Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08012013PZ AgendaSE HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND 1225 MAIN STREET a SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE (772) 589 -5518 a FAX (772) 388 -8248 AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THURSDAY, AUGUST 1, 2013 7 :00 P.M. 1. GALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Special muting of July 11, 2013 6. OLD BUSINESS 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. Recommendation to City Council - Review of Capital Improvement Program and Capital Outlay Items Greater than $50,000 -_ 6 Year Schedule FY 2013/2014 through 2018/2019 8. CILAIRMAN MATTERS 9. MEMBERS MATTERS 10. DIRECTOR MATTERS 11. ATTORNEY MATTERS B. Review and discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Koontz v, St. Johns River Water Management District 12. ADJOURNMENT ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE ON THE ABOVE MATTERS, WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH APPEAL I8 TO BE HEAR ]), SAID APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF ACTION. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT (772)- 589 -5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING. TWO OR MORE ELECTED OFFICIALS MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE. CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 2013 C :.� .E Chairman Dodd called the meeting to order at 7.00 P.M. 'G The pledge of allegiance was said by all_ ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Dodd Mr. Qizilbash t ca Ms. Kautenburg (a) Mr. Durr " Mr. Carter Mr. Reyes � 0) Gi EXCUSED: Mr. 'Paul and Mr. Froth Cd+�+ � � 2 0 � ABSENT: Mr. Dyer C: p, cn ALSO PRESENT: Jan King, Senior Planner Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney Dorn Bosworth, Planner /Secretary ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chmn. Dodd stated Mr, Paul and Mr. Roth were excused from the meeting, and Ms. Kautenburg(a) would be voting in stead. He also verified that six present members rnet the minimum► quorum of four. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION by Durr /Carter to accept the minutes of the June 20, 2013 meeting as submitted. Motion was approved unanimously by voice vote. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: A. QUASI- JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING -- CR612 OVERLAY DISTRICT WAIVER — NEW YORK BARBER SHOP — 867 SEBASTIAN BOULEVARD — WAIVER REQUEST FROM ALLOWABLE BUILDING GRAPHICS AND COLOR STANDARDS -- LDC SECTIONS 54- 4- 2l.B.4(a) & (b) Chairman Dodd asked the Commissioners if they had any ex -pa to communicatior, to disclose. There was none. The applicants and staff were sworn in by City Attorney Robert Ginsburg, Ms, Nara Bonilla, 867 Roseland Road, applicant and part owner of the New York Barber Shop, stated she would like to finish the painting of the building, which was started as a way to catch passerby's attention, since business was slow right now. Ms. Bosworth stated the painting project was brought to the attention of the Community Development Department, and based on some of the specific architectural overlay district requirements in place, staff asked the owners to stop painting until they could get a decision by t CL aEs PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 7, 2013 the Commission to continue, or not. The two sections of the LDC that are being requested to be waived are the prohibited building graphics section [to allow diagonal stripes] and standard colors [to allow red, white, and blue], She further explained that the LDC specified allowable base, trim and secondary trim colors for structures along CR512. Staff was not making any recommendations at this time, the decision was the Commission's, and a decision to grant the waiver would allow the painting project to be finished, and a denial would mean what was started would have to be painted over. Mr. Carter wanted to know how much of the building has been painted_ Ms. Bosworth referred to the picture exhibits in the agenda packets, which indicated the right portion of the front fagade facing CR 5512 had been painted red, white, and blue, and the left side had been taped to prepare for the striping. Mr. Carter asked if a barber pole had been considered for advertising. Ms. King pointed out that one already exists on the building next to the front door, but was hard to see now that it blended in with the red, white, and blue striping. Mr. Carter suggested a larger one could be used instead of the painting. Mr. Durr asked if the project was brought to staffs attention by a disgruntled neighbor. Staff stated no, but a code enforcement officer was sent to the property to ask them to stop painting. Ms. Bosworth was not sure if a formal case was started with an issuance of a violation notice, or if a courtesy verbal stop work order was given, and the owners then came in to see staff. Mr. Durr noted there was no one in the audience [i.e. disgruntled neighbor], and Ms. Bosworth verified 20f notices were sent to surrounding property owners, a legal ad was placed in the newspaper, and she had not received any calls or questions from neighbors who received letters. Mr. Qizilbash asked if only the front of the building was going to be painted up to window height as shown on the pictures_ Ms. Bonilla stated yes, only the front. Mr. Qizilbash asked if the colors and design was to show that it was a barber shop, Ms. Bonilla stated yes, and Mr. Qizilbash questioned why it had to be the whole wall, and suggested maybe it could be painted just around the entrance door. He felt the whole wall to be too much. Mr. Dodd verified the applicants awned the building, and were not tenants. Mr. Reyes noted the picture showed a decent -sized "New York Barber Shop" monument sign and asked if the applicants would consider painting some red, white, and blue striping on the sign instead. He also asked staff if there were any previous waiver requests for building graphics. Ms. Bosworth stated not for graphics but one from the color standards, which was denied. Ms. King also stated, similarly, there were a couple of waiver requests to allow for striped awnings, which were not approved, and the awnings were painted solid. Mr_ Reyes asked the applicant if the barber shop was the only business being operated from the building as he has seen numerous vehicles for sale at the site, and was not sure if the red, white and blue painting was being used like all the flags at the used auto business on US V. Ms. Bonilla stated the barber shop was the only business, and that a few customers had parked some sale vehicles on their site temporarily. Mr. Reyes also asked how many other barber shops were located within the corridor. Staff cited two "barber shops ", but noted there are other hair salons which may be unisex. Mr. Reyes noted this shop had the largest sign. Ms. King stated the sign was properly permitted and met size regulations. There was no one from the public who spoke in favor of the request. There was no one from the public who spoke in opposition of the request. The applicant had no further statements or presentation. Staff reviewed the criteria the Commission must use in determining its decision, as noted in the staff report. She stated the Commission could approve the request, deny the request, or approve 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 7, 2013 with conditions, and repeated a previous suggestion of allowing the design just around the front door. Mr_ Dodd also had two suggestions in that the size of the striping be changed,. or that the waiver be applicable only to the current barber shop business and that the applicants commit to repainting the building if the shop closes. Mr. Durr asked if the request was approved, would it set precedent for other businesses in the corridor. Mr_ Ginsburg stated future cases should be reviewed on its own merits, but that this case would most likely be discussed, as others were tonight, and probably influence a decision. Mr. Dodd felt if approved, other businesses might start requesting waivers more regularly. Ms. Kautenburg stated she drives CR 512 every day and never noticed the barber shop until they started painting the building, and then knew, because of the colors, that was the barber shop. She felt painting was the best, least expensive way a business can draw attraction to itself. She opined fashionable colors can change over time, and when you approve a particular pallete, it should be reviewed every so often, as buildings colors can get boring, and disappear. The painting would affect the business, and the owners were hard working, tax- paying persons. Even if you can't read, the building would say "barber shop ". She also felt that the process of a waiver should always be available to every citizen, and should not be discouraged. MOTION by Kautenburg /Carter that the waiver be granted. ROLL CALL: Mr. Durr no Mr. Oizilbash no Ms. Kautenburg yes Mr. Reyes no Mr. Carter yes Mr. Dodd no The vote was 2 -4. Motion denied, MOTION by Reyes/Clizilbash to deny the waiver [request] for New York Barber Shop at 867 Sebastian Boulevard from allowable building graphics and color standards. ROLL CALL: Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Durr yes Ms. Kauntenburg no The vote was 5 -1. Motion passed, CHAIRMAN MATTERS: Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Carter yes Mr. Qjzilhash yes Chmn. Dodd complimented the current construction project for Sebastian Charter Jr. High School, located on 'Wave Street, Stating the new building was impressive, MEMBERS MATTERS: Mr_ burr mentioned that at the Barber StreetfCR 512 intersection, if facing north, the yellow light on the left light was out, for staff to pass on to the appropriate department. Mr_ Carter asked for an update on the Clams R Us project. Ms. Bosworth stated that Phase I, which was the landclearing, stormwater installation, and retaining wail construction, was completed. Phase II would be the implementation of the aquaculture facility including new docks, up- dwellers, and raceways. The owner was a bit behind the construction schedule noted on the 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING GP MARCH 7, 2013 site plan, and staff did not know when the owner proposed to start Phase II. Then: was a two year window to start the Phase III residential structure. DIRECTOR MATTERS: Staff stated the July 18�h meeting would be cancelled, and that Mr. Minner will be presenting the proposed 5-year Capital Improvement Program and budget at the August 1S1 meeting for the Commission's review and recommendation. ATTORNEY MATTERS: Mr. Ginsburg noted he had given each Commissioner a copy of a respected law professor's summary of the recent Supreme Court ruling on the case Koontz vs. St. ,John's River Water Management District (attached). He stated the Supreme Court doesn't review a lot of land use cases, and its ruling on this one was interesting, and may end up being very important to future land use. He requested the Commissioners read the summary, and he would line to have a future discussion with them regarding the results Chairman Dodd adjourned the meeting at 7.34 p.m. (db) 4 SEBASTL HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission RE: 6 -Year Capital Improvement Program DATE: July 24, 2013 Attached is the Recommended Capital Improvement Program for the period from FY 2013114 through >Y 2019/19. According to the City's Land Development Cade, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the Capital Improvement Program before the City Council's final adoption. This is scheduled to be included on the agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, August I ". Input on capital outlays utilizing Recreation Impact Fees was received from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board at their meeting held June 24h. The Budget Advisory Committee also reviewed the CIP at their meeting on July 1 ". The scheduled capital improvements for the initial year will be taken into account during the process of formulating the City's Annual Operating Budget for FY 2013114. A special meeting /workshop is scheduled to be held by the City Council on 'Wednesday, August 141h to consider and discuss the CIP and Annual Operating Budget for FY 2013/14. If you have any questions concerning the enclosed package, please do not hesitate to give me a ca)l. I 94 be reached at (772) 388 -8200. CITE' OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL, IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City of Sebastian's adopted financial policies requires the City to coordinate the development of the Capital Improvement Program with the development of the strategic plan and operating budget, as well as ensuring compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvement Element. Operating expenditures and revenues associated with new capital improvements will be projected and included in the Capital Improvement Program Five -Year Forecast. The Capital Improvement Program is updated and approved by the City Council annually and encompasses a period of six years. What are Capital Improvements? Capital improvements include streets; buildings, building improvements, new parks, parr expansions/improvements, airport runways, infrastructure improvements, and major acquisitions of equipment. Projects in the Capital Improvement Program generally cost more than $50,000 and last at least five years. Major equipment purchases and any other equipment/projects funded by Special Revenue Funds are also included to provide a more comprehensive forecast of the City's capital funding requirements. Policies Used in Developing the Capital Improvement program All capital projects submitted for approval must be justified in terms of how the project supports the achievement of the City's Strategic Priorities. Projects are prioritized and approved based on the relevancy of the project to the City's Strategic Plan and the impact on the end stakeholder(s), The following statements are included in the City's adopted Financial Policies: 1. The City shall adopt an annual Capital Budget based on the Capital Improvement Program. Future capital improvement expenditures necessitated by changes in population, real estate development, or in economic base will be calUltated and included in the capital improvement budget projections. 2. The City shall make all capital improvements in accordance with an adopted Capital Improvement Program budget. 3. The City will determine and use the most prudent financial methods for acquisition of capital improvement projects based upon market conditions at the time of acquisition. The pages that follow provide details and summary information on projects scheduled for the next six years for all the City's operations. In addition to the General Fund, Golf Course and Airport Fund, these documents include projects funded by the Local Option Gas Tax. (LOGT), Discretionary Sales Tax (DST), Recreation Impact Fee (RIF), Riverfront CRA, Cemetery Trust Fund, developer contributions, debt financings, as well as State and Federal Grants. The Capital lsnprovernent Program is intended to be a complete listing of projects needed for replacement or improvement of the City's major equipment, facilities, roadways, and structures. Although, potential funding has been identified, changes may be made in conjunction with alternative sources as they become available or adjustments become necessary due to reductions in projected revenues. `rhe timing of projects identified may also be altered from year to year to meet changing circumstances. 177 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -14 List of Projects FY 2013 -14 FY 20:4L-15 - - - FY 2015 -16 FY 2016A 7 FY 2017 -18 FY_2018 -19 - Totals General Government Computer Systems Overhaul 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 Computer Systems Upgrades 86,000 60.000 60.000 60.000 80.000 326,000 Roof Repairs 75,000 - - - - 75,000 Paint City Hall 45,000 - - 45,000 Police Station Air Conditioner - 30,000 - - - 30,000 FDLE Computer Firewall 5,000 5,000 5,000 15,000 Diesel Fuel Tank 35,000 - - - - - 35,000 Police Department Police Vehicles and Equipment 218,000 256,000 285,000 290,000 286,000 395,000 1,760,000 Police - Public Parking 50,000 - - - 50,000 Roads and Special Projects Public Works Equipment - 150,600 130,000 132,000 130,000 255,000 797,600 Sidewalk Repairs 25,000 25,000 25,000 - - - 75,000 Sidewalk Construction 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 512 Median Landscaping - - - - 500,000 500,000 Barber Street Bridge Repairs - - 500.000 - - - 500,000 Street Repaving 75,000 75,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 525,000 Tulip Drive 351,000 - - - - 351,000 Barber Street Realignment 50,000 506,000 - - - 550,000 Indian River Drive Light Poles 5,000 - - 5,000 Road Striping 10,000 - - - 10,000 Parks & Recreation Community Center Needs Analysis 10,000 - - - 10,000 Tennis Wall /Raquet Ball Court 50,000 - - - - 50,000 Skate Park Rebuild 125,000 - - 125,000 Equipment Building 100,000 - - - 140,000 Baseball Field Lighting - 300,000 - - 300,000 Mooring Fields - 15,000 - - - 15,000 Stormwater Stormwater Equipment 63,000 69,000 90,000 170,000 340,000 275,000 11007.000 114 Swale Improvements 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 31000.000 Pipe Sliplining 80,000 - 100,000 - - - 180.000 Stormwater Pond Installation - - - 500,000 - 500.000 Road Crossings /Sideyard Pipes 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 Bevan Glitch Piping - - 750,000 - - 750.000 Cemetery Redo South Payed Roadway - - 100,000 100.000 Scissor Lift Storage Building 100,000 - - - - 100.000 Golf Course Rebuild Greens 125,000 - - 125,000 Golf Course Equipment 15,000 40,000 - - 55,000 Airport Construct Hangar(s) 875,000 650,000 - 1,500,000 - - 3,025,000 Airport Equipment 120,000 - - - - 120,000 Construct Access Road West - - - 800,000 - 800,000 Totals 2,832,000 3,306,600 2,310.000 4,207,000 2,416,000 2,390,000 17,461,600 178 Gruuiwd by 1) martment General Government Police Department Public Works Department Roads and Special Projects Parks, & Recreation Stormwater Cemetery GolrCourse Airport Total by Departments Grouped by Function General Government Public Safety Transportation Parks & Recreation Physical Environment Total by Functions CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 SUMMARY FY 2013 -14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015 --16 FY 2016 -17 FY 2017 -18 FY 2018 -19 Total $ 285,000 ,$ 211,000 S 90,000 $ 65,000 $ 60,000 $ 65,000 $ 776,000 218,000 336,000 285,000 290,000 296,000 395,000 118101000 616,000 850,600 830,000 332,000 330.000 955,000 3,913,600 60,000 225,000 315,000 - - - 600,000 643,000 769,000 790,000 2,020,000 940,000 875,000 6,037,000 - 100,000 - - - 100,000 200,000 15,000 165,000 - - - - 180,000 995,000 650,000 - 1,500,000 800,000 - 3,945,000 $ 2,832,000 $ 3,306,600 $ 2,310,000 S4,207,000 $2,416,000 $ 2,390,000 $17,461,6100 5 285,000 $ 311,000 S 90,000 S 65,000 $ 60,000 $ 163,000 $ 976,000 218,000 336,000 285,000 290,000 286,000 395,000 1,810,004 1,611,000 1,500,600 830,000 [,832,000 1,130,000 955,000 7,858,600 75,040 390,000 315,000 - - - 780,000 643,000 769,000 790,000 2,020,000 140,000 875,000 6,037,000 2,532,000 $ 3,306,600 $ 2,310,000 $ 4,207,000 $ 2,416,000 $ 2,390,000 $17,461,600 Grouped bit Funding. Source General Fund S - S 236.500 S 190,000 S 192,000 $ 190,000 $ 315,000 $ 1,123,600 DST 1,583,000 1,891,000 1,915,000 2,545,000 1,146,000 1,600,000 10,680,000 LOGT 115,000 10000 100,000 100.000 100,000 1()0,000 615,000 Recreation Impact Fees 60.000 225,000 15.000 - - - 300,000 Golf Course 15.000 165,000 - - - - 180,000 Grants/Bank Notes 996,000 520,000 - 1,200,000 640,000 - 3,356.000 Cemetery - 104,000 - - - 1()0,000 200,000 Stormwater Fund 93,000 69,000 90,000 170,400 340,000 275,000 1,037,000 Total Funding Sources S 2,862,000 $ 3,306,600 $ 2,310,000 $ 4,207,000 $ 2,416,000 $ 2,390,000 S 17,49 1,600 179 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 LAW Recreation General Option impact Stormwater GranNI Riverrront Cemetery fA d Gas Tax M Pecs fi lility C.Lff flankNol o CRRA Trutt Fund Tatal FISCAL YEAR 201342014 General Government Computer Systems Overhaul 250,000 250,000 Diesel Fuel Tank 35,000 35,0{11) Police Department Police Vehicles And Equipment 2 111,000 218,000 Roads and Special Projects Sidewalk Repairs 25,1100 23 001) Sidewalk Construction 100,000 000,000 Street Repaving 75,000 75,000 Tulip Drive 115,000 175,000 351.000 Barber Street Realignment 50,000 50.000 Indian River Drive Light Poles 5,040 5.000 Road Striping I9,000 10,000 Parka & Recreation Gotnmonity Center Needs Analysis 1000 10 }100 Tennis Watlf aquet Roll Court 50,000 110,000 Stormwater Stormwater Equipment 63,000 63,001) 114 Swale lmprovemen% 511d,ng0 5a0,66u Pipe Sliplin ;ng 80,000 80.000 Airport Cimstnlci Hangar(s) 175.000 700.000 075,000 Airport Equipment 357,000 M.000 150,000 GoliConrse Tractor 15,000 15.000 Total FY2QIN2014 $ $ 115.000 $ 1,583.000 S fA,000 5 93,030 5 IS,000 S 996000 S (5 $ 2,042,000 180 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 Lotttl Recreation General Option Impact Stormw ®ter Grants/ Riverfront Cemetery Fend Gas To AU fen Utility GaIf Bank No CM Trim Fund Total FISCALVKAR20 General Government Computer Syuems Upgrades g6,1llltl 96,00a Roof Repairs 75,000 75,000 Paint City hall 45,000 413,404 FDI.i ComputerFirewoll 3,0n0 5,000 FoRce Department Police Vehicles and Equapmem 386,000 285,000 Police - Public Parking 5o,000 50,000 Roads and Special Projects Public Works Equipment 150,600 150,600 Sidewalk Repairs, 25,040 25,000 SideWnik coaor"clion 100,000 Ina,000 Street Repaving 75.000 75,000 Barber Sueel ReolignmenI 500,0110 500,000 Parks & Recreation Skate Park Rebuild 125,000 125,000 Equipment Building 100,000 100,000 Stormwater S1017n Water Equipmen1 59,0170 69,000 114 ;lwale lmprovtmenza S00,600 $00,000 Road CroaaingalSSdCrard Pipes 21NJ,0no 200,000 Cemetery Trust Fund Saiagor Lift Storage Soildlng 100,000 lO0 -,2706 Airport Conarucl Fianpr(s) 130,000 520,000 650,000 Golf Course Rebuild Groens 125,000 135,000 Fairway Mower 40,000 40,080 Tarot RY 20 1412 0 19 $ 3j6,60u 5 PX1.90r, Y 1 891,000 S 225,000 S 69.006 S 1155,600 S 520,000 5 S 100,15412 S 3,305,500 181 FISCAL VLtAR 2t}l_S_ /201.6 General Government Computer Systems Upgrades Police Department Police Station Air Conditioner Police Vehicles and Equipment Roads and Special Projects Public Works Equipment Sidewalk Repairs Sidewalk Construction Barber Street Bridge Repairs Street Repaving ParkR 8i. Recreatipn Dasebalt Field Lighting Mooring Fields Stormwater Stormwater Equipment 114 Swale Improvements Pipe Sliplining Road Crossings/Sideyard Pipes 'Total FV 205t2616 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -I9 Local Recreation General Option Impart Stormwater Grants/ Riverfront Cemetery Fungi Gig Tax VET Feet ]tility. Lolf Bank Not T Trily Fund 1 to 6U,tlou 30,000 285.000 i30,000 25.000 100,000 500,000 79,1)10 3O0,n00 15,gpo uo,u o 306,000 I On,n00 1 00,000 50,000 30,000 285,000 130,000 25,000 100,000 500,000 75,000 300,000 1SAO 90,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 5 19n,Unn 5 100.000 S (.'?95.000 t IS.f7G11 # 9t1 -p(]0 5 - S S - S 2,310,000 182 EtSCAI —XE.Al3 XIA/2017 General Government Computer Systems Upgrades FDLE Computer Pirewall Police Department Police Vehicles and Equipment Roads and Special Projects Public Works Equipment Sidewalk Repairs Sidewalk Construction Street Repaving Steraiwater Stormwater Equipment t/4 Swale Improvements Stormwater hound Installation !toad Crossings/Sideyard Pipes Sevan Ditch Piping Airport Cotistruot Hangw(p) Total py 2016/2017 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 local Recreation General Option Impact Stormwater Grantsl Riverfront Cemetery En rid [fix DST fKM t1filit [:air Barak Nate C RA Trust Fund 12W c,i0i U 5.000 290,000 140:000 t 00,OOt1 170,0V $00,000 500.040 140.0{10 730,000 t00.0Oo 1,?00, W 0 50.000 5,000 290,000 132,000 100,000 1 00,000 170,0130 500,0130 S00,Ooo 100,000 734,060 1,500,000 � 3�2,1kl0 s iuonon � 34s;,ntln S - s 170,OtlU � - 3 1,3' ©0,000 $ _ s 6 q,2fJ7,r�49 183 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 Local Recreation General Option Impact Stormwater Grants/ Riverfront Cemetery Ema Gas Tax IDST f W U;ila L. Bank Not Trust Fund 12W FIN _.U. YEAR 201712018 General C,overnment Computer Systems Upgrades 61),440 60.000 Police Department Police Vehicles and Equipment 2136,040 285,400 Reads and Special Projects Pudic Works Equipmenl 131),000 134,4100 Sidewalk Rcpairs n 0 Sidewalk Construction 100SKI9 100,000 Street Repaving 100,000 160,000 Stornmater Stormwater Equipment 340,040 0.40,000 114 Swale Improvements YJO,WU 500,000 Road CrossingslSideyard Pipes 170,060 100,000 Airport Construct Access Road West 110,000 640,004 840,0013 Total yY2t11112t ] l8 S 190.009 S 1041DD0 S 1741,400 S s 34000D S S 644.0114 ; S S 24.18,1)00 184 VISCAL YEA R 2018/2019, General Government Computer Systems Upgrades FDLE Computer Pirewall Policc Department Police Vehicles and Equipment 1109da and Special Projects Public Works Equipment Sidewalk Repairs Sidewalk CpnStruCtion 512 Median Landscaping Street Repaving Stormwater Stormwater equipmmil 1/4 Swale Improvements Road Crossings/Sideyard Pipes Cemetery Redo South Paved Roadway Total FY 201813019 +CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 201419 Local Recrentinn General Option Impact Stormwater Crantsl Riveriront Cemetery E!LnA Cas Tax DST FFes i v soli Bank Note CCRA Im k'und Total 60,000 5,000 345,0(0 255,090 100,000 5x10,000 I MAO 275,00( snu,aan I an,ao9 1 ouo0u 69,060 5,000 345,000 255,000 100,000 500,000 100,000 275,000 560,000 10.000 109,000 S 313,000 S 100,000 3 1,600,000 $ - 3 275,000 S I $ - $ - 5 100,000 S 2,370,000 Grand Total $ 1,123,400 S 615,046 S 10,69n,000 $ 30990n $ 1,017,000 S 180,000 3 3,346,0x)0 $ S 200,000 S 17,441,600 185 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 {CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION FORM GENERAL GOVERNMENT Project Name: lComputer Systems Overhaul Project Description: Funding Source: 1]iscretiona Sales Tax limplement consultant's recommendations to improve reliabilit y and Justification: The City's computer systems have not been updated for several years and there are serious concerns that this could result in increasing problerns. A consultant was requested to evaluate all aspects of the computer systems and offer recommended solutions._ Project Costs: EY 13 -14. FY 14 -15 r 15 -16 FY 16 -17 i✓1_ 17 -18 FY 18 -19 �ntal $ 250,000 - - $ - $ - $ - $ 250,i)Qo [operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ (30,000) $ (22,500) $ (17,501) S (17,500) $ (22,500) $ (110,000) Project Name: I+unding Source: Justification: Following the computer systems overhaul.. it is anticipated that a continuing annual investment should he made to keep up-to -date with technology and maintain its reliability and rerformance. Com liter S sterns Upgrades P Project Description- Project Costs; FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 E 14 -17 17 -18 p'Y 18_19 Total $ - $ 86,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 326,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ _ - $ - $ 12,900 S 34,800 $ 65,700 $ 113,400 Project Name: Funding Source• Justification: Roof Repairs Project Description: L�iscretiunt Sales Tax Replace City Ball and Police Department Roofs Miner repair,,, h,ivc been needed continuously over the past several years on taotlz roofs. Leaks have beer experienced and bubbles have been observed. Fy Project Costs: YT 13 -14 14 -1i FY 15 -I6 FY. 16_17 FY 17 -18 FY I$ -19 Testa] - S 75,000 $ $ 75,0OI1 Operating Impact ( Savings): $ (3,7511) 4i (3,750) $ (4,500) $ (5,250) $ (17,250) Project Name: Paint Ci Hall Project Description: f' undine Source: bis4rctiant Sales Tax faint exterior of old Cif Drill and ni:w City Hall. Justification: 'I'ltir.se buildings need to be aimed. Project Costs: 13 -]4 FY 14-15 FY 15 -16 Y 16 -17 FY_ 17 -1$ ,lye T'c�ta1 $ - $ 45,000 $ - $ 4,0170 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ 900 $ 1,81111 $ 2,700 $ 3,600 $ $,QCyO Project Name: [Police Station Air Conditioner Project Description: Funding Source: Iliscretionri Sales `['ax I.Replace roof to air conditioner at the ['ci[icc. Station. Justification: This unit is exposed to salt air and is showing rust and oxidation. Project Costs; FY 13 -14 FY I4-15 FY 15 -16 FY. 1§-17 Y 17 -1$ FY l fi -19 Total - � - S 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ - $ (600) $ (300) S (300) $ (1,200) 186 have been observed. Fy Project Costs: YT 13 -14 14 -1i FY 15 -I6 FY. 16_17 FY 17 -18 FY I$ -19 Testa] - S 75,000 $ $ 75,0OI1 Operating Impact ( Savings): $ (3,7511) 4i (3,750) $ (4,500) $ (5,250) $ (17,250) Project Name: Paint Ci Hall Project Description: f' undine Source: bis4rctiant Sales Tax faint exterior of old Cif Drill and ni:w City Hall. Justification: 'I'ltir.se buildings need to be aimed. Project Costs: 13 -]4 FY 14-15 FY 15 -16 Y 16 -17 FY_ 17 -1$ ,lye T'c�ta1 $ - $ 45,000 $ - $ 4,0170 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ 900 $ 1,81111 $ 2,700 $ 3,600 $ $,QCyO Project Name: [Police Station Air Conditioner Project Description: Funding Source: Iliscretionri Sales `['ax I.Replace roof to air conditioner at the ['ci[icc. Station. Justification: This unit is exposed to salt air and is showing rust and oxidation. Project Costs; FY 13 -14 FY I4-15 FY 15 -16 FY. 1§-17 Y 17 -1$ FY l fi -19 Total - � - S 30,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 30,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ - $ (600) $ (300) S (300) $ (1,200) 186 186 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2414 -19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION FORM GENERAL, GOVERNMENT Project Name. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 Ft71,E Computer Firewall P Project Description: Justification-. [This is required by FDLE regulations. FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 1849 Total $ 5,000 $ - $ 5,004 $ - S 5,440 $ 1 5,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ 350 $ 704 $ 1,400 S 2,140 $ 4,550 Project Name: Funding Source: D Project Costs: FY 13 -14 35,000 $ Diese! Fuel Tank Fro'ect Description: iscretiona Sales Tax Re lace the existing 1000 Allan diesel tank and pump. Justification: The existing 1000 gallon diesel tank and pump are in poor condition (rusted) and will not meet new regulations required by the State. The current manual diesel inventory system will oe upgraded to a computerized fuel key inventory system. FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 15 -19 Total S - $ - S $ - $ - $ 35.000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - S 700 S 1,400 $ 2,100 $ 2,800 $ 3,500 $ 10,500 PUBLIC SAFETY Project Name; Funding Source: Justification: Police Vehicles and Equipment Project Descr! tine: Discretionary Sales Tax 13114 2$K Code Enforcement 112 Ton Truck, 10K Motorcycle, 180K Police Patrol Units (4)- 14Y IS 270K Police Patrol Units (6), 16K Beat Motor. 15116 270K Police patrol Units (6), 15K Light Tower. 16117 270K Police Patrol Units (6), 20K Motorcycle. 17118 270K Police patrol Units (b), 16K 2 Trailers. 18119 225K Police Patrol Units (5), 170K200kw Generator. These are sceduled replacements of Police Department vehicles and equipment clue to high mileage and maintenance needs. 2 Police Patrol Units that were totalled during 12/13 are being replaced. The replacement Motorcycle in 13114 is net of trading in 2 Motorcycles that are in disrepair. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ 218,004 $ 286,000 $ 285,000 $ 290,000 $ 286,000 S 395,000 $ 1,760,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - S (10,900) $ (14,300) $ (3,350) $ 17,240 $ 44,630 $ 33,320 Project Name: Fondine Source: Police - Public Parking JProject Bescri tion: Discretionary Sales Tax I Creation of public parking areas closer to the Police Station. Justification: IThiF, will add parking spaces and provide more convenient parking for visitors to the Police Station. Project Costs: FY i3 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -I6 rY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 188 -19 Total $ - $ 54,004 S - S - $ - $ - S 50,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ 1,000 S 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 101000 1137 Justification: The existing 1000 gallon diesel tank and pump are in poor condition (rusted) and will not meet new regulations required by the State. The current manual diesel inventory system will oe upgraded to a computerized fuel key inventory system. FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 15 -19 Total S - $ - S $ - $ - $ 35.000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - S 700 S 1,400 $ 2,100 $ 2,800 $ 3,500 $ 10,500 PUBLIC SAFETY Project Name; Funding Source: Justification: Police Vehicles and Equipment Project Descr! tine: Discretionary Sales Tax 13114 2$K Code Enforcement 112 Ton Truck, 10K Motorcycle, 180K Police Patrol Units (4)- 14Y IS 270K Police Patrol Units (6), 16K Beat Motor. 15116 270K Police patrol Units (6), 15K Light Tower. 16117 270K Police Patrol Units (6), 20K Motorcycle. 17118 270K Police patrol Units (b), 16K 2 Trailers. 18119 225K Police Patrol Units (5), 170K200kw Generator. These are sceduled replacements of Police Department vehicles and equipment clue to high mileage and maintenance needs. 2 Police Patrol Units that were totalled during 12/13 are being replaced. The replacement Motorcycle in 13114 is net of trading in 2 Motorcycles that are in disrepair. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ 218,004 $ 286,000 $ 285,000 $ 290,000 $ 286,000 S 395,000 $ 1,760,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - S (10,900) $ (14,300) $ (3,350) $ 17,240 $ 44,630 $ 33,320 Project Name: Fondine Source: Police - Public Parking JProject Bescri tion: Discretionary Sales Tax I Creation of public parking areas closer to the Police Station. Justification: IThiF, will add parking spaces and provide more convenient parking for visitors to the Police Station. Project Costs: FY i3 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -I6 rY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 188 -19 Total $ - $ 54,004 S - S - $ - $ - S 50,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ 1,000 S 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 101000 1137 Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ 218,004 $ 286,000 $ 285,000 $ 290,000 $ 286,000 S 395,000 $ 1,760,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - S (10,900) $ (14,300) $ (3,350) $ 17,240 $ 44,630 $ 33,320 Project Name: Fondine Source: Police - Public Parking JProject Bescri tion: Discretionary Sales Tax I Creation of public parking areas closer to the Police Station. Justification: IThiF, will add parking spaces and provide more convenient parking for visitors to the Police Station. Project Costs: FY i3 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -I6 rY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 188 -19 Total $ - $ 54,004 S - S - $ - $ - S 50,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ 1,000 S 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 101000 1137 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -I9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Project Name: Funding Source: Justification: Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -1.6 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 riy 18 -19 Total - $ 154,600 $ 130,000 $ 132,000 $ 130,000 $ 255,000 $ 797,600 Operating Impact (Savings); $ - $ - $ (22,590) S (30,032) S (27,394) S (3,898) $ (83,924) Project Name: ISi6cwalk Re airs lProject Descri tion: Funding Source: ILocal Option Gas Tax lRepair of sidewalks throughout the Ci _ Justilicatinn: This project also focuses on the safety of the residents and allows them to walk off ibe roadways. half of IFY 13 -14 to bc- used for Riverview Park. P1fRt.ir'Wn12W.Q Y7S Y�ARTMFNT Public Works 1: of mcnt Project Description- General Fund 1.4/15 70K Skid- Steer, 35.6K Mower (3), 10K Gator, 26K Enclosed I-his 2rcjjccl. is needed to maintain the bridge to DOT standards based on yearly bridge inspections, Trailer (2), 9K Truckster, 15116 80K bump Truck, SDK Tractor 1'•Y 1244 16/17 85K Backhoe, 25K Pickup, 12K. Trailer, 10K Open Trailers (2), FY 16-17 17 /18 45K I Ton Sign Truck, 35K Tractor, 50K Pickup (2). j:'Y 17 -1$ 18 /19 145K Cut Loader, 60KTractor, 50K 1 'Ion 1Jt.ilita Rcd Trick, IThese are scheduled replacements of equipment used in the Public Works Deparnnent, except for the: Stormwater Division that is included se aratel . Project Costs: Project Description! Discretionary Sales Tax Guardrails being done in FY 12 -13 to meet DOT standards. Major irepairs will be addressed in FY15 -16. I-his 2rcjjccl. is needed to maintain the bridge to DOT standards based on yearly bridge inspections, 1'•Y 1244 EY 14 -L5 FY 15 -16r FY 16-17 j:'Y 17 -1$ FY 18 -19 Total $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ -- Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ 250 S 3,150 $ 8,500 S 1 5,250 $ 19,250 S 46,504 Project Name: ISidewalk Construction JProject Description: Funding; Source: R seretiona Sales Tax lnitallation of new sidewalks throughout the City, Justification: Project focuses on the safe g, of residents and bikc;rs. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14-15 Y_-Y-13-16 FY_ 16 -17 FY 17-13 FY 19-19 Total S 100,000 $ 140,040 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 600,000 Operating Impact (Savings): - $ 3,000 $ 9,000 S 18,000 $ 30,000 $ 45,000 $ 105,000 Project Name: 1512 Median Landscaping Proicet Dcscrintion: Funding Source: Justitica fit) n: Project Costs! FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 1'Y 16-u S - S Operating Impact (Savings): Project Name Funding Source: Justi1l"6011: Project Costs- FY 3 -14 - $ - $ - S - S - S - S FY 17-18 FYI a- 19 Total - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 - $ - $ - Barber Street Bridge Repairs Project Description! Discretionary Sales Tax Guardrails being done in FY 12 -13 to meet DOT standards. Major irepairs will be addressed in FY15 -16. I-his 2rcjjccl. is needed to maintain the bridge to DOT standards based on yearly bridge inspections, FY 14 -15 LY 15 -16 FY 16-1 FY 17 -18 F -19 Total $ - $ - $ 500A0 $ ' & - $ - S 500,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ - $ (95,000) $ (95.040) $ (100,000) $ (290,000) 188 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Project Name: Funding Source: Justification: Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -IS FY 15 -15 FY 16 -17 FY 17-I8 FY 18 -19 Total 75,000 $ 75.000 $ 75,000 $ 100,000 $ 1001000 $ 1001000 $ 525,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ (31750) $ (3,750) $ - $ 6,250 S 17,500 $ 15,250 Project Name: PUUTAC WORKS DEPAWFM ENT Street Repaving Project Description: Local Option Gas Tax I Rehabilitation and repaving of failing road base and roads. This is necessary to keep the streets in good condition. Repav,-m) is expec.tcd to reduce pot-hole rvpaia-s .inc complaints, as well as insurance claims for damages and liability. Funding Source: Justification: Project Costs, Pro cct Descri tion: [Discretionary Sales Tax FY I; -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 15 -17 FY 17 -18 F_Y-18 -19 Total $ 351,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 351.000 Operating Impact (Savings): FY 18 -1.9 - - - - Total $ - 31510 $ 7,020 $ 10,530 $ 14,040 $ 17,550 $ 52,650 Project Name: $ - $ 550,000 Funding Sources Justification: Barber Street Realignment Pro cct Descri tion: [Discretionary Sales Tax Resolve confusion where roadwa changes direction. This ongoing issue needs to be resolved by making improvsnents that will make the turn more apparent -specially at night. Project Casts: FY I3 -14 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 - FY 1O l7 FY 17 -18 - FY 18 -1.9 - - - - Total $ 50,000 S 500,000 $ $ - $ - $ - $ 550,000 Operating Impact (Savings): 5,000 $ 10,000 $ 15,000 $ 20,000 $ 50,000 Project Name: Indian Diver Drive Light Poles I Project Descri tion: Funding Source; Local Option Gas Tax lCleanup and repainting of Light Pales on Indian River Drive. Justification: These li hi poles are in need of being cleaned up and re ainted_ Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16-17 -- FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ 5,000 $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000 Operating Impact (Savings): S - $ 250 $ 500 $ 750 $ I,000 S 1,250 $ 3,750 Project Name: Fundine Source: Justification: A, number of reads in the City need to be striped, such as Englar 'Drive, Barber Street North, Fleming, Mair Street, etc. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15- > FY 16 -17 FY 17,1_$ FY 18-19 12tal $ 10,000 $ _ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 10,000 Operating Impact (Savings), S - $ 500 $ 2,000 S 3,000 $ 4,000 S 5,000 $ 14,500 11 +311 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2414 -19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST AND JUS`T'IFICATION FORM PUBLIC.' WORKS DEPAR'T'MENT Project Name: Funding Source: Community C"ter Nmds Anutysis Project Description: Recreatiou Impact Fees Use consultant to determine optimum size and features basal on intended uses of the proposed facility. Justification: This analysis is important to better define the potential costs of a new community center facility. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 1.4 -15 FY 15 -16 FY -17 FY -17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ 14,000 $ - $ z $ - $ - $ - $ 10.400 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ Project Name: Funding Source: Justification: Tennis Wall/Ra uet Ball Court Pru'ect Description: [recreation Impact Fees Construction of tennis wall or raquet ball court. This was suggested by the Parks and Recreation Board to be placed at a location to be determined at a late time. Project Costs: FY 13-14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16-17 FY FY_. 1$ -19 Total $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 50,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ 1,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 5,040 $ 15,000 Project Name: Skate Park Rebuild Project Description: Funding Source: lRecreation im act Fee$ Total replacement of the ramps at the Skate Park facility. Justification: This facility is well used and no major rebuilding has been done for a long time. It is recommended that a total replacement of the ramps be done for safety reasons, Project Costs:. FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ - $ 125,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 125,400 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ (17,500) $ (16,250) $ (16,250) $ (16,250) $ (66,250 Project Name: JEquipment Building_ Project Description: Funding Source: lRecreation lm act Fees lConstruct Equipment Building at Barber Street Sports Complex. Justification: We are currently working out of a utility shed and need a larger facility to house maintenance equipmen land tools. Project Casts: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ - $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ (19,0()0) $ (1 '000) .'1 (15,000) $ (14,000) $ (66,000) Project Name: I Baseball Field Lighting Project Description: [Discrettqtjary Sales Tax lRemove and replace lights at the Barber Street Sports Complex. Funding Source: Justification: IThese are the oldest Ii{rhts in the Cit and nccd to be re laced with new energy efficient lighting, Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 - FY 16 -17 F_ Y 17 -I8 FY 18 -19 Total $ - $ - $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 300,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ - $ (45,000) $ (42,000) $ (42,000) $ (129,000) VIC CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014-19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Project Name: Funding Source: Justification; \40oring Fields I Project Description: Recreation Impact Fees I Design and engineering to place mooring fields for boaters. ,� mooring field is needed near the Main Street Pier to provide boaters a safe place to tie -up and access thr amenities near downtown. Project Costs: FY_1314 FY 14 -15 Operating Impact (Savings); $ - S Project Name: Funding Source; Justification: FY 15 -16 FY 16-17 FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 $ - $ 300 $ 600 S 900 $ Total 1 5,000 t StanmwtiCer li ui mcnt Project Description, Sstarmwater Utility fund 13/14 34K Pickup, 25K Pickup,4K Generator, 30K Airport Equipment, 14/15 40K Crew Cab, 25K Pickup, 4K Saw /Pumps. FY 14 -15 FY 15-16 15 /16 90K 13ackhoe. FY 18 -14 16/17 140K Dump Truck, 30K 4x4 Pickup. 63,000 17/18 340K Vactor. $ 170,000 $ 340,000 18/19 150K Dump Truck 125K Transport Truck. To schedule. an orderly replacement of major equipment that is essential to the operation of the stonw '-'ter maintenance ro ram Project Costs: Project Description: �iscrctionary Sales Tax S Sliplinc pipe to extend useful life. FY t3 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15-16 FY 10-17 FY 17-18 FY 18 -14 63,000 $ 69,000 90,000 $ 170,000 $ 340,000 $ 275,000 1,007,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - S (9,450) $ (14,760) $ (17,700) $ (26,700) $ (15,619) $ (84,220) Project Name: 1/4 Swale lm rovements JProject Description: I Installation of 1/4 round in swalcs. Funding Source: I Discretionary Sales Tax Justification: 111-o continue the program cif updating the draitra ge throu g out the City. _ Project Costs; FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 1.5 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -1.8 FY 18 -19 Total $ 500.000 $ 500,000 S 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 3,000,400 Operating Impact (Savings): S - $ 167,000 $ 3fr,r OO S 66,600 S 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 354,000 Project Name; Funding Source Justification: These will rehabilitate. the pipe e under City roadways which is slow] deteriorating. Project Costs: FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 18-19 Total $ 80,000 S - $ 100,0(70 S - $ - $ - $ 180,000 Operating Impact (Savings): S - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - Project Name: Stormwater Fond Installation Project Description: Funding Source; Discretionary Sales Tax Creation of new stormwater pond at either SarberfAcom location or F'ipc Slil)lirtir�g P Project Description: �iscrctionary Sales Tax S Sliplinc pipe to extend useful life. Justification: This project will allow creation of a stormwater pond similar to the one installed on Periwinkle at one 0 the two locations metioned based on recommendations from the engineer, Neel - Schaffer. Project Casts: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 1~Y 15 -16 FY 16 -17 �'Y 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ - $ - $ - $ 500.000 $ - $ - $ 500,000 Operating Impact (Savings): S - $ - $ - $ - $ .5,1700 $ 1 0,000 $ 15,000 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION FORM Project Name: Funding Source: Justification: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Road Crossin s/Side and Nees Project Description, — Discretionary Sales Tax Installing new pipes in side yard ditches as quarter round is installed and replacing Failing road crossing, pipes. This project will help eliminate major flooding throughout the City by replacing failing pipes under roads and also save on maintenance by the snowing contractor by eliminating the side ditches to be maintained. Side ditches are etting harder to maintain due to the housing boom in 2004. Project Costs: FY 13 -1€4 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16-17 FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total $ - $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 S 100,000 100,000 S 600,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ 2,000 S 7,000 $ 9,000 $ t4,000 S 30,000 Project Name: Funding Source: Bevan Ditch Piping Project Description: -- Discretionary Sales Tax Piping of Bevan Ditch. Justification- IThis project is necessary. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 10 -17 FY 1748 FY 18 -19 Total S - $ - $ - S - 750,000 $ - $ - $ 750,000 Operating Impact (Savings): - $ - $ - - $ 7,500 S 15,000 $ 22,500 CEMETERY TRUST FUND Project Name: Funding Source: Justification: Project Costs: FY 13 -14 Redo South Paved Roadway Project Description: Cemetery Trust Fund Remove 100 feet of road way, redirect and construct new.. It was put in during the 1970's over some grave space of the Carpenter Family, We vouuld like. to resolve this issue before the family presents this as a problem to the City. FY 14 -I5 FY 15 -16 FY I6-17 FY 17 -18 FY 15 -19 Total $ - S - S - $ - $ - $ 100.000 $ 100,000 Operating Impact ('Savings): Project Name: Funding Source: Justification: Project Costs, FY 13 -1A Sensor lift Storage Building— Project Description: Cemetery 'crust Fund Constuct a concrete block building with windows, garage door and regular door. Includes electric for recepticals :and overhead lighting. This would provide a secure place to keep the scissor lift and trailer on site and out of the elements. The scissor lift is used for placing cremains in the free standing wall columbarium, which is too high to remove granite doors without a problem. FY 14-15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 FY 18 -19 Total S - S 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 100,000 Operating Impact (Savings): S - I - S 1,000 $ 2,000 S 3,000 $ 4,000 $ 10,000 192 CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2014 -19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST AND JUSTIFICATION FORM GOLF COURSE FUND Project Name., Funding Source- Justification: Rebuild Greens JProject Description: Golf Course Capital Fund I fumigate and rebuild the greens. This project would include fumigation to treat the different grass inutations growing on the l rccn�. Within reason it vvould brin the 'Freenr: Geit to their original dimensions. Project Gusts: Praiect Description; 80% FAA and FDU'1' Grants. City Build new hangar(s)- Matching lequirements from cost is $150 -000 but the $30,000 City inatc;hing requirement is included Discretionary Sales'1.ax funds. FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -I6 FY 16 -17 F'Y 1 -7 -1R FY 18 -19 Total $ $ 125,000 $ - $ - - $ - $ 125,000 Operating Impact (Savings); $ - $ - $ (15,000) $ (11,250) $ (8,750) $ (8,750) $ (43,750) Project Name: JGolf Course~ L ui . mcnt JProject Description: Funding Source: lGolfCourse Capital Fund $15K Tractor and $40K Fairway Mower- — Justifcationi IThese are a ui ment replacements needed for maintenance. Project Costs-. FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 FY 15 -16 rY 16-17 FY 17 -I$ FY 18 -19 Total $ 15,000 $ 40,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 55,000 Operating Impact (Savings): S - $ (2 -250) $ (7,050) $ (2,650) $ 1,450 $ 4,600 $ (5,900) AIRPORT FUND Project Name: Funding Source: Justification: Construct Hangar(s) Praiect Description; 80% FAA and FDU'1' Grants. City Build new hangar(s)- Matching lequirements from cost is $150 -000 but the $30,000 City inatc;hing requirement is included Discretionary Sales'1.ax funds. under 5tormwater Equipment. F;conomic development and infrastructure improvements require additional aviation hangars for anticipated demand. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 FY 14 -15 $ 875,000 $ 650,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - Project Name: Funding Source Justification.: Project Costs: FY 13-1 4 FY 14 -15 FY 1.5 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 1'7 -i8 FY 1$ -19 T l $ 120,000 $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ 120,000 Operating Impact (Savings); $ - $ (18,000) $ (8,400) $ I,200 $ 8,400 $ 14,400 S (2,400) Project Name; Description- FY 1.5 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -1,8 FY_ 1 -1 $ - $ 1,500,000 $ - S - $ Total 3,025,000 Airport E ui naent Project Description: 80 ° ✓a FAA and FDOT Grants. City For purchase: of4- 1Nhee1 Tractor, Bobcat and Zero -afro Mower. Total Matching Requirements From cost is $150 -000 but the $30,000 City inatc;hing requirement is included 5torntwater Revenue Fund_ under 5tormwater Equipment. "fhis equipment can be used to assist with the maintenance of stormw� ter infrastructure at the Airport- Project A4ecs� 1�oad 1lVesi Project Access Road 17v'est. Matching Requirements from Discretionary Sales Tax funds. Funding Source' Funding tion: 80% FAA �tld FDOT' Grants, City Design Build Justification- lAirport West development re wires infrastructure. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 l~'1`_ 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 •Y] 18 -14 Total $ - $ - S - $ - $ 800,000 $ - $ 800,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,000 $ 20,000 193 Funding Source' Funding tion: 80% FAA �tld FDOT' Grants, City Design Build Justification- lAirport West development re wires infrastructure. Project Costs: FY 13 -14 l~'1`_ 14 -15 FY 15 -16 FY 16 -17 FY 17 -18 •Y] 18 -14 Total $ - $ - S - $ - $ 800,000 $ - $ 800,000 Operating Impact (Savings): $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 8,000 $ 20,000 193 rage i oy !Bleu on i400; y id froM Professor John N[ ion U.S. Supreme Court lRands Down Koontz C4se Editor's Note: Special Thanks to face Law Professor John R. Nolon for posting his summary hero: Kooutzv. St. Johns River WW'a *r° Management District U.S. Suprwile Court 570 U.S. (2613) June ?.5, 2013 Brief and Anralysis John k lNolon — 1ProTosor of Low Pace University School of Law Introduction- Prior to this case, courts did not subject the denial of land use permits or the imposition of monetary conditions upon them to heightened Scrutiny under its previous decisions in N©llan acid Dolan, Those Cases involved the imposition of a "title exactions °" e requirement that an easement or title to some of the property be dedicated to the public. To require such a title 11•4nsfer, if done outside the land use permitting system, would be a taking of property requiring just compensation, Because of this, permit conditions that accomplished the same result were subjected in these cases to heightened scrutiny. other actions, such as permit denials or monetary exactions, under U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence, were deferred to by the courts:, presumed valid; and the burden of proving (hat they constituted takings was borne by the applicant. Allan established that title exactions must bear an essential nexus to the harm prevented; Dolan required that the condition imposed be roughly proportional to the adverse impact of the prgiect on the community. This case, Koontz, extends the principles and standards ofNollan and Dolan to permit denials and monetary exactions greatly expanding the reach of Federal constitutional concerns deeply into the state and local land use system. Justice Alitc wrote the majority opinion for 5 members: of the court' Justice ]Cagan wrote for the 4 member minority. Brief; Mr. Koontz owned 14.9 acres of highly constrained land at the intersection of two major thoroughfares in Florida. He proposed building on 3.7 of the less constrained acres. To build, he needed a peanut from the St. John's Fiver Water Management District in coniplianee witb two separate state statutes designed to protect water resources, including wetlands. Koontz ofib ed to impose a conservation casement on I 1 acres and to cottduc.t other engineering work as mitigation measures, Ilia District thought these were insufficient to protect the affected crater resources in accordance with the relevant statutes. Using words such as "proposed" and "suggested," the majority opinion of the Court describes the two concessions the District asked of the petitioner. One involved developing only one acre and building costly stormwater management facilities on site, and enlarging the land subject to the conservation casement to over 13 acres; the other would allow the 3.7 acre development, but require petitioner to consider methods of doing off site Mitigation enhancing about 50 acres elsewhere in the watershed. The District suggested some such work including paying contractors to replace culverts and till ditches indicating that it "would favorably consider" alternatives to its "suggested" offsite mitigation projects, if the petitioner proposed something „equivalent." (Where a conservation easement is required, it exacts a property interest from the petitioner and is a title exaction; while asking an owner to pay for off -site mitigation work subjects her to a mouetwy exaction.) Koontz stopped negotiating at this point saying that his proposal was "as good as it can get." The District denied the permit and Koontz brought an action under a Florida statute that allows owners to recover monetary damages if a state agency's action is "art unreasonable exercise of the state's police power constituting a talrng without just compensation." Although he won in the trial and intermediate appeal court levels, the Florida Supreme Court supported the District's actions and found that the higher scrutiny standards of the Nollan and Dolan cases were inapplicable because the District did not approve the project ern the condition that petitioner accede to demands, but rather denied his application because he refused to make concessions. The Florida Supreme Court distinguished a demand for an interest in real property as found in Nollaan and Dolan from a demand for money. As a result, that Court held that neither the denial nor the monetary demand were subject to higher scrutiny. The majority of I.I.S. Supreme Court disagrees on both eoant -�. '113e Court golds that under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which prevents governments from coercing people to give up their constitutional lights, courts cannot distinguish between approving a permit on a condition and denying a permit because Ike applicant refused to agree to a concession. The Federal Constitution can be violated in permit denial cases, the Court notes, not became property interest were taken, but because extortionate demands burden the right not to have property taken without just compensation. "The impermissible denial ofa government benefit is a constitutionally cognizable injury." http: //r ail.aol.com/37834 -111 /aol- 6 /en- us /Suite.aspx 7/5/2013 Page 2 of 3 The Court also holds that where "there is a direct litilt between the government's demand and al specific parcel of property" the requirements ofNallan and Dolan apply. ",Such so- called 'in lieu of fees are utterly commonplace,.._., and they are fiutctionally equivalent to other types of land use exactions." While noting that land use agencies in the permitting process have vast discretion that can be abused, the Court also recognizes the lcgitiimacy, of land use requirements that require "landowners internalize the negative externalities of their conduct." It notes that this practice is a "hallmark of responsible land use policy, and we have long sustained such regulations against constitutional attack," Subjecting exactions of property interests and Cash in lieu of to higher scrutiny under the essential nexus and trough proportionality tests of Nollan and Dolan, in the Court's view, both allows internalization of externalities and prevents the abuse of discretion. The Court does not discuss what remedies might be available for a "NolkrwlDolcan unconstitutional conditions violation either here or in other cases." It did not decide whether the conditions complained of by Koontz would violate the nexus and proportionality standards of NollanlDolan_ It did not find that the conditions subjected were demands. In fact, the majority refused to characterize prcoisely how the conditions to the permit were communicated, "We decline to roach the respondent's argument that its demands for property were too indefinite to give rise to liability under Nollan and Dolan.' The boundaries of what constitutes a monetary exaction were not made clear by the majority. These matters were remanded to the Florida courts for resolution, to the extent that They are relevant to Mr. Koontz's claims, which must now decide whether the suggestions made by the District were sufficiently distinct to constitute demands; whether those demands meet the nexus and proportionality requirements of Noilan and Dolan, and whether Mr_ Koontz suffered any damages for which there is a state remedy_ Analysis Higher Scrutiny Now A.ppiiera to Fermat iDenials and Monetary CXactiuns: It is not clear whether Koontz is a regulatory tartcing or due process cage. It is sufficient For the moment to recognize that the principles and standards of 1Volan and Dolan, concededly takings eases, were applied to the facts r_rf Koontz under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which applies to many settings having nothing to do with talchngs. Saying that cif izens do not hold their constitutional rights subject to unconstitutional conditions fundamentally sounds in due process. Permit denials and ionetary exactions bear no constitutional relationship to titie exactions, which cars "take" fundamental property rights including the tight to exclude others. In one sense, this distinction doesn't matter because under Koontz permit denials and monetary exactions are now subject to higher scrutiny. J i,i From this flow several other consequences and concerns, Land Use DeOsions are Subject to I)oatbt Rather than Deference: The case extends the reach of Federal constitutional low deeply into the State and local land use system. There is a fundamental and famw„aching difference between deference and doubt m a judicial attitude. toward land use decisions. Refore Koontz, all but title exactions were subject to a judicial presumption of validity and a burden imposed on the applicant to prove that denials or monetary exactions were unreasonable, arbitrary, or Capricious. Post-Koontz, denials of permits where applicants fail to properly mitigate project impacts by following suggestions made by agency representatives and any monetary conditions imposed on permits are now subject to higher scrutiny, a judicial standard that requires the governmtciat to prove that its actions bear a " essential nexus" to thr propority's impacts and that the monetary conditions required are "roughly proportional" to the project's impact on the community. One serious concern here is that Federal takings law is notoriously vague and flawed. All of the many conflicting, perplexing, and complex doctrines of this body of law acre now seated at the head of the table regarding the many land use decisions to which .Koontz might be applied. This will not 4riefat developers uniformly because it may sap the system of predictability, could lead to more restrictive zoning standards, and might require them to pay the costs ofthe now - required municipal studies. Land Use Decision Processes are Subject to Dowbu Post - Koontz the land use decision- masking process, which has been characterized by give -and -take negotiations among applicants, affected stakeholders, and land use boards, is also subjected to doubt, Under the majority's decision and using, its terminology, suggestions that the applicant modify dir proposed project to mitigate environmental conditions or enhance its sustainability are potentially uncnnst.itutional conditions that will be subjected to higher scrutiny acrd that can result in monetary damage awards against state and local agencies. This eonsequence of Koontz will impose a near -term chill on the land iisc decision making process to the detriment of communities and developers. Lawyers for land use boards will be extraordinarily cautious about authorizing discussions about project modifications dial will be more beneficial to die commun ity, The twin prospects here are that more projects may be simply turned down or inferior projects approved. Corollary Matters: F If Koontz imposes new costs to conduct studies to prove the proportionality of conditions, will these costs be imposed on developers as additional permit fees? How much will Koontz affect the S1;QRA process? Will developers have. to Ray more fees i= e.,9 we]] to pay for rntuticipal studies needed to carry the burden of proof that lead agencies now have? Are legisl004 exactions, such as wetland banking., solid waste impact fees, or mandatory Affordable housing requirements, that apply through some formula, subject to Koontz, or is the case limited to individual permit conditions aimed at a specific project's impact such as those involved in Nollon and Dolan If legislated and formulaic exaction systetnt are subject to KoonLL will the "indlvidualirud detemiinat'ron" requirement of Dolan, not mentioned by either the majority or dissent, be implicated? If so, how greatly will this affect area- or oommunity -wide impact fees and other exactions? http: / /mai1.aol.cotn/3 7834 -11 I /ao1- 6 /en-us/Stllte.aspx 7/5/2013 rage.) 01 _� What constitutes a monetary exaction? Does anything that costs a developer money impose a monetary condition? Did the majority truly intend such a consequence? Will Koontz lead to new forms of negotiations? Will prc- application processes became routine in order to divorce suggestions made from the formal permitting Process? Will the effect of this be to prolong the land use approval process to the developer's detriment? Will local governments be tempted to make zoning standards more restrictive if they fear losing the ability to negotiate community benefits in the decision - making process? Wili non - regulatory community- or area -guide plans, t1oating zones, and more flexibility techniques bt~ relied on that offer developers choices that they may voluntary choose as an alternative to the now more - restrictive zoning? Was it wise for a 5 -4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to subject thousands of state and local land use agencies to all this doubt and prospect of further litigation? What benefits to developers and the public does the Koomz case realize'? The majority fails to say. L l } In another sense it does. Under Lingle, the Court carefully distinguished due process from takings lave, setting aside decades of confusion over how a regulation that fails to advance a substantial governmental interest can possibly be n taking. Substantive due process claims, Lingle points out, are subject to rational basis testing with courts deferring to regulators. Ml :mbcr.. Usual 0_7df'ied i,n 011-, Contdy wid t.ec0 Goytrnmcm Lnv EISs Sl WCA HELF -MAN Q0() i^ '_ .ast Brawa>t'd'131vc1.> I' (9-54) 76:3 -4J242 in I '! THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT I his rn asFr�w"'-, iopett Pr wit+ I any aftochircants, is in?e'ridM orF y for -the ly. na; y c.ClWail i wMch is legally privilagw;, wrifiderfE.Ial E.and a:teMpp. fl-0111 disGIOP,lWO li 't,,s rare t,,�t tlla isOfad?rl rer:pierrt, frrl *ire hereby noitiliec3 t #t:ar �,ttsr di hr;lra$ur�, CCS�SUitzr�, r }i ; }ri�rtr }.ic�rl, !��, �lt nriy �7oii; }n a iii: �,+r� �,'� o �,ila c.urr�rnlaw�it;�tic.r I`~ '�trlu'tl;� nrgttibit�c,?. It �'Ou howe ills e -mr) l i�l erfor, please I.1016f able Ln�r44'e y t9irjflil.;r l ",)5,T1 6:3: 62.42 w ik}y 1'eWrn e-mail and delete the roe,7tiGu, 010�g 0141 ally VaCllfre, -As. i �i ;i Acl%dm f1 nlosw—o: To ensure corapiiance Mill requirarnarls n7`i(C1i sed by the INN under 1:.,iFC,. iar 230, tore lin irm. ?f(JZJ thai vnr i U.S 'ledo vl advico 0011aliled In till? (iitcltldinq art ° -J "R Cil67Gn'} } Ir,iess 3 harv-dsc r PpCiti dlY sintetl, "a -2 rare I ntertded rDr �avrittivn to be i }�tl, anct cannot bet _irssd, fr-104le R:Lrrpose 0.1 (`I) .wooing per*Mies under the Internal Rr_,ve.nue Code or (2) pro +rocii g, marketing or Ro a= her p_anf rwt ,o rnattws �rl�rc�sse�i `l�� itl_ + *+ Xou are subscribed to LocGovTopics as cf. nsl,a ��rce rtda�l.cc_m. If you wish to unsu.bscribe, or modify your preferences please visit http /J :ttailmari.listserve. ccarallisiLitiatiac or to learn more about our list visit YYCp:�.tYailrnar�. list; �r•* � .�crf'listmanaci�r'litirinia�lcc http, / /mail.aol.con-i/37834 -111 /ao1- 6 /en- gas /Suite.aspx 7/5/2013