2/25/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f- '- F Bi....MU' SAG10, B. What we are dealing with here is "the chicken little syndrome". Is there really so much carnage on the roadways of Indian River County as to warrant a thirty or more tow truck brigade stationed nightly in residential neighborhoods? The facts do not support that kind of hysteria. III. History of this Issue A. In 1992 the Code Enforcement Board heard complaints about this same Mr. John Seeley from his previous neighbors regarding his tow truck operations in their neighborhood. This was prior to his moving into my neighborhood in 1995. B. As a result of that complaint the Code Enforcement Board recommended to County Staff that tow trucks be allowed to operate in residential neighborhoods. Mr. Seeley indicated to the board that he had to keep his truck at home because of the emergency response nature of his business. In making that recommendation, the Code Enforcement Board had absolutely no statistical data on which they were basing their decision. County Staff has been unable to provide me with any data gathered by either themselves or the Code Enforcement Board on which they based their decisions. By their own admission and statements, they have relied on their "feelings" instead of any data or factual evidence. Staff incorporated tow truck operations in the LDR (Land Development Regulation) which was approved by the Commission. Simply stated in a legal fashion, the county made decisions based on facts not in evidence or in this case no facts at all. Every decision made was based on hear -say evidence or feelings. A. County Staff has no facts other than the Code Enforcement Board's recommendations which was supposedly based upon the Sheriffs Department stating a need although the Sheriffs Department is to this day unable to qualify that need with any factual evidence. B. It appears that no one on staff asked for data that would support the decision to allow up to 15 operators with over 30 trucks to be allowed into residential neighborhoods for emergency call out. No one at the county to this day knows what the emergency call out requirement is. Staff is defending a position, when the position itself is in doubt. C. At the May 14"' County Commission meeting Mr. Keating stated "He felt (emphasis added by author) more research would have to be done such as talking again with the sheriff to see what the needs are." I submit to you that Mr. Keating has no more factual information today to offer the commission than he did nine months ago yet he is recommending no change to a policy which was seemingly conceived from thin air. 4. Mr. Keating and Mr. DeBlois are smart, well educated people who surely recognize the need for fact gathering prior to making recommendations to the Commission. The "more research" Mr. Keating referred to was apparently never accomplished as neither the Code Enforce Board, County Staff, nor the Sheriffs Department have any statistics on how many accidents require emergency removal from the roadway. Even the most novice researchers understand that for conclusions and recommendations to be valid they should be based on factual evidence. Staff cannot defend nor justify their position as they still lack any research or data. v. At the recommendation of the Sheriffs Department, I was told the Department of Public Safety was the office to contact for the best data on rotation list call -outs and emergency roadway clearance for Indian River County. I contacted Lt. Kane of the Department of Public Safety who provided the best data to date, but I also contacted the operator of the oldest towing company in Indian River County as I thought a person with years of experience could be a valuable source of data as they are the ones actually working the accidents in the field. The data from both sources were very similar, but for this presentation I will only use Department of Public Safety information. - FEBRUARY 25, 1997 28