmful effects of Lake Okeechobee releases. Still, he is willing to listen to LaPointe, whom U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Jupiter, invited to speak about septic pollution at the committee’s Aug. 22 meeting in Stuart.

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/topic/joe-negron/

AGING SYSTEMS

Septic systems installed before 1983 cause the most concern.

Aside from aging, the systems can be 25 feet from waterways – some are closer – and the drainfields that hold waste can be 6 inches above groundwater.

State codes enacted in 1983 require the systems to be set back at least 50 feet from a waterway and the drainfield to be at least 2 feet above groundwater. However, the old systems — some of them installed in the 1960s — were grandfathered in. Even if they’re replaced, the owners can keep the 25-foot setback from surface water, said Cheryl Dunn, Indian River County’s environmental health director.

If well-maintained, the average septic system works properly for about 18 years, Dunn said.

Dunn said her health agents don’t look at a septic system unless someone complains, usually because of a stench. A failing system leaks long before it emits foul odors, she said.

“That’s the problem with septic systems,” Dunn said. “They’re put into the ground and forgotten.”

SEWAGE BUILD-UP

Lagoon sewage is the worst in Indian River County, especially during the rainy season.

Heavy storm runoff funneled through the main relief canal combined with a lack of incoming saltwater cause sewage levels to swell, experts say.

Tests show the nutrients that feed algal blooms were the highest when salinity was the lowest, and it coincided with water control districts releasing a high volume of stormwater, LaPointe said.

Dumping stormwater here has a similar effect, though on a smaller scale, as Lake Okeechobee’s freshwater being released into the St. Lucie River, LaPointe said. Increased stormwater carries more sewage, he said, noting the nitrogen isotopes – a chief sewage indicator — spiked to 9 parts per million during the wet seasons.

OLDER VS/ NEWER

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Before 1983:

• Septic systems cou ld be

25 feet from waterways,

and some were allowed

to be closer.

• Drainfields that hold

waste can be 6 inches

above groundwater at

seasonal high.

• Roughly half of

Florida's 2.7 million

septic systems were installed before 1983.

1983 and later:

• Septic systems must be

at least 50 feet from a

waterway

• Drainfields must be at

least 2 feet above

groundwater at seasonal

high.

• Pre-1983 systems

grandfathered in.

Source: Florida

Department of Health

Another lagoon researcher said the water is often stagnant, allowing nutrients to build up.

Much of the lagoon north of Fort Pierce is enclosed, and the Sebastian Inlet is too small to flush it out adequately, said Grant Gilmore, senior scientist for Estuarine, Coastal and Ocean Science, a Vero Beach research firm.

The county also has thousands of septic systems in low areas near the lagoon, which itself is troublesome, LaPointe said.

In the coming year, a Harbor Branch student will trace the sources of the lagoon’s sewage. That will include looking at canals that link the lagoon to areas with septic systems.

LaPointe and Franklin both say urbanization has dealt a double blow to the lagoon.

Marshes that captured and filtered runoff were replaced with subdivisions that drain more waste into the lagoon, they say.

Franklin slows his boat as he cruises through a manatee protection zone not far from his house. He grumbles that the slow zone is pointless because there are no more manatees here.

“I’m 84, and they’re not going to fix this in my lifetime,” he said.

INSPECTIONS

A law passed in 2010 required homeowners to inspect septic systems at their expense

every five years and called for health officials to ensure all 2.7 million systems statewide

were checked every five years. If serious flaws were found, such as leaky tanks, the owners

would have to repair or replace the systems.

The law stirred an outcry.

Homeowners, tea party leaders alld other crit ics pressured the Legislature into repealing

the law in 2012. Counties were put in charge of inspections alld can choose not to do them.

Indian River and St. Lucie counties do 110 routine inspections. Martin County inspects about

120 systems yearly, a fraction of its inventory.

Iii ii @ 201 > Scripps r<ewsp,pec Gro,p - o aroe

~ Article ~


October 20, 2013 Editorial:

Counties along Indian River Lagoon should work together on septic tank issue

By Editorial Board

Editorial: Counties along Indian River Lagoonshould work together on septic tank issueBy Editorial Board

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Replacing septic tanks and putting properties on sewer systems along the route of

the Indian River Lagoon would be a massive and expensive undertaking.

But, it may be a critical component to improving the long-term health of the invaluable

estuary.

If that work is to be accomplished, the newly established Indian River Lagoon

Counties Collaborative, with a representative from each of the six counties along the

lagoon, could be key if it can find a way to work together on that goal.

Established under the leadership of Martin County Commissioner Ed Fielding, the

collaborative held its first meeting in September and began discussions on how they

can combine political and financial resources to deal with pollution problems impacting

the lagoon.

Those problems vary from north to south and include discharges from Lake

Okeechobee, fertilizer runoff and septic leakage into the lagoon.

Since the first meeting, local and state political leaders throughout the district have

addressed the septic tank issue and expressed a desire to eventually get wastewater

customers on public sewer systems. But, the biggest hurdle appears to be the

considerable cost. Among the three counties of the Treasure Coast alone there are

about 120,000 septic systems. Replacing those systems could cost governments

hundreds of millions of dollars and homeowners thousands of additional dollars.

The next meeting of the collaborative is scheduled for Nov. 8 at the Indian River

County Commission chambers. Presentations are tentatively scheduled from the St.

Johns River Water Management District and from Brian LaPointe, a professor at the

Florida Atlantic University branch of Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute.

LaPointe, who undertook major studies of the lagoon in 2011 and 2012, believes

sewage runoff is a major contributor to the pollution problems throughout its 156-mile

route.

The issue with septic tanks and the problems related to them should be a significant

topic during that upcoming meeting. The collaborative is also working to develop

scientific data to locate pollution sources and levels within the lagoon.

TCPALM FlORlDAS Tlili.lt5URE CO\ST AND PALM BEACHES

Printer-friondly story

Rcoad more attcpa.lm.com

Armed with that research and data, the counties should have a better idea of what

needs to be done. And, that information could go a long way to obtaining whatever

state and/or federal funding assistance might be available to address the septic tank

pollution of the lagoon.

The costs for switching from septic tanks to sewer systems may be prohibitive for

individual counties and property owners. But, combining their political influence, the

counties in the collaborative may have more opportunities to get the funding help

necessary to at least begin replacing the most troublesome septic tanks.

There seems to be considerable momentum among the counties to begin taking

direct actions to improve the health of the Indian River Lagoon. Eliminating some of

the problems associated with septic tank systems may be one of the best direct

actions they might implement.

© 2013 Scripps New spaper Group — Online

~ Article ~


September 1, 2013 Editorial:

To help restore Indian River Lagoon, Treasure Coast governments should give more attention to septic-tank issue

By Editorial Board

Editorial: To help restore Indian River Lagoon,Treasure Coast governments should give moreattention to septic-tank issueBy Editorial Board

Sunday, September 1, 2013

The major problem besetting the Indian River Lagoon — at least in Martin and St.Lucie counties — is the huge amount of polluted water being discharged from LakeOkeechobee into the St. Lucie River.

However, there are two additional, major sources of the toxic nutrients that can ignitealgae blooms and harm plant and animal life throughout the entire lagoon — namely,fertilizer runoff and septic-tank drainage.

Many local governments on the Treasure Coast have been proactive in dealing withthe first issue, adopting ordinances that ban fertilizers during the state’s rainy season(June through September). The second issue — septic-tank drainage — receivesless attention than it deserves.

Local governments need to begin focusing their resources and creativity on thisproblem.

The scientific evidence cannot be ignored: Sewage leeching from septic tanksthroughout our region is degrading the lagoon. Brian Lapointe, a professor at HarborBranch Oceanographic Institute in Fort Pierce, believes sewage carries more of thenutrients spurring algae growth than fertilizer runoff.

Lagoon-wide water samples in all three Treasure Coast counties in 2011 and 2012showed elevated levels of ammonium and nitrate, according to Lapointe. Anythingabove 3 parts per million indicates sewage. Each county in our region has showed atleast 5 parts per million. The level has been as high as 9 parts per million in IndianRiver County.

“We don’t just have a problem, we have a serious problem,” Lapointe said.

A recent investigation by Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers found there are about120,000 septic systems in the three-county area. As many as half were installedbefore 1983, when stricter regulations were enacted, making them more likely to drainsewage into groundwater — and eventually into the lagoon.

TCPALM H.oruoA'.s TREASURE COAsT AND PALM BEACHES

Printer.friondly story

Rcead more al tcpalm.com

The remedy? Upgrade failing septic tanks or convert them to public sewer lines.

The challenge? Financing the upgrades and conversions. Replacing a septic tankand drain field alone can cost $5,000 to $7,000 — and more if soil at the site needsto be replaced.

Clearly, there are no simple solutions. However, some communities on the TreasureCoast are finding creative ways to address the problem:

• The city of Stuart has embarked on an ambitious project: expanding Stuart’sdowntown sewer system to the rest of the city. To encourage residents to convertfrom septic to sewer lines, the city is offering discounts: $2,000 off the $8,000 costand interest-free payments spread over 10 years. Those who pay up front will savean additional $1,000.

• More than 50 residents of West Wabasso, an unincorporated area north of CountyRoad 510 in Indian River County, are converting from septic to sewer thanks to a$750,000 federal grant through the state’s Department of Economic Opportunity.

Unfortunately, there are still too few septic-conversion projects on the TreasureCoast.

Solving the pollution problem in our Indian River Lagoon requires a multifacetedapproach. Septic-tanks conversions must be a part of this process — a process thatwill be slow, piecemeal and costly.

If the ultimate goal is restoring and preserving the lagoon, local governments willmake a commitment to the process — and find creative ways to finance projects andmake the change.

© 2013 Scripps New spaper Group — Online

~ Article ~

Vero’s Voice - Issue 31

August 2013

Can We Save the INDIAN RIVER LAGOON?

The Lagoon’s SEAGRASS DILEMMA

By Keith MacDonald

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE PAIDTALLAHASSEE FLPERMIT NO. 296

POSTAL PATRONIssue 31

Can We Save theINDIAN�RIVERLAGOON?PAGE��

Inside: Editor’s Choice 5What’s New 6Our Day in Boston 11NEW: Ask the Hair Guy 15 All That Jazz: Harry James, “The Hawk” 21Jane & Jim Recommend 22Vero’s Choice 23Young Voices 32Ashley Gang’s Life of Crime 37Mind Games 45

2 Vero’s Voice Issue 31

SEAGRASS�DILEMMA

The Lagoon’s

By Keith MacDonald

Seagrass provides a protective environment in which young marine life can develop, but with the Lagoon’s critically high levels of nutrients, the deterioration of seagrass beds created an undeni-able concern. Compelled by state law to act, the County Commis-sion passed the mandate, which is aimed at regulating the TMDL.

What happened?

During the summer of 2011, a “super bloom” of oxygen-con-suming algae exploded into the northern lagoon. The algae choked off the lagoon’s natural seagrass, killing 45% of it over the next eight months. This kicked off a period of rapid decline in lagoon health that still exists today. To date, two-thirds of the seagrass between Vero Beach and the northern end of the Indian River Lagoon has disappeared.

The controls that were implemented in the 1990s seemed to be creating a positive effect on the flourishing seagrass, but according to St. Johns River Water Management models, the drier weather we experienced between 1998 through 2010 was more responsible for keeping approximately 80,000 kilograms of chemicals out of the lagoon each year. This surpassed any controls that could be put into action by regulation. (By comparison, the county removes approximately 60,000 kilograms through its scrubbing, skimming and purifying efforts.)

But, as is the case in many experiments gone awry, the blame for the depleted seagrass problem has been placed squarely on the shoulders of… the Indian River County Commission.

What’s being done was already being done…

I met with County Commissioner Wesley Davis at the North Relief Canal project at Spoonbill Marsh and received a first-hand tour of an impressive, eco-friendly filtration system of pods, mats and runnels.

“What we have created is a first-class saltwater estuary and marsh,” said Davis. “The brine that used to be directly discharged into the lagoon is now being processed through 60 acres of for-merly low-grade marsh that was laden with invasive plants. These plants were strangling the natural vegetation.”

An impressive pumping station sits at the mouth of the large canal which channels lagoon water into the estuary where it passes through floating mats of vegetation anchored around brine-pump-ing sprinkler systems.

“Under those mats, the roots of these mangrove plants extend down and consume the nutrients in the water being passed through,” says Davis. “We process all of our brine right here using reverse osmosis. We pump the brine up and process it through an eco-friendly, natural process.”

But we’re not done yet.

Last month on July 3rd, the Indian River County Commission passed the State Model Fertilizer Ordinance,

which is intended to reduce nitrogen, potas-sium and phosphorous levels in the Lagoon. Currently, the Indian River Lagoon has been designated as an impaired body of water by the EPA due to its high levels of pollution and the ensuing loss of seagrass and marine life. The EPA and Florida DEP determine the amount of nutrients allowed, or TMDL – the Total Maximum Daily Loads.

Cover photo:�� Photo by Bixby Harrison

Blue Heron photo by Rick Wood

The water is then channeled through several runnels that have been heavily populated with oysters – a car-bon-hungry shellfish. Oysters can be used to biologically treat polluted water without the need of more costly purification methods.

Fact: A single adult oyster can filter up to 50-60 gallons of water per day. Now envision thousands of these shellfish lining the bottom of each these runnels.

With all of those nutrients being processed, Commis-sioner Davis jokes we’ve got some pretty fat, happy oysters sitting at the bottom of North Relief Canal.

Davis also points out that the county can quantify the nutrients in the water that comes into the canal and the much-cleaner water that goes back out into the lagoon.

“We have proof that this system is working beyond expectations. And on top of that, we’re taking care of all of the brine,” Davis adds. “People don’t realize how big of a deal that is. In fact, the state won’t let you dump brine just anywhere these days. The City of Vero Beach spent $8 million on deep well injectors to shoot the brine down to the Florida Aquifer,” says Davis.

The effort doesn’t simply start and end at the Spoonbill Marsh; there are two more relief canals. The South Relief Canal uses an “algae scrubber,” which accomplishes exactly what the name implies; runoff from local prop-erties that contain nitrogen, potassium or phosphorous promote the blooming of algae. When the algae arrives at the processing area, it is trapped, removed and could be resold as bio-fuel or livestock feed.

“And we’re not stopping here,” says Davis, “We’re building another turf scrubber near South County Park, so we’ll have two scrubbers in south Indian River County.”

The Central Canal or Main Relief Canal is a skimmer, which removes trash and organics from the runoff water before allowing it to flow through to the lagoon.

“The point I’m trying to make with all of this is we (county commissioners) took it on the chin because we didn’t pass a fertilizer ordinance last year. I’d wager what this county has done to preserve and enhance the lagoon against anybody else. What we’ve accomplished as a community to protect our lagoon is far beyond what most have done.”

Finger Pointing Gone Wild

Commissioner Davis believes that the commissioners are taking the blame for inaction in passing the State Model Ordinance. In fact, one local columnist reported

Issue 31 Vero’s Voice 3

that Commissioner Bob So-lari led the charge to reject the ordinance in August of 2012. Solari had contended that a fertilizer ordinance would be ineffective, unenforceable, and yet another instance of government control.

“We thought it was more important to do something positive for the Lagoon in-stead of making criminals out of guys who take good care of their yards,” Solari explains. “I requested and reviewed 300 pages of back-up from the city and found that not one of the questions that needed to be answered had even been addressed.”

Solari saw no mandate to monitor the nutrient content of the Lagoon, no solutions and no way to enforce any part of the ordinance.

“I truly believe more and more people will follow our guidelines through awareness and education,” Solari said. “If people are informed, they’ll make the right decisions. There’s no need to micro-manage our residents.”

Just an FYI: Commissioner Solari removed all of the grass from his yard and replaced it with vegetation and potted plants that require less watering. “I’ll never use another bag of fertilizer unless it’s going into my potted plants,” he said.

“The Lagoon problem wasn’t the fault of any one com-missioner or the entire county commission as a whole,” explains Davis. “The problem was enforcement. Were we going to fine a guy who wants to fertilize his banana tree in August? There wouldn’t have been any citations written for overuse of nutrients, because who was supposed to be enforcing these rules? To blame it all on fertilizer, I don’t buy that. People were fertilizing 10 years ago when the Lagoon was healthy.”

A Little Topography Never Hurts

Looking at a map of the county, US 1 runs north to south along the “Atlantic Ridge.” Interstate I-95 is another protective ridge, which is called the “10-Mile Ridge.” Wa-ter collects between these two ridges and is meant to run north near Jacksonville to the Upper St. John’s Basin.

The water that pools on the east side of the Atlantic Ridge (US 1) runs to the Lagoon through tributaries and creeks that create the brackish brown water you see in the Wa-terway. When the droughts of the late 90s through 2010 kept the runoff minimized, the Lagoon flourished with spreading seagrass, plenty of marine life and cleaner, more oxygenated water.

The addition of the second scrubber at South Relief near South Vero Park will help relieve more of the algae and nutrients that may have entered the Lagoon. And with the recent passing of the State Model Ordi-nance by the IRCC, steps have been taken to rectify our distressed Lagoon, but who will be enforcing these new restrictions? Who will be charged with educating local golf courses, landscapers and property manage-

ment companies about how much fertilizer they can use and what time of year they can be used?

“I don’t want anybody to think we’re done, either,” says Wesley Davis. “We’re not saying, ‘Okay, we’re done, leave us alone.’ For example, I’d like to place a bunch of oysters down at the DOT outflow off US1 near Oslo Road and let them clean that water before it reaches the Lagoon.”

BREAKING NEWS: A New Culprit?

Over the past few weeks, Brian LaPointe and assis-tant Laura Herren – two researchers with Florida Atlantic University’s Harbor Branch Oceanograph-

ic Institute in Fort Pierce – have been studying seaweed along the Indian River Lagoon.

Why?

Because over 110 manatees have died in our region over the past year due to eating gracilaria – also known as red drift algae. Local biologists claim that algae blooms that choke off seagrass have reduced the mammal’s usual diet, thus manatees have been forced to consume the gracilaria instead.

While many are blaming fertilizers for transforming the Lagoon from a sanctuary of delicious seagrass to a brackish pool of eco-destructive death, LaPointe suspects thousands of septic tanks buried along the barrier islands’ sandy terra firma – as well as along the banks of the La-goon – may also be playing a significant role. He plans to substantiate his theory by examining the nitrogen locked within the seaweed.

“Gracilaria can double its biomass in just 2-3 days,” LaPointe explained. “It’s very hard for seagrass to compete with that.”

Though nitrogen and phosphorus may have triggered too much algae bloom, creating cloudy brownish water, dead algae depletes even more oxygen in the water, which smothers marine life as well. Red drift algae will suffocate seagrass in nitrogen-rich waters and, as Lapointe points out, it seems to grow densest near neighborhoods with septic or sewage problems. A classic example of this is how gracilaria thrives near heavily populated bird sanctuaries as it feeds off the birds’ fecal waste.

Back at the North Relief Canal, Commissioner Wesley Davis remains optimistic.

“I’m proud of this project,” Davis beams. “A fertilizer ordinance is one thing, but this North Relief Project” is something that works very well and we’re very proud of it!”

It will be interesting to review the results of LaPointe’s research.

Stay tuned!

County Commissioner Bob Solari at the water treatment facility. Photo by Bixby Harrison

��economic activity each year. Photo by Allison McNeal

The Indian River Lagoon is important to our quali-ty of life and our community’s natural beauty. Like our beaches, the Lagoon greatly enhances our quality of life, is important for our economy, and provides excit-ing recreational opportunities for those of us who live here as well as tourists to our community. Our estuary also plays a vital role for indigenous and migratory wildlife. I chose to live on the Lagoon and raise my family there.

The Indian River Lagoon stretches 156 miles through five counties along Florida’s East Coast – from Volusia County at the north end and south through Martin County. Key findings of a 2008 study commissioned by the St. John Water Management District found the Lagoon’s overall economic benefit to our communities to be significant – the overall esti-mated annual value of the Lagoon is over $3.5 billion supporting approximately 15,000 jobs. Recreational activities generate nearly $1.4 billion in economic activity and about $629 million a year in resident income.

Since estuaries are places where fresh water mixes with salt water from the oceans, preserving this delicate balance is important and challenging. The Lagoon plays a role in preventing coastal erosion, is vi-

Working Together for a Healthy Indian River LagoonBy Congressman Bill Posey

tal to indigenous and migratory species, and provides an important habitat for a variety of marine plants and animals. We have a privilege in that our Indian River Lagoon is one of the most diverse estuaries in the nation.

Among the most pressing issues facing the Lagoon include unusual algae blooms, declines in sea grass, fish kills, and manatee, dolphin and pelican deaths from undetermined causes. A significant measure of the health of the Lagoon is the sea grass coverage. The recent algae blooms have had a significant adverse impact on Lagoon sea grasses contributing to the loss of more than 47,000 acres of sea grass loss since the spring of 2011. It’s important that we understand the myriad of contributing factors and take steps to reverse this loss.

In Congress I have actively supported reauthori-zation and funding for the National Estuary Program (NEP), which was created by Congress in 1987 to help maintain nationally significant estuaries like the Indian River Lagoon. This $16.8 million program provides a base grant of $600,000 to each of the 28 national estuaries around the country. Fund-ing goes to the St. Johns Water Management District to be used to sup-port research focused on improving the Lagoon’s health and providing seed funding for restoration projects and planning.

I was pleased to join bipar-tisan efforts to reauthorize this important program in 2010 and have supported annual bipar-tisan efforts to ensure that funding for the estuary program remains intact. Addition-ally, to better understand the cause of death for dolphins and manatees, I have support-

ed efforts to restore funding for the Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance matching grant program.

Nationwide, the National Estuary Program has restored and protected more than 1.5 million acres since 2000. Restoration and protection projects often require local matching funding which ensure local community support. The program is cost-effective, is driven by local conservation priorities, and decisions are made on the best science available.

September 28, 2013, is National Estuaries Day. As we approach that day when there is a national focus on our estuaries, there are several important ways that you can get involved in preserving and restoring the health of our Lagoon. First, you can consider ways to reduce runoff into the Lagoon. You can find helpful tips on how to do this and take other important steps at http://www.sjrwmd.com/waterbodies/whatyoucan-do.html.

Second, look for opportunities to get engaged in restoration efforts like planting mangroves and grass-es or participating in volunteer cleanup activities.

You can get involved by contacting the Indian River Lagoon estuary program staff at http://

www.sjrwmd.com/contactus/.

It’s important to be good stewards of our natural resources and to take

a common sense approach towards preserving our envi-

ronment. As your repre-sentative in Congress, I will continue to focus

on local initiatives like the Lagoon program.

#��)��'��%�,��/��

(��&��+��-��


~ Article ~

Vero’s Voice - Issue 32

September 2013

IS THE DREAM OF A PRISTINE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON GONE?

Hundreds of manatees, dolphins and pelicans are dying.

Are we looking in the right direction to correct this horrific epidemic?

By Keith MacDonald


POSTAL PATRON

Issue 32

IS�THE�DREAM�OF�A�PRISTINE�INDIAN�RIVER�LAGOON�GONE�?

Hundreds of manatees, dolphins and pelicans are dying. Are we looking in the right direction to correct this horrific epidemic? P. 2

INSIDE:Editor’s Choice 5 | What’s New 7 | Historical Fellsmere State Bank 11

Secrets to Online Dating 15 | Ask the Hair Guy 17 | All That Jazz: Master of the Vibes - Lionel Hampton 23Movies 26-27 | Jane & Jim Recommend 28 | Recipe: Blueberry Filled Lemon Pie 31

Young Voices 34-38 | Featured Artist 43 | Mind Games 45


As our summer has slowly passed, we’ve watched in horror as the waters of the Indian River Lagoon have taken on a dull,

green-brown hue. Local wildlife officials have seen a considerable spike in the unexplained deaths of hundreds of manatees, dolphins, peli-cans, fish and other wildlife along the stretch of the Indian River that runs from Volusia County, all the way south to Hobe Sound near West Palm Beach. And recent releases of overflow water from Lake Okeechobee has contributed to the brackish brown waters from St. Lucie County to Martin and beyond. Bright green algae blankets huge areas and bacteria counts are at dangerous levels in many areas.

The Indian River Lagoon has turned into an environmental night-mare – one that prompted a recent tour by United States Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL). Sen. Nelson grew up on the river in Melbourne and has worked with others for years on projects aimed at protecting our fragile lagoon.

“The Indian River is an important part of our livelihood and it’s important part of our state’s economy and environment,” Nelson told Vero’s Voice. “And as someone who grew up on this river, I am here to tell you: I will not let it be ruined."

The problem is not new to Florida:

In 1982, half of Tampa Bay’s seagrass had died while forty percent of its tidal marshes were destroyed. The visibility in the bay water was reduced to just two-feet and its white ibis population was reduced by seventy percent. Fish deaths numbered in the hundreds of thou-sands. Tampa Bay was dying and the culprit was the same villain that’s been attacking our Lagoon since 2011: nitrogen.

It’s important to understand what happened to Tampa Bay and how, over the past thirty-two years, the quality of that same body of water is now equal to what it was back in 1950. It wasn’t just one government agency that turned around the bay; it was a united effort – the same type of effort that is needed today on Florida’s east coast in order to save our own lagoon.

OUR�LAGOON�IS�SICK...But the Doctor Is In

By Keith MacDonald

Cover photo by Rick Wood, taken at Round Island.

Dr. Brian Lapointe of FAU's Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute holds a clump of gracilaria in the Banana River at Shorty's Pocket– a recent manatee mortality hot spot. With depleted seagrass, the manatee are consuming red drift algae, which is causing death or serious illnesses. Photo courtesy of FAU HBOI.

A key step in Tampa Bay's recovery was the adoption of the Grizzle-Figg bill, which required advanced wastewater treatment of all discharges into state waters. This forced municipalities to upgrade their sewer-treatment plants and drainage canals. It also gave birth to the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium, which required the cooperation of local government, regulatory agencies, phosphate companies, agricultural or industrial interests and even electric utilities.

Much of this was brought about as the result of research published in 1971 by Dr. John H. Ryther of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who left Cape Cod temporarily in 1981 to continue his aquaculture research at the Division of Applied Biology at Florida Atlantic Uni-versity’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute (HBOI) in Fort Pierce.

I was fortunate enough to spend some valuable time with Dr. Brian LaPointe of FAU/HBOI and learn the inside story of what is really going on in our Lagoon.

“My thesis at USF was on gracilaria (red drift algae), if that clarifies anything,” joked Dr. Lapointe as he explained his forty years of extensive experience in water quality is-sues around South Florida. “The problem was so severe in Tampa Bay during the 70s and early 80s that the entire bay area reeked of rotting seaweed. In some areas it was piled seven feet thick on the shores.”

Dr. Lapointe warns gracilaria can double its mass in just a single week and it’s growing rapidly in the Indian River Lagoon. So while much of the focus of late has been on the issues surrounding the Okeechobee discharge that increased algae bloom problems and created unhealthy bacteria counts in St. Lucie and Martin counties, Lapointe

Lapointe added. “So it stands to reason that when you find an abundance of the same red drift algae near clusters of island homes, there must be concentrated nutrients present.”

(Note: This is a very serious article, so in laymen’s terms: red drift algae like to eat poop.)

Lapointe explained that septic tanks are a very serious issue that needs to be addressed by government agencies, because the problem exists up and down the entire Indian River Lagoon.

“Counties need to regulate septic systems across the board,” he urged. “We discovered that fertilizers are mostly incorporated into plant roots and turf. Only 10% of nutrients from fertilizers are migrating into the canals. On the other hand, sewage is being released into the ground water and that leaches directly into the IRL.”

In other words, stop blaming your local golf course or overly enthusiastic green thumb neighbor with the perfectly landscaped yard for that green algae you see in the Lagoon. They only account for about one-tenth of the problem.

“Blaming landscapers and golf courses is the easiest path to take, but we need to cut back on all forms of hu-man-produced nutrient releases,” Dr. Lapointe explained. “We’ll continue to backslide in our efforts if we keep pur-suing the same avenue, because it’s truly a dead end.”

Lapointe added that science should to be integrated into new policies similar to what was done in Tampa Bay.

“The problem is that the solutions are too narrowly focused,” he said. “Tampa Bay is one of the most suc-cessful programs we’ve seen. The entire bay had been pronounced dead by the local and national media. The stench of rotting gracilaria made it impossible to enjoy being outside. It was complete eutrophication of the entire estuary.”

Above: Gracilaria, or red drift algae, thrives in areas where high concentrations of nutrients are present. Most often found near bird sanctuaries or in areas where raw sewage is present,

it can be a good indicator of the presence of pollutants.


sees a distressed ecosystem from Volusia County all the way down to West Palm Beach.

“The Indian River Lagoon is a big place,” says Lapointe, “so the problems change as you move north to south. Each area has its own unique issues.”

When the 2011 algae blooms began annihilating the seagrass beds in Indian River County, Lapointe and other researchers from HBOI began studying septic system discharges from properties bordering the river.

“We lost 110 manatees in the northern part of the Lagoon. So what started out as research of septic tank dis-charges quickly turned into measuring ground water flows into creeks, which then fed into the lagoon,” explained Lapointe. “We began tracking stable nitrogen isotopes and studied the ratio of those isotopes. Sewage has a very enriched stable nitrogen isotope ratio and red drift algae thrives in it.”

By studying the concentration of nutrients in graci-laria samples, HBOI researchers could pinpoint where those nutrients were originating. Algae

bloom samples could also reveal the source of nitrogen it was feeding on.

“This value has been reported by many scientists over the years – not just by us,” Dr. Lapointe says. “We found very significant nitrogen build-tup in northern IRL. Part of the problem with the Indian River Lagoon is there just aren’t enough flush points.”

Lapointe explained that they monitor twenty different test sites from Shiloh, on the northern end of the Indian River Lagoon, down to the St. Lucie Inlet.

“We could find no scientific evidence of fertilizer runoff causing high nutrient content,” he disclosed. “So what we were left with was over 100,000 septic tanks in Brevard County and another 37,000 in Indian River County.”

These septic systems are all clustered around the length of the Lagoon and many of these systems (empha-sis on many) are no longer up to code. This can lead to significant nitrogen enrichment – in the same concentra-tions often found in gracilaria samples.

“We find dense areas of gracilaria around bird estu-aries due to the high concentration of bird droppings,”

Lagoon, continued on page 6

Brian LaPointe and assistant Laura Herren – researchers at FAU’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute in Fort Pierce – collect water samples along the northern end of the Indian River Lagoon at Banana River. This area has been a hot spot for manatee mortality.

Who is Dr. Brian Lapointe?

Dr. Brian Lapointe graduated from Palm Beach High School in West Palm Beach in 1969. He

obtained a BS in Biology from Boston University in 1973. He traveled to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Falmouth, MA and spent four years

working for Dr. Ryther. After earning his MS in En-vironmental Engineering from Florida in ‘79 and a Ph.D. in Marine Biology from the USF (‘82), he was offered a job at Harbor Branch by Ryther in 1982 –

just as Ryther was retiring.

Dr. Lapointe has authored over 80 articles in ��

to the book Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and Reducing Nutrient Pollution published by the

National Academy of Sciences.

He’s currently a Senior Scientist with FAU’s Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution.

Photo courtesy of FAU HBOI.

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

SALES / FOOD WRITERJane Faraco772-563-8414pebbleco�[email protected]


Contributor content is strictly the opinion of the writers, and does not necessarily ��

Number of copies printed varies with time of year.N b ff ii ii dt d ii i hith ti f

To Advertise Please contact a Sales Associate listed above.

Space deadline is the 1st of each month.Camera Ready deadline is the 10th.

Article Submission Please send previously unpublished articles of 500

words or less to [email protected] must be received by the 1st of each

month to be considered for publication the followingissue. Vero's Voice reserves the right to edit.

PUBLISHERRhe� Palmer772-473-7777rhe�@verosvoice.com

OFFICE MANAGERJody Levin [email protected]

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONSRon Elingsworth

DISTRIBUTION MANAGERElizabeth Moshier

SALESKim Li�[email protected]

SALESSusan [email protected]

SALES / STAFF WRITERKeith [email protected]

CREATIVE DIRECTORSandy [email protected]

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFBarbara [email protected]

TRANSCRIBERMary M. [email protected]

95 Royal Palm Pointe, Vero Beach, Fl 32960

The friendly publication where friendly people advertise!

F R O M T H E E D I T O R

Additional Suites Presently Available!Call Ken Pu�ick Enterprises: 772-234-8665

Professional management endorsed by Vero’s Voice.

HOME OF VERO’S VOICE HEADQUARTERS~ 95 ROYAL PALM POINTE ~

VERO ISLES PROFESSIONAL BUILDING

Dear Readers,

The health of our lagoon is so important to all of us here in Vero Beach that we wanted to run a follow-up piece sharing with you an expert’s opinion on perhaps a different approach to the problem. We must look �� viable solution.

As I sit here at my desk overlooking the canal behind our back yard, I �� !��apathy take hold and sit quietly by as marine life populations die off at an alarming rate. Let’s continue to voice our concern and outrage until a solution is found and implemented.

On a different note… we wish to thank you once again for your con-��"��!�� your suggestions and are making every effort to get better with each ��"��!��#��$

Our name is Vero’s Voice, and we are making changes here and there to ��the voice of Vero, our community. We welcome your input and encourage you to contact us so we can post your comments and letters. We want to establish continued open dialogue and make �� of our community.

Send your letters and comments to [email protected], or visit our ��$��%��&((��"

��

SALESJames [email protected]

(!]:i'C;[!] ~~~1 -:::1.~-lli [!]~ •• · . .

Barb -

I wanted to share a story about what a small world we live in now. Your story about your Boston adventure was occur-ring at the same time that I was in the ��"�)��reading the article, I told my husband won’t it have been a hoot to run into Rhett ��*��*��$

My son, Mark Woolley, is the manager of the Best Western Hotel and Conference +��%��/0"��0��-ly accepted that position so I had to check it out and I was favorably impressed.

I had a delightful visit with my son and his family who live in Dover, NH. We, of course, also visited Boston. However, we did not get to Fenway Park as we usually do but I spent a hot afternoon at a com-munity park in Newton where the Boston Marathon bomber was captured. I was at ��a competition where the baseball coaches from all of the Boston Universities were in attendance. Since my grandson hopes to get a baseball scholarship for college, this was a “must do” adventure since I had

L E T T E R S � t o t h e E D I T O R

not seen my southpaw ever actually pitch a game. He was the youngest and small-��his own. More to my surprise, I overheard the coaches talking and they all knew him by name. So the idea of his winning a sports scholarship does not now seem as far-fetched.

I was also in New Hampshire for some end of the school year activities for both my grandson and my granddaughter. They both received high academic honors as their grandmother sat on hard bleachers sweating because it was much hotter in New England than it was in Florida.

On another day in NH we went to Man-chester for an end of the season game for the baseball team that my son coach-es. Sitting with the parents of all these young athletes brought me back to the time when my son was the little kid on the ��"��)��those years go by so fast.

Thanks for sharing a part of your New En-gland adventures with your readers.

Pat LavinsWe want to hear from you! Submit your Letter to the Editor to:

[email protected]. Maximum length accepted is 500 words.

“Thank you for bringing attention to the dilemma currently facing the Indian River Lagoon. I found myself almost feeling guilty of taking it for granted given the gargantuan efforts of Commissioner Davis and his team. I appreciate the opportu-nity to be more informed on the matter and hope that Vero’s Voice will continue in that commend-able role. As Commissioner So-lari said in the article, “If people are informed, they’ll make the right decisions. There’s no need to micro-manage our residents.”

Fairly said. I’m one of those peo-��"��1��#��$�

*��-�� "� � �#�� reading it cover to cover. It gets �� $2

Jayne McAllister


POSTAL PATRON

Issue 31

Can We Save theINDIAN�RIVERLAGOON?PAGE��

Inside: Editor’s Choice 5What’s New 6Our Day in Boston 11NEW: Ask the Hair Guy 15 All That Jazz: Harry James, “The Hawk” 21Jane & Jim Recommend 22Vero’s Choice 23Young Voices 32Ashley Gang’s Life of Crime 37Mind Games 45


In 1979, when the City of Tampa organized local com-munities to aggressively remove nitrogen from the bay, Dr. Ryther’s work had been released just a few years earlier (1971). The program of Advanced Wastewater Treatment through biological denitrification reduced ninety percent of the nitrogen from the water and turned Tampa Bay back into a thriving, safe ecosystem.

The Results:

Tampa Bay gained 1,745 acres of seagrass between 2010 and 2012 and now supports 34,642 acres of seagrass beds, the largest amount of seagrass measured since the 1950’s. The steady increase in seagrass since 2006 has brought the system closer to reaching the Tampa Bay Estuary Program’s goal of 38,000 acres bay wide.

Uh… hey, Mr. Pedantic? ��

�� nitrogen-contaminated groundwater. During

the water-treatment process, food sources containing carbon such as glucose, starch,

methane, methanol and mixtures like sugar brewery waste are injected in the water to ��

oxygen, the nitrogen in the water is utilized by bacteria and in the process it changes to

nitrogen gas, which simply escapes in the air.

Yes, we’re talking about poop again… bacterial poop.

Lagoon, continued from page 3

Eutrophi…what?

Eutrophication is the process by which a body of water ac-quires a high concentration of nutrients (i.e. phosphates and nitrates). These typically promote excessive growth of algae. As algae die and decompose, high levels of organic matter and the decomposing organisms deplete the water of available oxygen, causing the death of other organisms, such as fish.

This means the Tampa Bay Estuary Program is more successful and gained more yardage than the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.

Senator Bill Nelson recently met with South Florida Water Management District officials at their headquarters in West Palm Beach to talk about the discharges. Earlier this summer, after an increased number of manatee deaths were reported, Nelson and Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) introduced a bipartisan measure that aims to address the growing problem of algae blooms. In addition, Nelson said he has always been a strong supporter of Everglades restoration projects that would help alleviate the need to dump water from Lake Okeechobee into the Lagoon.

Dr. Lapointe sees a tough road ahead, but there are solutions.

“A plan similar to the Grizzle-Figg Bill needs to be applied to the IRL if people are serious about saving and restoring the Lagoon back to a healthy system,” warns Lapointe. “It can’t be just a few communities, it has to be an all-out effort. A comprehensive, broad policy needs to be implemented that includes Volusia, Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin and Palm Beach Counties.”

At Vero’s Voice, we applaud everyone’s efforts to save the Lagoon, but Dr. Brian Lapointe and HBOI have been on the leading edge of diagnosing and prescribing the correct medicine needed. We’re hoping those who make the im-portant decisions will cooperate with each other and help us all nurse our ailing Lagoon back to good health.

Hundreds of manatees and dolphins, as well as count-less thousands of birds and fish will be rooting for us. It can be done.

Courtesy: State of WA, Department of Ecology

EUTROPHICATION

STAYING INFORMED ON THE LAGOON

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

Pll~1'kfl 1,urfaH 'lll'aMf '"1'•,. IIHd alr,ol bl_,.. ..

· i ~

rf :• • • • .. • • ~

~ ·r . -• 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

* *