Laserfiche WebLink
Vero Beach is not only the largest municipality in the county; it is also the most diverse. Including <br />both mainland and barrier island areas, Vero Beach has significant residential and non-residential <br />areas. While almost built -out, the City has a significant amount of redevelopment activity. Various <br />state roads (SR 60, SR AIA, US 1), non -state arterials, a limited public transportation system, a <br />public use airport, and the railroad constitute the major components of the transportation system <br />within the City. <br />Both Sebastian and Fellsmere are completely mainland communities. Fronting on the Indian River <br />Lagoon, Sebastian is the larger of the two, and the fastest growing of the county's municipalities. <br />With more than 10,000 vacant platted lots, Sebastian is expected to continue to grow at a rapid rate. <br />Sebastian has a public use airport and a portion of US 1 within its boundaries. Fellsmere is the only <br />municipality located west of I-95, and the only municipality without any state roadways within its <br />boundaries. <br />1993 Apportionment Plan Alternatives <br />Section 339.175, Florida Statutes identifies MPO apportionment requirements. Of these <br />requirements, the three most important are: the size requirement; the proportionality requirement; <br />and the requirement that (with minor exceptions) only elected officials of general purpose local <br />governments may serve on the MPO Policy Board. <br />When the MPO was formed in 1993, an apportionment plan was developed for the MPO Policy <br />Board in accordance with Section 339.175, F.S. The development of the apportionment plan <br />involved an alternatives analysis regarding the number and geographic distribution of the MPO <br />Board members. In order to provide for a manageable governing body in relation to the relatively <br />small population included within the MPO, alternatives were considered which limited the size of <br />the MPO Policy Board to 7, 8, or 9 members. In assessing the board membership alternatives, a <br />major consideration was the proportionality requirement. From a proportionality perspective, the <br />most equitable alterative in terms of population and geographic representation was found to be the <br />nine member option. <br />The nine member option, which was subsequently adopted, consisted of an MPO Policy Board with <br />four County Commissioners, two Vero Beach City Councilmen, one Sebastian City Councilman, <br />one Fellsmere City Councilman, and one Indian River Shores Town Councilman. Besides those <br />voting members, two nonvoting members were appointed to the MPO Board. These were <br />representatives of the Town of Orchid and the Indian River County School District (IRCSD). With <br />this option, the unincorporated County representation (based upon the four County Commission <br />representatives) was close to the unincorporated proportion of the total County population. Another <br />advantage of this alternative was that the smaller municipalities, with the exception of the Town of <br />Orchid, had direct representation on the MPO Board. <br />Each of the other options considered resulted in inadequate representation on the MPO Board for <br />the smaller municipalities. While the seven member option would have included the three smallest <br />municipalities (Town of Indian River Shores, City of Fellsmere, and Town of Orchid) with <br />unincorporated residents and provide them representation through County Commission <br />representatives, eight and nine member alternatives would have assigned a shared representative for <br />the three smallest municipalities. Because of the dissimilarities among these municipalities, it was <br />determined that a shared representative approach would not be feasible. After careful consideration, <br />it was determined that all municipalities except Orchid should have voting representation on the <br />MPO Board. <br />When the initial MPO apportionment plan was developed in 1993, an important consideration was <br />whether the IRCSD could be represented as a voting member of the MPO Policy Board. Although <br />October 19, 1999 <br />51 <br />BOOK J. FSUE 87 <br />