HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/11/1981}
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1981
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, MET IN REGULAR SESSION AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS,
1053 20TH PLACE, SERO BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1981,
AT 8:30 O'CLOCK A.M. PRESENT WERE PATRICK B. LYONS, CHAIRMAN;
DICK BIRD; ALFRED CROVER FLETCHER; AND BON C. SCURLOCK, JR. WILLIAM
C. WODTKE, JR., VICE CHAIRMAN, WAS SCHEDULED TO ARRIVE LATER IN THE
MORNING. ALSO PRESENT WERE NEIL A. NELSON, COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR;
L.S. "TOMMY" THOMAS, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATOR; GEORGE G. COLLINS,
JR., ATTORNEY TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; JEFFREY K.
BARTON, FINANCE DIRECTOR; DAN FLEISCHMAN, BAILIFF; AND VIRGINIA
HARGREAVES AND JANICE CALDWELL, DEPUTY CLERKS.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE
FLAG, AND PASTOR DR. G. JULIUS RICE, COMMUNITY CHURCH, GAVE THE
INVOCATION.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING A
STATUS REPORT ON COUNTY -OWNED LOTS IN FELLSMERE,
FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON REQUESTED ADDING AN ITEM REGARDING
THE BUDGET SCHEDULE.
CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED ADDING THE FOLLOWING: A REPORT
ON THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY MASTER PLAN; DISCUSSION REGARDING THE REGIONAL
PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING ON MARCH 20; AND A MATTER CONCERNING THE
HOUSING FINANCE AUTHORITY.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE ADDITION OF THESE EMERGENCY
ITEMS TO THE AGENDA.
MAR 111981 BOOK 46 PAGE 01
�� 66'
e
869 46 PACE 02
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS
TO THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1981.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 25, 1981, AS WRITTEN.
M.MVIT'a �.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR
A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR ROSCOE 0. WHIDDON.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT
TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM FOR GLADYS W. BRYANT.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO
ALLOCATE FUNDS FOR THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS' SALARY AND BENEFITS,
AS FOLLOWS:
ACCOUNT TITLE
EXECUTIVE SALARIES
SOC. SEC. MATCHING
RETIREMENT
CONTRIBUTION
RESERVE FOR
CONTINGENCIES
ACCOUNT No. INCREASE
001-700-519-11.11 $2,000
001-700-519-12.11 135
001-700-519-12.12 185
001-199-513-99.91
$2,320
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED -BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED TAX SALE CERTIFICATE No.
372 IN THE AMOUNT OF $27.32 FOR WALLACE CARTER.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE
FOR THE FOLLOWING DEPUTIES APPOINTED BY SHERIFF DOBECK:
JAMES SEBREE WILLIAM LUTHER
BIRCH R. HALE, SJR. — PART TIME
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE STATE WITNESS PAYROLL,
CIRCUIT COURT, FALL TERM, 1980, IN THE AMOUNT OF $63.05; COUNTY
COURT, FEBRUARY TERM, 1981, IN THE AMOUNTS OF $146.22 AND $191.24;
PUBLIC DEFENDER COUNTY COURT, FEBRUARY TERM, 1981, IN THE AMOUNT
OF $30,00.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GAVE RETROACTIVE APPROVAL OF PETITION
FOR ADMISSION TO A. G. HOLLEY STATE HOSPITAL FOR MARCELLUS JOHNSON
AND EDWARD M. BROWN.
THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE RECEIVED AND PLACED ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK:
TRAFFIC VIOLATION BUREAU - SPECIAL TRUST FUND,
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1981 - $30,815.66
RECEIPT FOR DEPOSIT OF COUNTY FUNDS, N0. 1331,
JANUARY, 1981 - $782.00
REPORT OF CONVICTIONS, MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1981
TRAFFIC VIOLATION FINES BY NAME, FEBRUARY, 1981
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY POLITICAL DISTRICT & CENSUS INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER REFERRED TO THE MATERIAL IN THE
AGENDA PERTAINING TO THIS SUBJECT AND ADVISED THE BOARD OF THE FOLLOWING
DATA:
DisTRICT REGISTERED VOTERS
1 4,434
2 5,204
3 7,560
4 5,520
5 7,586
DiSCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CENSUS
INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED IN SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS RICHEY'S
OFFICE AT THIS TIME - WHEN THE BOARD RECEIVES THOSE FIGURES, THE
MATTER OF REALIGNING THE POLITICAL DISTRICTS CAN BE FURTHER STUDIED.
MAR 111981BOOK 46 PAGE 03
3
MAR 111991 Booz 46 PAGE 04
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ARRIVED AT THE MEETING AT 9:00 O'CLOCK
A. M.
STATUS REPORT — COUNTY—OWNED LOTS I & 2. BLOCK 96, FELLSMERE
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER EXPLAINED THAT FELLSMERE WANTED TO
PUT A BALL DIAMOND ON THE LOTS, AND WONDERED IF THE COUNTY COULD
DONATE THE LOTS FOR THIS PURPOSE.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND THE BOARD WAS IN AGREEMENT WITH
COMMISSIONER BIRD'S SUGGESTION THAT THE COUNTY LEASE THE LOTS TO
THE CITY OF FELLSMERE.
ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THIS WAS PREFERABLE TO THE ALTERNA—
TIVE PRESENTED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING OF DEALING WITH THE SCHOOL
BOARD AND THE CITY OF FELLSMERE.
THE BOARD INSTRUCTED THE ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A LEASE FOR
20 YEARS WITH A ONE YEAR TERMINATION CLAUSE AT $1.00 A YEAR WITH
THE CITY OF FELLSMERE FOR COUNTY—OWNED LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 9031 FOR
RECREATIONS PURPOSES ONLY.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION VACANCY
COMMISSIONER BIRD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMO AND RESUME:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County CommissioneRATE: March 9, 1981 FILE:
SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Commission
Vacancy
FROM: Dick Bird REFERENCES:
Dear Fellow Commissioners:
After studying the resume's received for the vacancy
on the Planning and Zoning Commission, I have decided to
recommend, for your approval, Richard Parent.
W, 4
His resume is attached and I feel he will make an
excellent member of the Commission. He is a twenty six
year resident of the area and comes from a prominent
community minded family, including his brother Paul who
served with distinction as a former Planning and Zoning member.
Mr. Parent understands the tremendous responsibility that
the Commission faces and has pledged to me that he has both
the time and interest to take part in all meetings and re-
sponsibilities. He is available if you would like to talk
with him prior to Wednesday's meeting.
His business phone is 562-6871
His home phone is 231-4468
On ' e VARA .
670 South U.S. 1 - P. O. Box 910
Vero Beach, Florida - 32960
PERSONAL IRESUME .
March 1, 1981
NAI:"E: RICIilm PARENT AGE,: 36, Born June 4, 1944, Dover, N. N.
aiEOID ITCL: 1336 I'dver Midge Road, Vero Beach, Florida
I,LUITAL'STATUS: Married, three children, ages 13, 129 and. 9
12NGTF, OF TIME OF RESIDENCEY
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY: 26 years - Moved to Vero Beach in 1955
HEALTH: Excellent
EDUCATION: Graduate of Vero Beach High School in 1962
Graduate of Mississippi State University in 1966, receiving
B. A. Degree in Business Administration
MILITARY: Received Military training in United States Axmy, Armond
Division - Was commissioned as Captain upon completion of tenure.
EIPIAYI+a''EN`t': Self Employed - Owner and Operator of
Indian River Millwork, Inc., located at 670 South
U. S. No. 1, Vero Beach, Florida
CIVIC & BLNEVOLBIM
ASSOCIATIONS: United Way Campaign
I,Iember, Vero Beach Jaycees
Elks Club
Past President, Serra Club
M?ZONAL COI,UMITTS: I have lived in Vero Beach for 26 years, having come to this
area as a child. I have had steady exposure to the growth of this area during my
lifetime, and have, as a matter of choice, made Indian River County my permanent
home after my college education and Military tour were completed.
MAR 111981
5
BOOK 6 PAGE 05
MAR 111981
Boo 46 PAGE 06
i
COMMISSIONER BIRD THEN RECOMMENDED THAT MR. PARENT BE
I APPOINTED TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK THEN PLACED RICHARD PARENT'S NAME
IN THE NOMINATION FOR THIS POSITION, HE ADDED THAT HE DID NOT CONDUCT
AN INTERVIEW WITH HIM; HE WAS ABLE TO TALK TO HIM BY PHONE AND WAS
VERY IMPRESSED. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK FELT HE WAS A GOOD CHOICE.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT HE HAD KNOWN HIM FOR
MANY YEARS, BUT WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT THE BOARD DID NOT HAVE A CHOICE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT HE WAS A FINE CHOICE, AND
THAT HE WAS WELL ACQUAINTED WITH RICHARD PARENT.
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, HE WAS UNABLE
TO GET IN TOUCH WITH MR. PARENT AND THAT IF HE HAD HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO INVESTIGATE HIM, HE WOULD PROBABLY VOTE FOR HIM. HE ADDED THAT,
HE COULD NOT, IN GOOD CONSCIENCE, VOTE FOR HIS APPOINTMENT WITHOUT
A PERSONAL INVESTIGATION.
LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ALONG THOSE LINES.
MOTION WAS:MADE:BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER THAT THE BOARD
POSTPONE THIS APPOINTMENT UNTIL THE MEETING OF MARCH 25TH.
THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND,
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BIRD, THAT THE BOARD ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-13 APPOINTING
RICHARD PARENT TO FILL THE VACANCY ON THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON
AND CARRIED WITH A 4 TO 1 VOTE, WITH CHAIRMAN LYONS VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS EXPLAINED THAT THIS VOTE WAS NOT IN OPPOSITION
TO MR. PARENT, JUST OPPOSITION UNTIL HIS INVESTIGATION IS COMPLETED
ON MR. PARENT.
LENGTHY DISCUSSION ENSUED REGARDING FUTURE APPOINTMENTS,
AND THE BOARD DETERMINED THEY WOULD RATHER HAVE SEVERAL RESUMES TO
CHOOSE FROM, PLUS HAVE AMPLE TIME TO CONDUCT THEIR INVESTIGATIONS.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THAT THE BOARD RECEIVE, TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO AN
APPOINTMENT, MORE THAN ONE RESUME TO STUDY; AND THE COMMISSIONER
FROM THE DISTRICT RELATING TO THE APPOINTMENT, MAKE HIS RECOMMENDATION
TO THE BOARD.
� � r
6
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3 TO Z, WITH COMMISSIONER BIRD AND COMMISSIONER
WODTKE VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT THAT SOME VERY WELL—QUALIFIED PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN APPOINTED IN THE PAST USING THE SYSTEM WE NOW HAVE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY
INVOLVED IN JUST FINDING ONE QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL TO SERVE.
PUBLIC HEARING-— REZONING REQUEST FROM R-1 To R -2C REQUESTED BY
ROCK AND CIPRIANO
THE HOUR OF 9:15 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY
CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED,
TO -WIT:
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a/���.
in the matter of A-4 A
- .AA4 4(3 AV
,
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of v� 7 o
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed
(SEAL)
is day of �1 A.D.
A�
A , (Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cour4jAdian River County, Florida)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the
Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian
River County, Florida, is reviewing the
feasibility of making the following changes
and additions to the Zoning Ordinance -of In-
dian River County, Florida, which changes
and additions are substantially as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order
that the following described property situated
on the southeast corner of the intersection of
North Gifford Road and 43rd Avenue in Indian
River County, Florida, to -wit:
The north one-half of Tract 4, Section 27,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, said land
lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
Be changed from R-1 Residential District to
R -2C Multiple Family Residential District.
A public hearing in relation thereto atwhich
parties in interest and citizens shall have an
opportunity to be heard, will be held by said
Planning and Zoning Commission in the i
Council Chamber of the City Hall, Vero Beach,
Florida, on Thursday, January 22, 1981, at 7:30
P.M., after which said public hearing in
relation thereto at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, in the Council Chamber of the City
Hall, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,
March 11, 1981, at 9:15 A.M.
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
By: Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Indian River County Planning
and Zoning Commission
By: Carolyn Eggert, Chairwoman
Jan. 2, 7, 1981.
BOOK 46. PAGE ®T
MAR 111981
MAR 111981 BOOK � 46 pace 0
NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO VINCENT J.
ANTHONY, GARY J. ANTHONY, ROBERT F. LLOYD, ROGER R. ROCK, AND
ARTHUR H. CIPRIANO, BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA
STATUTE 125.66.
THE BOARD THEN REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM FROM THE
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR;
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: March 4, 1981 FILE:
3450
t4jAR iS$i
`IQC.SUBJECT: Rezoning Request by Roger R. Rock
E9 W = and Arthur H. Cipriano
NL�
� �fi!1RiSu32cr's C!tire
FROM: Neil Nelson REFERENCES:
County Administrator
Applicant: Roger R. Rock
Arthur H. Cipriano
Agent: Robert F. Lloyd
Rezoning from R-1 to R -2C
Location: 17 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
North Gifford Road and 43rd Avenue.
Planning Dept. Recommendation: Compatible with proposed Comprehensive Plan
and existing land use. Staff recommends
approval.
Planning & Zoning Commission Recommendation: Meeting of January 22, 1981 -
unanimous approval.
Required "Notice of Public Hewing" regarding this rezoning was published in the
Vero Beach Press Journal on January 2 and 7, 1981. "Proof of Publication" is in
the files. Additionally, Mrs. Freda Wright, Clerk to the Board, has notified
affected property owners in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, by letter dated
January 26, 1981.
All requirements having been met, and all matters being in order, the Administration
recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the requested rezoning from
R-1 to R -2C.
�ei.elson, County Adr�inistrator
8
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT IT SEEMED TO BE HODGE-
PODGE, AS THIS SITE IS BETWEEN TWO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
SENIOR PLANNER CHALLACOMBE EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS A HOUSING
PROBLEM FOR LOW TO MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES AND THIS IS THE MOST
SUITABLE AREA FOR BUILDING RENTAL UNITS.
GENERAL DISCUSSION FOLLOWED.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED
TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE, FOR THE BOARD TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 8I-10 REZONING
PROPERTY FROM R-1 TO R -2C AS REQUESTED BY ROGER R. ROCK AND ARTHUR
H. CIPRIANO.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST THIS
ORDINANCE AS IT IS A HODGEPODGE AREA AND DID NOT SEE THAT IT WOULD
BENEFIT THE AREA AS A WHOLE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT HE WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE
OF THE MOTION BECAUSE THERE IS THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER AND SEWER;
AND CONSIDERING CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND THE ECONOMY, THIS WOULD
PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING; AND HE STRONGLY RECOMMENDED VOTING FOR
THE MOTION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED WITH COMMISSIONER WODTKE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD HELP
TOWARDS HAVING MORE CUSTOMERS FOR THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM IN
THAT AREA.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
MAR 111981 9 coax 46 PAGE 09
MAR 111981
ORDINANCE NO. 81-10
sQ�K 46 PAGE 10
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as foll-ows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian River
County, Florida, to -wit:
The north one-half of Tract 4, Section 27, Township
32 South, Range 39 East, said land lying and being
in Indian River County, Florida
Be changed from R-1 Residential District to R -2C
Multiple Family Residential District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth
and described in said Zoning Regulations.
This Ordinance shall take effect March 16, 1981.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
ON MOTION MADE BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION
81-14 ESTABLISHING THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE.
MAR 111981 11
Bfl�K 46 PAGE,
MAR 111981
BOOK 46 PACE 12
RESOLUTION NO. 81-14
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that in order to establish guidelines
in matters relating to public saftey and law enforcement;
and to improve long range plans relating to public safety,
the Board hereby establishes a public safety advisory committee
to be known as the "INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE", to be made up of members from the following designated
areas:
Two members shall be appointed by the Sheriff;
Two members shall be appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners;
One member shall be appointed by the Board of County
Commissioners and shall be selected from a list of
candidates jointly approved by the Sheriff and the
County Commission;
as to the three categories above, the members shall be permanent
residents and electors of Indian River County and be experienced
in the general field of law enforcement and public safety. The
original appointments will be two (2) for one-year terms and
three (3) for two-year terms; thereafter, the members of the
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE will serve
for two-year terms, which shall be staggered with no more than
three (3) terms expiring at one time. The members of the INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE shall serve at
the pleasure of the appointer and may be removed at any time
during the appointed term at the pleasure of the appointer.
Replacement of any member of the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE who has served less than a full
term shall be for the unexpired term of the member replaced;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, after the appointments have
been made, the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE shall annually elect a Chairman, Vice Chairman and
Secretary. Meetings will be at the call of the Chairman but
not less than four (4) times per year. All meetings will
be open to the public, properly noticed and held at a location
to be provided by the County. Minutes will be taken of all
meetings and will be provided by the County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE will serve in an advisory capacity
and no decisions or recommendations made by the Committee
will be binding. At the request of the Sheriff and/or the
County Commission, the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY
COMMITTEE will submit recommendations on matters relating to
law enforcement and public safety, such as:
Jail Construction;
Jail Operation;
Uniformity of Law Enforcement;
Efficiency of Law Enforcement Operation;
Crime Prevention;
Traffic Safety;
Civil Defense;
911 Emergency System
and any other matters involving public safety and law enforcement;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC
SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE shall be established by vote of the
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida,
and may be dissolved in the same manner.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the
day of March , 1981.
Freda Wright, Cle
MAR 111981
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOOK 46 PAGE 13
MAR 111981 Wx 46 PAGE 14
ST. LUCIE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
CHAIRMAN LYONS EXPRESSED A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN ABOUT
THE.ST. LUCIE COUNTY MASTER PLAN REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE
ABILITY TO EVACUATE THEIR LARGE POPULATION SHOULD AN EMERGENCY OCCUR.
HE FELT THAT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WOULD END UP HAVING TO EVACUATE
THEIR PEOPLE OVER THE 17TH STREET BRIDGE, THUS CREATING A PROBLEM
IN OUR COUNTY. THE CHAIRMAN FELT THE COUNTY SHOULD OFFICIALLY TAKE
A STAND ON THE MATTER.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, THAT THE BOARD DIRECT OUR REPRESENTATIVE AT
THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL TO REQUEST ST. LUCIE COUNTY NOT TO
DEVELOP DENSITIES GREATER THAN THE ABILITY TO HANDLE THEIR TRAFFIC
OFF THE ISLAND.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A RESOLUTION
WOULD BE A MORE EFFECTIVE AND APPROPRIATE FORM TO USE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WITHDREW HIS MOTION, AND COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER WITHDREW HIS SECOND.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-15, WHICH
THE ATTORNEY WILL PREPARE AND PRESENT TO THE BOARD AT THE NEXT MEETING
FOR APPROVAL CONCERNING THE DENSITY PROBLEM IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY.
CHAIRMAN LYONS BRIEFLY DISCUSSED THE FINANCING OF RENTAL
HOUSING AND FELT THAT WITH THE GREAT SHORTAGE OF RENTAL HOUSING IN
THE COUNTY, IT COULD FILL A NEED.
DISCUSSION ENSUED WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROGRAM MIGHT BE IN
CONFLICT WITH ANY PROGRAM OUR HOUSING AUTHORITY HAS, AND IT WAS
DETERMINED THE BOARD WOULD NEED MORE INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD REMAND THIS MATTER
TO THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ASK THEM TO PREPARE A REPORT AND A
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
14
P of PIPI
COMMISSIONER WODTKE DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING MEMORANDUM
WITH THE BOARD:
March 11, 1981
To: Board of County Commissioners
From: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
Subject: Budget Agenda
Deadline for submission: May 15, 1981
Tenative presentation to Board
of County Commissioners: June 3, 1981
Budget Hearings; County Depart_ oluw
ments and Offices: 1:30pm - 6:00pm June 15 r- 18, 1981
ala'+ j0- 01i'm 76-rj
Outside'Agencies: 1:30pm - 6:00pm June 22, 23, 29 & 30th
JKB/dw
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BUDGET AGENDA FOR THE
COMING YEAR AS SUBMITTED IN THE MARCH 11, 1981 MEMORANDUM, AND
AUTHORIZED FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON TO IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE CONCERNED
PARTIES REGARDING THE BUDGET.
NO PARKING SIGNS
COMMISSIONER WODTKE THANKED THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR HIS
HELP IN SOLVING THE PROBLEM WITH THE PARKING ON THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY
ALONG U.S. #1 AT THE FLEA MARKET LOCATIONS. BY INSTALLING THE NO
PARKING SIGNS, IT HAS NOW BECOME A SAFER PLACE. HE THEN ASKED THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE OWNER AT THAT LOCATION AND
THANK HIM FOR HIS COOPERATION AND HOPE THAT HE CONTINUES TO ASSIST
THE COUNTY IN THE MANNER THAT HE HAS IN THE PAST.
MAR 1.11991 15 46 PAGE 15
@Ffl 1( 46 PAGE 16
DISCUSSION. REGARDING VENDORS USING COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY
COMMISSIONER BIRD ASKED IF AN INQUIRY HAD BEEN STARTED
REGARDING THE ROADSIDE VENDORS.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVELY AND NOTED
THAT SINCE THE VENDORS DO HAVE PERMITS, IT PUTS THE COUNTY IN A
STAND-OFF POSITION. HE CONTINUED THAT WHEN THERE IS A SAFETY HAZARD,
THE COUNTY CAN HAVE THEM MOVED BUT NOTHING PREVENTS THEM FROM SETTING
UP THEIR BUSINESS ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY PROVIDED THERE IS NO TRAFFIC
HAZARD.
LENGTHY DISCUSSION FOLLOWED.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED WE FIND OUT WHAT THE RULES ARE,
STUDY THEM, AND RECOMMEND SOME CHANGES,
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HE WAS NOT IN SYMPATHY
WITH THE BOARD. HE FELT THAT IF IT WAS THE BOARDS INTENT TO PROTECT
THE SAFETY OF THE PASSING TRAFFIC WHERE THE VENDORS WERE LOCATED,
IT WOULD BE FINE. BUT, HE ADDED, FOR THE COUNTY TO REGULATE THE
VENDORS BECAUSE THEY WERE ADDING COMPETITION TO EXISTING BUSINESSES
DID NOT SET WELL WITH HIM. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER FELT THE VENDORS
WERE A VIABLE NEED TO THE COUNTY IF THE TAXPAYERS CONTINUED TO RETURN
TO THEM.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
,_
CHAIRMAN LYONS REQUESTED SEVERAL ITEMS TO BE ADDED TO THE
AGENDA: AN ITEM CONCERNING THE BOND OF JOE HENRY EARMAN; AND A
RESOLUTION REGARDING CHILD SAFETY WEEK,
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER VIODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE ADDITION OF THESE EMERGENCY
ITEMS TO THE AGENDA.
BOND - FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
ON ,"LOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE BOND FOR .JOE HENRY EARMAN
AS A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE FLORIDA INLAND
NAVIGATION DISTRICT; ALSO THE SIGNATURES OF THE BOARD ON THE BOND.
MEMBER OF THE BOARU__D�_COMMISSI�NCRS..QF..TH.E__FLQRi'VA-1h[1.ANU_J�fAIIIGAIIP�L_12ISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA,
County of ...... INDIAN __RIVER .....................................
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That we,.__--_. JOB NBNRy IARMAN_---
------------------_--
as principal, and ..LINIT.1<D..STA.T...ES..FID.ELITY..ANR__GUARMITSI.-,COMPANY------------------ ---- as surety, are
held and firmly bound unto ------- RM RT_GRAHAM------------------------_--_---_--.__._.._-_---Governor of the State of
Florida, and his successors in office, in the sum of .... _ TFN_.T6Q_USANV.AN'D_.P.0. I0.0-.-n--•Dollars,
lawful money, for the payment whereof well and truly to be made, we do bind ourselves, our
and each of our heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally,
firmly by these presents.
Sealed with our seals, and dated this ------ 9Zh---------- day A. D. 19_11.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, That, where, the above bounden
JOE HENRY_ EARMAN-----------------------------------------------
was, on the -------- ---------------.day of ------------------ Mach ......... __._.__----- A. D. 19.81_.
appointed----.Memben_Qi th.e._8_oa& I__Q4__C=ii.6,wnea--oJ__tAe._.FAcAida.__Ixt _=d_----------------------.
.._-------------------- -------- -------- --- --- - -- _.___ _.._._—.----------------------...-
to hold his office from the date of Xila& h.__3,J_991--_____________________ ______.________commission, until
------------- ------------- — — - -- -- - --__--------- - -
and until his successor is appointed and qualified, according to the Constitution and Laws of
the State of Florida.
NOW, THEREFORE, If the said ------------ JOE._HENRV__EARMAN---- --------------- ------- ---------•-----------------------
shall diligently and faithfully perform all the duties of said office as prescribed by law, this
obligation to be void; otherwise to remain in full for
—IAN
T —i
__-_--_(SEAL)
UNITED STATES aFIDal ELrAND
ITYGUARANTY CO.
GKIHG11�11Ih(EELER�IGEUCY,IJC (SEAL)
Si and sealed in resence of us: iRicct T. 8" hop !
2 Attorney to Fact
-- - - - ------------------------
--
Witness
Witness
The above bond is approved
R,Lcha&d T. Bishop
Licensed Ra idem Agent
Buckingham-WheeteA Agency, in
This bond is approved this --------------------day of.
elec-6 MAR 111981
-------------------------------
Co ty Commissioners.
--------------------------- -------------------- 19 -------
Comptroller.
BOOK., 46 PAGE, 17
-I
MAR 111991
BooK 46 PACE 18
� �w,•.�i-�'AJ��.+.^a`:a ,e.<'x a ..:-., - s ,. p .' ^ � _ �-"��;�c,� �2" �f 1 t� ! .dh �� •_ � i
CERTIFIED COPY
"' GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
No............§..3143
. F
-2U Men b, these Presentsi
That UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, a co
rporation the Uwe of the
State of Maryland, and having its principal office at the City of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, a does hereby conand existing stitute and appoint
Richard T. Bishop
of the City of Vero Beach , State of
Its true and lawful attorney in and for the State of Florida.
for the following
g Purposes, t0 wilt a S tigiar+ x y7k `1x t u �k f,
To sign its name as surety to, and to execute,
all acts and seal and acknowledge any and all bonaa,`amd to peettvel, do sad perform any and.1
things set forth in the resolution of the Board of Directors of the said UNITED STATE$ FIDELITY AND GUARANTX'
COMPANY, a certified copy of which is hereto annexed and made a part of this Poway of Attorney. end the said UNITED STATES r
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, through us, its Board of Directors, hereby ratifies and eotifirm all and whatsoever the said
Richard T. Bishop
t ..
tA
may lawfully do in the Premises by virtue of these presents.
In Witness Whereof, the said UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY bas caused this instrument to be
sealed with its corporate seal, duly attested by the signatures of its Vice•President and Assistant Secretary, this 13th day of
September A. D. 19 74
UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY.
( Signed) BI......... James, A. Mappus .........................
( SEAL) Vice -President.
(Signed) ,...... 'William Jo Phelan
....................... ..........
STATE OF MARYLAND, Assistant Secretory.
BALTIMORE CITY, as`
On this 13th day of
September , A. D. 1974 , before me
Personally
James A. Ma pus , Vi President of the UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTYcame
. COMPANY and William J. Phelan Assistant Sucre
tary of said Company, with both of
Whom I am personally acquainted, who being by me severally duly sworn, seta that they resided in the City of Baltimore, Maryland;
that they, the said James A. Mappus and William J. Phelan
the Vice•PresIdent and the Assistant Secretary of the said UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMP wrescti
ere
tthho r
poration described in and which executed the foregoing Power of Attorney; that they each knew the seal of said co
seal affixed to said Power of Attorney was such co _ corporation; that the
tion, and that they signed their names thereto by like order as Vice•Presidenvand by
so zed rdeof of Directors of said corpora.
My commission expires the first day in July, A. D. 19...7J5... tom'• respectively, of the Company,
(SEAL) (Signed) ) A. Louisa Rush
STATE OF MARYLAND
Notary Pnbic.
BALTIMORE CITY, Set.
Y
I, Robert H. Bouse,OuiBa Rush
Clerk of the Superior Cotta of Baltimore City, which Court is a
Court of Record, and has a seal, do hereby certify that L
whom the annexed affidavits were made, and who has thereto aA.
. Esquire, before
rYd. in and for the City
State of Ma lan y °Acommissioned scribed name, was at the time of so doing a Not public of the
acknowledgments, or proof of deeds to of Baltimore, dui and sworn and authorized 6T law to a
he recorded therein. I further certify that I am ac dnuniater oaths and take `
Notary, and verily believe the signature to he his genuine signature. acquainted with the handwriting of the said
In Testimony Whereof, i hereto act my hand and affix the seal of the Superior Court of Baltimore City, the same being a Court
of Record, this 13th day of September 1
OA. D. 9 74
(Signed) Robert H. Bouse
.......................................
5 t�t'B a is.s7t Clerk of the Superior Court o. • • . • . , • • • • ... • . • .
l Baltimore City.
a.
COPY OF RESOLIMON
That Whereas, it is necessary for the effectual transaction of business that this Company appoint agents and attorneys with power
and authority to act for it and in its name in States other than Maryland, and in the Territories of the United States and in the Provinces
of the Dominion of Canada and in the Colony of Newfoundland.
Therefore, be it Resolved, that this Company do, and it hereby does, authorize and empower its President or either of its Vice.
Presidents in conjunction with its Secretary or one of its Assistant Secretaries, under its corporate seal, to appoint any person or persons
as attorney or attorneys-in•fact, or agent or agents of said Company, in its name and as its act, to execute and deliver any and all con-
tracts guaranteeing the fidelity of persons holding positions of public or private trust, guaranteeing the performances of contracts other
than insurance policies and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings, required or permitted in all actions or proceedings, or
bylaw allowed, and
Also, in its name and as its attorney or attomeys•in•fact, or agent or agents to execute and guarantee the conditions of any and all
bonds, recognizances, obligations, stipulations, undertakings or anything in the nature of either of the same, which are or may by law,
municipal or otherwise, or by any Statute of the United States or of any State or Territory of the United States or of the Provinces of the
Dominion of Canada or of the Colony of Newfoundland, or by the rules, regulations, orders, customs, practice or discretion of any board,
body, organization, office or officer, local, municipal or. otherwise, be allowed, required or permitted to be executed, made, taken, given,
tendered, accepted, filed or recorded for the security o>i protection of, by or for any person or persons, corporation, body, office, interest,
municipality or other association or organization whatsoever, in any and all capacities whatsoever, conditioned for the doing or not doing
of anything or any conditions which may be provided for in any such bond, recognizance, obligation, stipulation, or undertaking, or
anything in the nature of either of the same.
l� George We Lennon, Jre , an Assistant Secretary of -the UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND
GUARANTY COMPANY, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the original power of attorney given
by said Company to
Richard T. Bishop
Of Vero Beach, Florida , authorizing and empowering hint to sign bonds as therein set
forth. which power of attorney has never been revoked and is still In full force and effect.
And I do further certify that said Power of Attorney was given in pursuance of a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the
Board of Directors of said Company, duly called and held at the office of the Company in the City of Baltimore, on the 11th day of
July, 1910, at which meeting a quorum of the Board of Directors was present, and that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of said
resolution, and the whole thereof as recorded in the minutes of said meeting.
In Testimony Whereo/, I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY
COAPANY on
• (Date) _
MAR 111981-
ant Secretary. •
BOOK 46. PAGE 19
MAR 111981 Box .46 PAGE �Q
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION 81-16 FOR CHILD
SAFETY WEEK.
RESOLUTION NO. 81- 16
WHEREAS, our children's health and well-being are everyone's
concern, yet few persons are aware that automobile injuries,
which are the primary cause of death and injury among children,
could easily be prevented through the use of child restraint
car seats and safety belts; and
WHEREAS, the injuries suffered by children riding as
passengers in motor vehicles are a major cause of epilepsy,
paraplegia, disfigurement and other permanent mental and
physical disabilities; and
WHEREAS, studies in Florida communities indicate that only
10 percent of the State's children under five years of age
are properly restrained when riding in automobiles; and
WHEREAS, the proper use of federally approved, crash tested
child restraints could reduce injuries by almost 80 percent
and fatalities by 90 percent;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, That the Board
urges all parents, health professionals, community leaders,
and governmental and private sector agencies to do everything
possible to ensure that every child in our State be protected
from injury by child restraint car seats or seat belts when
being transported in motor vehicles; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Board urges all adults,
especially when riding with children, to be certain to use
their own seat belts, thereby protecting the children and
setting a positive example of safe behavior; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM-
MISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, does hereby
declare
MARCH 23 - 29, 1981
CHILD PASSENGER SAFETY WEEK
Said Resolution to become effective as of the 11th
day of March , 1981.
BOARD
INDIA
By
Attest:
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
VER COUNTY, FLORIDA
n � .
da Wright,
20
r � �
911 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEM
ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED THE BOARD FOR THEIR DIRECTION
REGARDING THE FINANCING FOR THE 911 EMERGENCY SERVICE SYSTEM. HE
CONTINUED THAT THE COUNTY COULD USE THE GENERAL FUND AS THIS SYSTEM
WOULD BE BENEFITING THE ENTIRE COUNTY; OR AN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
COULD BE USED. ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT A SPECIAL TAXING
DISTRICT COULD BE ESTABLISHED, SIMILAR TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH COUNV
FIRE DISTRICTS, AND THE 911 SYSTEM COULD BE FUNDED FROM AD VALOREM
TAXATION WITHIN THAT RESTRICTED AREA, IF THAT WAS DONE, HE ADDED,
THE MUNICIPALITIES WOULD HAVE TO AGREE UNANIMOUSLY TO BE INCLUDED IN
THAT DISTRICT AND BE TAXED, ALSO THIS WOULD HAVE TO GO TO REFERENDUM
AND BE APPROVED BY A MAJORITY, THE ATTORNEY NOTED.
A GREAT AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE VARIOUS
ALTERNATIVES PRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY,
CHAIRMAN LYONS ALSO MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF FUNDING
THIS SYSTEM ON A PARCEL BY PARCEL BASIS.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE FAIREST WAY FOR THE COST TO
BE SHARED WOULD BE ON A SOUTHERN BELL TYPE OF CHARGE. HE THOUGHT
THAT THIS COULD BE BASED UPON PHONE INSTALLATIONS GOING INTO HOMES
AND BUSINESSES, PLUS SOUTHERN BELL COULD PAY THEIR PROPORTIONATE SHARE
FOR THEIR PAY PHONES.
THE CHAIRMAN ADVISED THAT HE HAD COMMUNICATED WITH'THE
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WHO SETS THE RATES, AND IT APPEARED THAT
THEY DID NOT WANT TO GET INVOLVED; THE SAME AS SOUTHERN BELL.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT HE PERSONALLY FAVORED
THE REFERENDUM PROCESS.
WILLIAM KOOLAGE, INTERESTED CITIZEN, STRONGLY FELT THAT
THE FUNDS SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT OF AD VALOREM TAXES AS THIS SYSTEM WOULD
BE CONSIDERED AS ANOTHER FUNCTION OF THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON POINTED OUT THAT MAY 1ST WAS THE
DEADLINE FOR PLACING THE ORDER FOR THE CONSOLES NEEDED FOR THE 911
MAR 111981 Z1 Boox 46 PAGE 21
MAR 111991
.Bo% 46
PAGE
22
SYSTEM. HE
ADDED THAT A DECISION WOULD HAVE TO BE MADE WHETHER
TO
GET ONE MASTER CONSOLE, OR A MASTER CONSOLE PLUS A SMALLER ONE;FOR
THE CITY POLICE WITH THE CAPABILITY OF HAVING THE CALLS FOR THE TOWN
OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES OR SEBASTIAN ADDED TO THE MASTER CONSOLE.
DISCUSSION ENSUED AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE COUNTY
SHOULD TAKE THE STAND THAT IT WILL OBTAIN THE MASTER CONSOLE AND
PROVIDE THE 911 SYSTEM ON A CENTRAL BASIS, AND SOUTHERN BELL COULD
PROGRAM IT ACCORDINGLY; IF OTHERS WANTED TO ENHANCE THE SYSTEM, IT
WOULD BE THEIR BURDEN.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE REITERATED THAT HE HOPED THE PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION COULD AUTHORIZE SOUTHERN BELL TO PROVIDE THE 911
SYSTEM. HE FELT THIS WOULD BE A SERVICE BEING PROVIDED BY SOUTHERN
BELL AND IT SHOULD BE ON THE BILL OF THE PERSON HAVING THE TELEPHONE.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUMMARIZED THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD
FELT THAT THE AD VALOREM TAX APPROACH WAS THE METHOD TO TAKE; THE
COUNTY COULD MAKE THE SERVICE AVAILABLE WITH THE MASTER CONSOLE;
TRY TO MAKE A DECISION BY MAY 1ST REGARDING THE EQUIPMENT TO BE
ORDERED; AND TO ASK THE ATTORNEY TO COME BACK WITH THE SPECIFICS
ON WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE AD VALOREM APPROACH. IN ORDER TO MOVE
ON, THE CHAIRMAN SUGGESTED THAT COMMISSIONER FLETCHER AND COMMIS-
SIONER WODTKE FORM A COMMITTEE TO PURSUE THE IDEA OF GETTING THIS
CHARGE PUT ON THE TELEPHONE BILLS, AND THAT A MEETING CONCERNING THIS
BE SET UP WITH R. DALE PATCHETT.
FINANCE DIRECTOR BARTON ADVISED HE WOULD CHECK TO SEE IF
MONEY IS STILL AVAILABLE FROM THE STATE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE
911 SYSTEM.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING PROCEDURES
IN RE FILING NEW APPLICATIONS
THE HOUR OF 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M. HAVING PASSED, THE DEPUTY
CLERK READ THE FOLLOWING NOTICE WITH PROOF OF PUBLICATION ATTACHED,
TO -WIT:
— 2—
s
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER:
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
n the matter of °^ /
141
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of JE�r •
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered
as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida
for a period of one year nekt preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or
corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver-
tisement for publication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before rrA this, ..2eT a)i of A. D. _
(SEAL)
Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, will hold a public hearing on
March 11, 1981, at 11:00 A.M. in the City
Council Chambers In the Vero Beach City Hall
to consider the adoption of an
Ordinance restricting applications for an
amendment, change or modification of the
boundaries or districts, regulations or
restrictions contained within Appendix A —
Zoning, by restricting filing of new ap-
plications until after the expiration of twelve
(12) months from the filing of a previous ap-
plication for an amendment, change or
modification of the boundaries or districts,
regulations or restrictions contained within
Appendix A — Zoning; and providing for an
effective date.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he may need to insure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which
record includes the testimony In evidence on
which the appeal Is based.
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida
By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Feb. 20,1981.
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT OUR PRESENT ORDINANCE
DOES NOT HAVE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, AND FOR THAT REASON, A 12
MONTH PERIOD BEGINNING FROM THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL FILING HAS BEEN
PUT INTO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
THE CHAIRMAN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHED
TO BE HEARD. THERE WERE NONE.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AGREED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
HEARING.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE 8I-11 AMENDING THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE OF COUNTY ORDINANCES APPENDIX A - ZONING,
SECTION 27 (C).
MAR 111991
23
BOOK 46 PAGE - 23
_I
MAR'11 1991
Boos 46 PAGE 24
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
ORDINANCE NO. 81- 11
AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING APPLICATIONS FOR AN
AMENDMENT, CHANGE OR MODIFICATION OF THE
BOUNDARIES OR DISTRICTS, REGULATIONS OR
RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED WITHIN APPENDIX A -
ZONING, BY RESTRICTING FILING OF NEW APPLICA-
TIONS UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF TWELVE
(12) MONTHS FROM THE FILING OF A PREVIOUS
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OR
MODIFICATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OR DISTRICTS,
REGULATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS CONTAINED WITHIN
APPENDIX A - ZONING; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Indian River County Code of
County Ordinances Appendix A - Zoning, Section 27 Zoning Amendments,
Subsection (c) will be amended to read as follows:
SECTION 27 ZONING AMENDMENTS
(c) Time for Reapplying after Denial. No new application
for an amendment, change or modification of the boundaries or
districts, regulations or restrictions contained in this chapter
shall be permitted to be filed until after the expiration of
twelve (12) months from the filing of a previous application
with the County Planning and Zoning Department, covering
substantially the same lands.
This Ordinance shall take effect as provided for by law.
This Ordinance shall take effect March 16, 1981.
D Crus TnN RE: TREASURE COAST UTILITY SYSTEM
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE BOARD HAS DECIDED TO
HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON MARCH 16TH AT 7:00 P.M. FOR THE PEOPLE
INVOLVED. AT THAT HEARING, HE STATED THAT VARIOUS REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE COUNTY AND THE DER WILL BE PRESENT TO PROVIDE VARIOUS REPORTS
CONCERNING THE SYSTEM AND ITS DEFICIENCIES.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED, AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR WOULD PREPARE THE BACK-UP MATERIAL FOR THE HEARING,
SUBJECT TO THE SCRUTINY OF THE ATTORNEY.
DISCUSSION RE: SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR SCHLITT REZONING
ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT HE APPOINT ANOTHER ATTORNEY
TO ACT AS COUNSEL WHEN THE SCHLITT REZONING IS ON THE AGENDA,
ATTORNEY CALDWELL, AN ASSOCIATE OF ATTORNEY COLLINS, OWNS A SMALL
PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA BUT EVEN THOUGH ATTORNEY
COLLINS HAS RECEIVED NO MONETARY BENEFIT FROM IT, HE WOULD RATHER
HAVE THE BOARD CONSIDER HIS REQUEST.
DiSCUSSION FOLLOWED,AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT ATTORNEY
COLLINS WOULD BE PREPARED TO PAY FOR THE COUNSEL THAT WOULD BE TAKING
HIS PLACE FOR THAT HEARING.
CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT THE BOARD SHOULD ACCEPT ATTORNEY COLLINS'
REQUEST, AND THE BOARD AGREED,
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD
ATTORNEY COLLINS REMINDED THE BOARD THAT THERE WILL BE TWO
HEARINGS HELD THIS YEAR - ONE IN APRIL AND THE OTHER IN AUGUST. HE
ADVISED THAT THREE APPOINTEES SHOULD BE ELECTED BY THE BOARD.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMIS-
SIONER FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ELECTED COMMISSIONER BIRD,
COMMISSIONER WODTKE AND COMMISSIONER FLETCHER TO SERVE ON THE FIRST
SESSION OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD.
B4DK 46 PAGE ?5
25
MAR 111981
MAR 111981 BOOK6 Uc; 2fi s
�t
THE BOARD NEXT DISCUSSED THE PER DIEM, WHICH WOULD BE
APPROXIMATELY $4O A DAY, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD
HAS APPROVED THE PER DIEM FOR THEIR APPOINTEES.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER WODTKE, THAT THE BOARD -APPROVE THE PER DIEM FOR THE
PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON
AND CARRIED 4 TO 1, WITH COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION.
GENERAL DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE PETITIONS, AND IT
WAS NOTED THAT MANY OF THE PETITIONERS ARE HAVING THEIR QUESTIONS
ANSWERED, WHICH MAY HAVE A DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF PETITIONS THAT
WILL BE FILED.
ATTORNEY COLLINS COMMENTED THAT THE APPOINTMENTS FOR THE'
SECOND SESSION OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISAL ADJUSTMENT.BOARD CAN BE
HELD LATER IN THE YEAR.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THEREUPON RECESSED AT
12:15 O'CLOCK P.M. FOR LUNCH AND RECONVENED AT 1:45 O'CLOCK P.M.
WITH THE SAME MEMBERS PRESENT. DEPUTY CLERK VIRGINIA HARGREAVES TOOK
OVER FROM DEPUTY CLERK JANICE CALDWELL FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE
MEETING.
DISCUSSED REQUESTED STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION U.S. I AND VICKERS RD.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON REVIEWED HIS MEMO IN REGARD TO THE
ABOVE REQUESTED INSTALLATION:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: The Honorable Board of DATE: February 10, 1981
County Commissioners
FILE:
SUBJECT: Request For Street Light To Be
Installed At U.S. #1 and Vickers
Road
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES:
County Administrator
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Request has been made by the Breezy Village (MHP) Homeowners As to
Commissioners Fletcher, the County Administrator's Office, and Pat Flood,
Mayor of Sebastian, to install a street light at the above stated intersection.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Per attached report from the County Engineer, this location does not meet
the past County criteria justifying placement of a street light. Vickers
Road is only .33 miles long (must be minimum of 1.5 miles long to justify a
light installation). Furthermore, Vickers Road only serves approximately
60 mobile homes.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Based upon the past policy of the Board of County Commissioners, a street
light is not justified for installation at this location. We, therefore,
do not recommend this installation.
This item will, therefore, have no financial impact upon the budget of
Indian River County.
Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON COMMENTED THAT IN THE PAST WE HAVE
CREATED TAXING DISTRICTS TO HANDLE STREET LIGHTING, AS IN ROCKRIDGE
AND LAURELWOOD SUBDIVISIONS. HE NOTED THAT WEST SIDE RACQUET CLUB
PROPERTY OWNERS MADE A SIMILAR REQUEST AND WERE REFUSED. THE
ADMINISTRATOR EXPLAINED THAT THE PEOPLE IN BREEZY VILLAGE COULD MAKE
THEIR REQUEST DIRECT TO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT, AND ALTHOUGH THEY
WOULD HAVE TO PAY 100% OF THE COST OF THE INSTALLATION, FP&L WOULD
MAR 111981
27
BooK 46 PAGE 27
MAR 111981
aoox
6. PACE
2
REBATE 10% OF THE COST TO THEM EACH YEAR;
THE MONTHLY COSTS
WOULD
BE THE SAME AS IF THE COUNTY HAD MADE THE REQUEST OR ABOUT $5.50-$6.00,
AND THE INSTALLATION COST PROBABLY WOULD BE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF
$100—$120.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER INFORMED THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE
SOME RESIDENTS OF BREEZY VILLAGE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISH TO SPEAK,
AND HE POINTED OUT THAT THE REQUESTED LIGHT DOES NOT DIRECTLY BENEFIT
THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY LIVE OVER A MILE AWAY; THEY ARE CONCERNED
WITH LIGHTING A VERY BUSY INTERSECTION.
.JOSEPH VERDI OF BREEZY VILLAGE SPOKE OF THE NEED TO LIGHT
THIS INTERSECTION BECAUSE OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF RETIRED AND ELDERLY
PEOPLE IN THE MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE AREA AND THE DIFFICULTY•OF
IDENTIFYING THE INTERSECTION AT NIGHT, WHICH CREATES A VERY DANGEROUS
SITUATION ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY. HE FELT THE RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE
TO PAY FOR THIS LIGHT BECAUSE THEY GET HARDLY ANY SERVICES FOR THE
TAXES THEY ARE PAYING NOW. IN ADDITION, HE NOTED THAT THIS INTER-
SECTION IS A SCHOOL BUS STOP, AND HE FELT IT WOULD BE WELL WORTH THE
MINIMAL YEARLY CHARGES AOR ABOUT $60.00) TO SAVE A LIFE. MRS. VERDI
NEXT TOOK THE FLOOR AND SPOKE OF THE DANGERS CREATED BY THE DARKNESS
OF VICKERS ROAD,
IT WAS AGAIN EXPLAINED THAT -THE BOARD.HAS HAD_SIMILAR
REQUESTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DENIED. THIS IS NOT A SITUATION OF SINGLING
OUT AN AREA; IT RELATES TO COUNTY POLICY.
JOHN JONES, ALSO OF BREEZY VILLAGE, NOTED THAT THIS IS THE
FIRST TIME THEY HAVE EVER ASKED THE COUNTY TO DO ANYTHING ALTHOUGH
THEY PAY TAXES AND MAINTAIN THEIR OWN ROADS. HE EMPHASIZED THIS
LIGHT IS NOT ONLY FOR BREEZY VILLAGE BUT FOR THOSE IN THE AREA WHO
HAVE CHILDREN GOING TO SCHOOL EARLY WHEN IT IS STILL DARK. HE ALSO
SPOKE OF THE DANGERS OF OVERSHOOTING THIS TURN IN THE DARK, AND FELT
THAT AT ONE TIME THERE WAS A LIGHT AT THIS CORNER.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED IN REGARD TO SOLVING SOME OF THE PROBLEMS
BY REFLECTOR SIGNS AND BETTER IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AT THIS INTERSECTION,
s � �
AND THE CHAIRMAN FELT WE COULD ASK THE ADMINISTRATOR TO INVESTIGATE
WHAT STEPS WE CAN TAKE TO HELP IDENTIFY VICKERS ROAD AT NIGHT.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER EXPLAINED TO THE RESIDENTS PRESENT
THAT IF THE BOARD SHOULD IGNORE POLICY AND GRANT THEIR REQUEST, WE
WOULD BE FACED WITH AN AVALANCHE OF LIKE REQUESTS, AND IT WAS EMPHASIZED
THAT WE MUST BE CONSISTENT ABOUT WHERE WE PUT LIGHTS AND THAT THEIR
PARTICULAR SITUATION IS NO DIFFERENT THAN SITUATIONS THAT EXIST IN
HUNDREDS OF PLACES IN THE COUNTY,
MR. JONES FELT THE COUNTY SHOULD MAINTAIN THEIR ROADS, AND
THE CHAIRMAN STATED WE WOULD BE GLAD TO IF THEY WOULD PAVE THEM TO
COUNTY STANDARDS,
COMMISSIONER WODTKE COMMENTED THAT MR. JONES HAS SAID THERE
WAS A LIGHT AT THIS LOCATION AT ONE TIME, AND HE WOULD LIKE THIS TO
BE INVESTIGATED BECAUSE IF WE HAD A LIGHT THERE AT ONE TIME AND IT
IS NOW NON-FUNCTIONAL, IT IS POSSIBLE WE MAY HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY,
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED THAT HIS PHILOSOPHY IS THAT
GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT DO FOR INDIVIDUALS WHAT THEY CAN DO FOR THEM-
SELVES AND HE WOULD, THEREFORE, MAKE THE FOLLOWING MOTION.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE STIPULATION THAT HE INVESTIGATE THE MATTER OF
ROAD IDENTIFICATION SIGNS AND SEE IF WE CAN MAKE THE SUBJECT INTER-
SECTION MORE DISTINGUISHABLE AT NIGHT.
MR. VERDI REQUESTED THAT THEY BE SENT AN OFFICIAL LETTER
EXPLAINING THE BOARDS ACTION, AND ADMINISTRATOR NELSON STATED THAT
HE WOULD WRITE SUCH A LETTER,
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE ADMINISTRATOR`S MEMO AS TO THE
RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS ORGANIZATION:
MAR 111981 Boa , 6 PAGE 29
29 ..
MAR 111991 Bow 46 PAGE 30
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
INTER - OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: February 27, 1981 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Public Works Organization
Implementation Procedure
FROM: Neil A. Nelson, REFERENCES: Interim Report, Public Works
County Administrator Kelton & Associates, Inc.
This is in response to a request from the County Commission, at the time
of acceptance of the Kelton & Associates Interim Report, for procedures to
establish the Public Works Department and the reorganization of the Road &
Bridge Department. It is recommended that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
o The facts, needs, and circumstances involved in the background for this
recommendation were furnished to members of the County Commission in the
Kelton & Associates Report dated January, 1981, and were discussed in some
detail at the Board meeting of -January 28, 1981.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The Administration believes the recommendations of the Kelton Public
Works Report should be considered for implementation.
Alternative organizational charts for reorganization of the Road & Bridge
Department to the New Road & Bridge Division are available in the Kelton Report
starting on page 16. The most viable alternative reorganization plan is that
identified and recommended by Mr. Kelton as Chart No. 3-E. Of the other
potential organizational charts, the only possible viable chart would be 3-B.
However, this particular plan shows the sign crew under a separate foreman,
whereas it is anticipated more direct response time to the Road & Bridge
Superintendent requires that this crew be directly under his/her control.
Although the second alternative can readily be used and is a very much upgraded
plan to what is currently in Road & Bridge Department, plan 3-E is more
responsive to the needs of the Division and will provide for more effective
management control.
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
The recommended reorganization ►rill require the following personnel changes:
30
Position
1. Public Works Director
(New Position - 6 months)
2. Foreman (1)
(Promotion from Crew Leader)
3. Crew Leader (1)
(Promotion from Maintenance Worker)
4. Maintenance Worker (1)
(Replacement for New Crew Leader)
5. Maintenance Worker (1)
(Addition to Sign Crew)
FOUR DAY - FORTY HOUR WEEK
Salary & Frincles
$18,750.00
1,577.00
313.00
2,993.00
2,993.00
Total Personnel Costs $26,626.00
The Administration, upon concurrance from the Board, is prepared to implement
a trial of the "four day - forty hour %reek" work schedule. The trial will include
three (3) ditch crews, a Gradeall, a Foreman and a Mechanic. Records will be
kept during the trial to identify productivity and fuel utilization.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Kelton Report be implemented by the establishment
of a Public tiorks Department and the establishment of the position of the Director
of Public Works. Divisions within that department will consist of: Engineering,
Equipment Maintenance, Road & Bridge, Solid 'Waste, and Utilities. It is
further recommended that Chart 3-E be adopted for the staffing of the Road &
Bridge Division. The last recommendation on this report is to change the work
week for the personnel of the ditch crews, heavy equipment operator (Gradeall),
the foreman, and one mechanic of the Equipment Maintenance Division from the
current 8 hour day 5 day week to a 10 hour4 day week, Tuesday through Friday,
as a trial group to possible total implementation of this procedure within
Road & Bridge Division as well as other divisions under the control of the
Director of Public Works.
Anticipated costs of the reorganization are as follows:
1. Equipment:
Two each compact pickup trucks at $5,400.00 = $10,800.00
Two two-way mobile transceivers at $925.00 = 1,850.00
Sub -Total $12,650.00
2. Personnel Requirements: 26,626.00
Total $39,276.00
Personnel costs can be absorbed in the budget for Road & Bridge Divisicn
as a result of attrition during the current fiscal year. Tt1e cost of the
. equipment should be transfexed into the capital account from the Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds.
It is recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the above
recommended implementation plan and direct the Administration to proceed
accordingly.
NAN:ms
Attachments
MAR 111981
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
_ q
`b g� FOR -- I BOOK U PAGE •31
31
L
MAR 111991 ryry
B.nox 46 PAGE J2
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CONFIRMED THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND, IN ADDITION, AN ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINIS-
TRATOR.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BIRD, TO ACCEPT THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR`S RECOMMENDATIONS
AS SET OUT IN HIS MEMO OF FEBRUARY 27, 1981, ESTABLISHING THE POSITION
OF A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND ACCEPTING CHART 3-E OF THE KELTON
REPORT FOR REORGANIZATION OF THE ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT; FUNDING
TO BE AS OUTLINED.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER ASSUMED THAT THE TOTAL PERSONNEL COST
OF $16,626.00 WAS APPROVED IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET, AND ADMINISTRATOR
NELSON EXPLAINED THAT THE PERSONNEL COST CAN BE ABSORBED IN THE ROAD
& BRIDGE BUDGET THIS YEAR BECAUSE ALTHOUGH IN THE BUDGET THEY HAVE.
TO GEAR UP FOR 100%, HISTORICALLY THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FILL
ALL THE POSITIONS AUTHORIZED IN THE ROAD & BRIDGE DEPARTMENT.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED ABOUT THE NEW POSITIONS CREATED, AND
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER NOTED THAT THE STUDY ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO
THE COMMISSION ON THE IMPACT OF CREATION OF A SIGN -MAKING SHOP
STATED IT WOULD NOT IMPACT PERSONNEL.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON EXPLAINED THAT TWO MEN CAN HANDLE THE
SIGN -MAKING, BUT THE SUBSEQUENT STUDY DONE BY KELTON DETERMINED THAT
WITH THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN REGARD TO PUTTING UP SIGNS AND
MAKING INVENTORY, IT WOULD BE HANDLED MUCH MORE EFFECTIVELY BY
HAVING AN ADDITIONAL MAN ON THE SIGN CREW.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE FELT THE PROPOSED YEARLY SALARY FOR
THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (ABOUT $27,000 PLUS FRINGE BENEFITS) WOULD
CAUSE PROBLEMS SINCE HE DID NOT BELIEVE THE ADMINISTRATOR MAKES MORE
THAN THAT HIMSELF.
CHAIRMAN LYONS FELT IT IS ABOUT TIME WE BROUGHT THE
ADMINISTRATOR UP TO WHERE HE BELONGS AND THAT IN ORDER TO GET THE
RIGHT CALIBER PERSON FOR A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, YOU WOULD HAVE TO
PAY ACCORDINGLY. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK CONCURRED.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, AND MR. KELTON EXPLAINED THAT HE WOULD BE
COORDINATING FIVE TO SIX DIVISIONS - UTILITIES - ROAD & BRIDGE -
ENGINEERING - LANDFILL - FUEL - MAINTENANCE - AND BASICALLY ASSUMING
A GOOD DEAL OF THE DETAIL WORK THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS BEEN HANDLING.
AS A RESULT OF THE RECENT CHANGE IN STAFF, THEY FEEL THIS POSITION
SHOULD BE CREATED NOW SO THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR CAN ASSUME THOSE
DUTIES AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK AGREED THERE SHOULD BE BOTH A PUBLIC
WORKS DIRECTOR AND ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE THE DIVISION
OF THOSE DUTIES ARE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT TO REQUIRE TWO PEOPLE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT MORE THAN HALF
OF THE POSITIONS WE HAVE CREATED IN THE LAST YEAR HAVE BEEN DIRECTOR S
POSITIONS. HE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH ADDRESSING THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR NOW, BUT PREFERRED TO LOOK AT THE TOTAL PICTURE AT
BUDGET TIME BEFORE CREATING THE POSITION OF PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR WHICH
DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR POINTED OUT THAT THE POSITION OF ASSISTANT COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED PREVIOUSLY.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED AS TO THE NEED FOR A PUBLIC WORKS
DIRECTOR, WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STRESSING THE
GROWTH OF THE COUNTY, THE EXPANDING COUNTY UTILITY FUNCTION, THE
INCREASE IN SUBDIVISIONS, SITE PLANS, ETC., AND THE POSSIBLE SAVINGS
TO BE EFFECTED IN THE LONG RUN BY HAVING THE PROPER STAFF TO HANDLE
THE WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON CONFIRMED THAT BECAUSE OF THE DYNAMIC
CHANGE THE COUNTY IS FACING, IT IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO KEEP PACE
WITH THE DEMANDS CREATED BY THE REVAMPING OF THE COMMISSION AGENDA
AND THE ADDITIONAL WORK CREATED BY PREPARING FOR A MONTHLY WORKSHOP
MEETING, PLUS THE NUMEROUS OTHER WORKSHOP MEETINGS PRESENTLY SCHEDULED.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED 3 TO 2, WITH COMMISSIONERS WODTKE AND FLETCHER VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
MAR 111981 33 46 PAGE 33
46 PAGE 34
CHAIRMAN LYONS AGAIN BROUGHT UP THE MATTER OF RERATING THE
ADMINISTRATORS SALARY AND RECOMMENDED RAISING IT FROM $29,500 TO
$32,500, WHICH HE NOTED IS STILL BELOW THE AVERAGE FOR THE COUNTIES
SURROUNDING US.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER POINTED OUT THAT THIS ITEM WAS NOT
ON TODAY IS AGENDA AND INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE WOULD VOTE AGAINST
PLACING IT ON THE AGENDA.
CHAIRMAN LYONS STATED THAT HE WOULD PUT THIS MATTER ON THE
AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING, AND NOTED THAT HIS RECOMMENDATION STILL
STANDS.
RESOLUTION 81-17 - APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
ATTORNEY COLLINS EXPLAINED THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS WAS ESTABLISHED SEVERAL YEARS AGO
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, AND ITS FUNCTION IS TO
INTERPRET THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE BOTH ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND
THE COUNTY. MR. CALMES IS UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT AND WHEN MR. HENSICK
RESIGNED, HE WAS REPLACED BY MR. JACOBI, WHOSE POSITION IS ALSO NOW
UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT.
MOTION WAS MADE BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER BIRD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 81-17 REAPPOINTING JOHN CALMES
AND PAUL JACOBI TO A FOUR YEAR TERM ON THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO HAVE FURTHER INFORMATION
ABOUT THIS BOARD AND HOW THE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE. IT WAS EXPLAINED
THAT THIS BOARD WAS SET UP TO HANDLE A VERY NARROW PURPOSE, I.E.,
CONFLICTS THAT MAY ARISE BETWEEN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS AND THE
BUILDERS IN THE TRADE. ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THIS BOARD ONLY
HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE A FEW YEARS, AND THERE HAS BEEN NO METHOD OF
APPOINTMENT OTHER THAN BY THE ENTIRE BOARD.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR SPECIFIC
EXPERTISE WHICH NECESSITATED THE DEVELOPING OF SUCH A BOARD, AND
COMMISSIONER BIRD FELT THE NAME IS MISLEADING SINCE THIS ACTUALLY
IS A CONSTRUCTION APPEALS BOARD. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THIS
HAS BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFUL BOARD AND HAS SAVED A LOT OF PROBLEMS.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE
FUTURE FILLING OF THESE POSITIONS CONFORM MORE TO OUR OTHER POSITION
FILLING PROCEDURE.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. IT WAS VOTED ON AND
CARRIED UNANIMDUSLY.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-17
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that JOHN CALMES and
PAUL JACOBI are hereby appointed each to a four (4) year
term on the Indian River County Board of Adjustments and
Appeals.
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the
11th day of March , 1981.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF
Attest:
Freda Wright,1 r
Term to expire July 19, 1984.
35
Boa 46?AGE 35
MAR 111991 tp 46PACE 36
REPORT ON PROPOSED SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM BY CONSULTING ENGINEER
CHAIRMAN LYONS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE BOARD
LETTERS RECEIVED FROM THE MOORINGS AND MOORINGS OF VERO PROPERTY
OWNERS ASSOCIATION OBJECTING TO A POSSIBLE FIRE SERVICE ASSESSMENT.
THE CHAIRMAN OBJECTED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION USE OF
THE WORD ItCLANDESTINE It IN THIS REGARD.
MOORINGS OF VERO
. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
POST OFFICE BOX 3726 - BEACH STATION
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960
•T Mr. Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Indian River County Board of
County Commissioners
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Rumored "Fire Service Assessment"
Dear Mr. Lyons:
March 11, 1981
It has just come to the attention of our Board of Governors that
the Board of County Commissioners will consider at its meeting this
date the levying of an assessment against all current South Beach resi-
dents which would, in effect, finance the extension of water service to
future residents of that area.
If this rumor is correct, our Board, which represents some 400
property owners in the South Beach now and will eventually represent in
excess of 1,000 such residents, wishes to file this protest against such
action.
Our reasons for filing this protest are basic:
.1. We resent the clandestine nature of the proposition
whereby an assessment of a significant amount is intended to
be levied without adequate notice to the concerned property
owners.
2. As a result of the County Commissioners "failure to
give notice", the taxpayers who we represent, as well as our
Board, are in no position to understand the rationale behind
the tax (or assessment). Had we been given adequate notice
and information, as well as time to study the proposition, we
might well have had no objection to it. However, until we
obtain such information and the opportunity to evaluate the
basis for and fairness of the proposed action, we feel we
must record our strenuous objection.
Accordingly, the Board of Governors of Moorings of Vero 'roperty
Owners Association, speaking on hc,ilf of its membership, r:i;"e; to go on
record as being opposed to any ac —,on by the Board or Count, �;,ra„issioners
on the rumored "Fire Service Assessment" at this time.
Your1,11 very tri l_, ,
Kallman Nashner, President
March 10, 1981
Mr. Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River, County
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Lyons:
We would like to register our opposition to any proposal
which extends water service to the South County area at the
expense of property owners with vested water rights. This
would seem to be under consideration in reading the Supplement
to South Beach, Indian River County Water Systems Analysis,
dated March 5, 1981, prepared by Consultants to the Board,
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc. and Beindorf and Asso-
ciates, Inc., which states in part:
"The Fire Service Assessment could be utilized
with either Impact Alternatives. Doing so would
spread the total project cost over a larger user
ase and allow for lower impact fees for new
development." emphasis added)
The Moorings Development Company entered into its original
contract (hereinafter, "Contract") with the City of Vero Beach
for service to The Moorings Subdivision in 1968. The consider-
ation required of The Moorings Development Company by said Con-
tract was that we pay for the entire cost of the extension and
related system. There is no provision for additional monies to
be paid for services which The Moorings had previously paid for.
Having paid our way initially and since that time, we feel it
would be unfair to have an additional price exacted more than
12 years later. We also note that said Contract addresses the
question of fire hydrants, and presumably fire service in
general. In particular, paragraph 8 provides:
"The City will charge $90.00 per year for each
hydrant constructed under the terms of this
agreement and this charge will be prorated among
the water customers located within 500 feet of
each fire hydrant so installed, as measured
a ong the curbline or street right of way, to
each such customer, and this charge will be added
to the annual January water bill of each such
customer; the City reserves the right to increase
or decrease this charge as may be recommended by
its consulting engineer." (emphasis added)
Furthermore, in 1977, we were compelled to enter into a law
suit against the City of Vero Beach to defend our vested water
rights.
May we additionally point out that the agreement which the
County entered into with the City of Vero Beach on October 22,
1980 (hereinafter, "Agreement") repeatedly states that impact
fees and assessments are applicable only to new (non vested)
property owners. It is, moreover, our contention that to desig-
nate the proposed additional assessment a "fire service assess-
ment" is a distinction without a difference.
-For your edification, we would like to refer
Agreement which is replete with assurances that w
assessed, as has apparently been suggested by the
Paragraph 3, in part, states:
MAR 111981 37
you to said
will not be
consultant:
BooK 46?AGE 37
MAR 111991 BOOK
"All monies collected for costs associated with
engineering and construction of said twenty-four
inch (24") water transmission line and all related
facilities in the South Beach area may be collected
by the County from new water customers non -vested
water customers within the South Beach area, from
Federal and State grants, or that portion of the
County's revenue sharing not based on population or
other factors in the City, such as tax effort, per
capita income, etc. which effect the computation
regarding Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and/or other
sources other than ad valorem taxes or other property
taxes collected on property situated within the City
limits." (emphasis added)
and further,
"If contributions in aid of construction, County
assessments or fees, Federal or State Funds, or
other sources of money received by the County do
not fully fund all costs of such line and related
facilities, the County may impose a County permit
fee, assessment, or other legally permissable
charge to new water customers (non -vested) in the
South Beach area and shall require all such new
customers to pay the said fee or charge, and receive
a connection permit from the County to be presented
to the City before the City will physically connect
any such new customer(s) to'the twenty-four inch
(24") line or the now existing twelve inch (12")
line." (emphasis added)
Paragraph 4, in part, states:
"South Beach parcels of land that have now acquired
the rights to City water under the terms of a pre-
vious City -Moorings agreement of 1968 by having here-
tofore paid to the City both the then applicable
acreage charges and the then applicable tap -on
charges, shall not be required to pay any further
City or County charges(other than a City security
deposit and meter installation charge) to connect
to the twelve inch (12") line." (emphasis added
and further,
"The County will be solely responsible for collecting
its monies from all of the new South Beach water
customers and developments. emphasis added
Paragraph 6, in part, states:
46 PAF 38
"The assumption of the above utility responsibility
may cause the City to incur costs for water supply,
treatment and transmission that the City would not
otherwise have incurred, therefore, the City re-
serves the right to levy an impact charge in addition
to other rates and charges and said impact charge may
apply only to new (non -vested) connections to the
South Beach system outside the City limits." emphasis
added)
In conclusion, based upon the December 18, 1968 Contract
between The Moorings Development Company and the City of Vero
Beach, and the October 22, 1980 Agreement between the County
of Indian River and The City of Vero Beach, we feel such ad-
ditional "fire service assessment" is not permissible. We,
therefore, would like to make it clear that we are in opposition
to any such assessment.
Yours very truly,
THE N(OORING DEV PM dTC� MPANY
i
o ohy A. Hu son
Staff Counse
JOHN ROBBINS, ENGINEER FOR THE JOINT VENTURE, REVIEWED THE
SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS DATED MARCH 5TH AND THE SUPPLEMENT
TO THIS ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE JOINT VENTURE. (COPIES OF THESE
REPORTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK.)
MR. ROBBINS REPORTED THAT HE CONFERRED WITH GEE & JENSEN,
ENGINEERS FOR THE CITY OF VERO BEACH, AND THE CITY IS INSISTING ON A
DESIGN CRITERIA BASED ON 950 GALLONS PER DAY WATER CONSUMPTION PER
LIVING UNIT. THE PROPOSED 24' LINE IS BASED ON PEAK -HOUR FLOW; THE
CONNECTION POINT BEING THE INTERSECTION OF 17TH ST. AND S.R. AlA AND
THEN SOUTH TO THE COUNTY LINE. THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE LINE TO
THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMIT IS $200,340 AND FOR THE AREA WITHIN THE COUNTY
$1,176,000. THESE FIGURES PLUS CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCIES AND
TECHNICAL SERVICES ADD UP TO A TOTAL COST OF $1,787,000. MR. ROBBINS
NOTED THAT THIS COST DOES NOT INCLUDE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS NOTED IN THE
GEE & JENSEN REPORT TO THE CITY, I.E., A 1.5 MILLION GALLON GROUND
STORAGE TANK AND PUMP STATION OR INTEREST COSTS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED IF THE GROUND STORAGE TANK AND PUMP
STATION ARE A NECESSARY PART OF THE INSTALLATION, AND MR. ROBBINS
STATED THAT TO MAKE THIS SYSTEM FUNCTION AND BE ABLE TO PROVIDE PEAK
HOUR FLOWS AND FIRE SERVICE, THEY ARE NECESSARY. MR. ROBBINS
EXPLAINED THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY DID NOT ADDRESS ITSELF TO
THE ADDITIONAL PUMPING STATION OR STORAGE TANK, AND HE,. -THEREFORE,
DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO GO INTO THIS DESIGN. HE FELT SUCH A GROUND
STORAGE TANK WOULD COST SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $270,000 TO $300,000, NOT
INCLUDING LAND.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED REGARDING LOCATION OF THE TANK, AND MR.
ROBBINS STATED IT WOULD BE ON COUNTY LAND BY THE MOORINGS.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK BROUGHT UP THE MATTER OF PROPERTY
OWNERS WITH VESTED WATER RIGHTS WHO ALREADY HAVE FIRE SERVICE, AND
ATTORNEY COLLINS DISCUSSED FIRE PROTECTION AND THE CRITERIA OF 950
GALLONS PER DAY PER LIVING UNIT. HE NOTED WE NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY
THE NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS, THE SPACING OF HYDRANTS, ETC., AND FELT
MAR 111981 39
mu 46 'PAGE 39
MAR 111981
40 PAGE 40
IT DOUBTFUL, UNDER PEAK HOUR CONDITIONS, WHETHER FIRE SERVICE COULD
BE FURNISHED AT PRESENT. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT WOULD ONLY
BE TRUE IF EVERYONE WITH A VESTED INTEREST HAD A TAP.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER WISHED TO DETERMINE THAT THE TOTAL
FIGURE OF $1,787,000 DOES NOT INCLUDE THE GROUND STORAGE TANK,
INTEREST OF FINANCING, ETC., AND MR. ROBBINS CONFIRMED THAT WAS
CORRECT. HE STATED THAT BY THE BOARD'S AUTHORIZATION THEY PREPARED
THE PRELIMINARY REPORT AND BY COMMITTEE MEETING HAVE GONE INTO THE
SUPPLEMENT, WHICH CONTAINS A COMBINATION OF THOUGHTS OF THE ATTORNEY,
THE UTILITY DIRECTOR AND THE CHAIRMAN. THIS DOES NOT OUTLINE ALL
OPTIONS AVAILABLE, BUT WHAT APPEARED TO BE THE MOST FAVORABLE OPTIONS
AVAILABLE IN REGARD TO GETTING THIS FUNDED,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK COMMENTED THAT HE HAS SOME EXPERTISE
IN THIS MATTER AND HE HAD NOT BEEN AWARE THERE WAS A COMMITTEE FORMED
OR THAT THERE WERE COMMITTEE MEETINGS GOING ON. ENGINEER ROBBINS
BELIEVED THAT It COMMITTEE It WAS THE WRONG TERMINOLOGY; ACTUALLY, HE
JUST REQUESTED A GROUP GET TOGETHER TO GIVE HIM SOME DIRECTION.
CHAIRMAN LYONS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAD BEEN GIVEN THE
RESPONSIBILITY SOME TIME AGO TO TRY TO SOLVE THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM,
AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, HE HAS BEEN IN COMMUNICATION WITH MR. ROBBINS.
HE REQUESTED THAT MR, ROBBINS REVIEW THE SUPPLEMENT.
MR. ROBBINS NOTED THAT THEY FIRST BEGAN TO STUDY SUPPLYING
WATER TO THE ENTIRE SOUTH BEACH AREA BACK IN 1978; THEY HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE CITY EVER SINCE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM AND NOW HAVE
GENERATED COSTS, SIZES, ETC., AND ARE BASICALLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE
CITY ENGINEERS. HE NOTED THERE WERE ADDITIONAL REQUESTS MADE BY
DEVELOPERS TO TIE TN UNDER THE OLD MOORINGS AGREEMENT, AND THERE WAS
THE ALTERNATIVE OF AN IMPACT FEE. THE BASIC CRITERIA WAS DEVELOPING
AN OVERALL WAY TO GENERATE FUNDS AND THEN GENERATE METHODOLOGY FOR
DEVELOPERS WHO WANT TO RECEIVE WATER SERVICE NOW.
MR. ROBBINS THEN READ ALTERNATIVE #1 AND DISCUSSED VESTED
INTERESTS. HE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL HOW HE REACHED A FIGURE OF 3,700
40
POTENTIAL CONNECTIONS BY SUBTRACTING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE
AREAS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, ETC., FROM THE EXISTING ZONING DENSITIES ALLOWED.
MR. ROBBINS NOTED THAT DURING PREPARATION OF THEIR REPORT, THEY WERE
ADVISED THE MOORINGS HAD A REZONING WHICH ALLOWED AN INCREASE FROM
650 UNITS TO 1100; THE BASIC ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE MOORINGS WERE
VESTED.
DISCUSSION ENSUED EQUATING TAP SIZES TO UNITS, AND IT WAS
BELIEVED THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CONNECTIONS IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE
MOORINGS AS REZONED,
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT THE MOORINGS HAS A VESTED
RIGHT FOR A NUMBER OF TAPS, AND THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY
TO DELIVER THE WATER; IT IS NOT THE COUNTY'S PROBLEM.
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON SUGGESTED FINDING A WORKSHOP MEETING
DATE SINCE THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED AND TOUGH
DECISIONS TO MAKE.
CHAIRMAN LYONS AGREED THAT WOULD GIVE EVERYONE THE OPPOR-
TUNITY TO STUDY THESE REPORTS, BUT BELIEVED IT IS WELL TO BRING OUT
SOME OF THE BASIC QUESTIONS HERE TODAY. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT IF
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK WOULD LIKE TO TAKE HIS PLACE IN THE MATTER OF
THE FINAL WRAP UP OF THIS PROJECT AND AGREEMENT, HE WOULD BE GLAD TO
ABDICATE HIS POSITION AND MOVE OVER FOR HIM.
OFFER.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK STATED THAT HE WOULD ACCEPT THE
ATTORNEY COLLINS BROUGHT UP THE BASIC ALTERNATIVE PRESENTED
OF THE COUNTY PROVIDING THE WATER TO THE SOUTH BEACH FROM THE COUNTY
SYSTEM, AND WISHED TO HAVE SOME INDICATION OF THE BOARD'S ATTITUDE
ABOUT THAT ALTERNATIVE.
COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THE CITY PRESENTLY HAS AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE MOORINGS FOR SERVICE TO THAT AREA; HE QUESTIONED
WHETHER THE MOORINGS WOULD WANT TO TRANSFER TO THE COUNTY BECAUSE
HE BELIEVED THE COUNTY RATE STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY
HIGHER. HE ALSO HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT ANOTHER TRANSMISSION LINE ACROSS
THE RIVER BECAUSE OF THE AQUATIC PRESERVE AND FELT THE COST FIGURES
MIGHT BE LOW.
MAR 111981
41
Box 46 FAGE 41
MAR 111981 "80% 46 PAGE '42
MR. ROBBINS REPORTED THAT THE DER HAS INDICATED THAT AS
LONG AS WE PROCEED ALONG NORMAL PERMITTING CHANNELS, THEY DID NOT HAVE
ANY PROBLEM WITH A LINE ACROSS THE RIVER FROM OSLO ROAD. HE CONTINUED
THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF $200 PER FOOT FOR SUB -AQUEOUS CAME FROM
A VERY LARGE RECOGNIZED COMPANY THAT DOES THESE TYPE OF CROSSINGS,
AND HE HAS ANOTHER QUOTE OF $150 PER FOOT FROM A FORT LAUDERDALE FIRM.
MR. ROBBINS STATED THAT HE MADE A PRESUMPTION BASED ON THE PRESENT
RATE STRUCTURE OF A BILL OF $25.00 A MONTH BASED ON A USE OF 7,000-
9,000 GALLONS PER MONTH, AND CONSUMPTION IN THE SOUTH BEACH AREA IS
AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE THAN THAT,
CITY COUNCILMAN DAVID GREGG COMMENTED THAT THE PRESS HAD
ASKED IF THE CITY WAS ABDICATING THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IN THE SOUTH
BEACH; HE STATED EMPHATICALLY THAT THE CITY IS NOT; THEY SIGNED AN'
AGREEMENT; AND THEY WILL LIVE BY IT. HE PERSONALLY BELIEVED IF THE
COUNTY WISHED TO SERVE THE SOUTH BEACH ALL INCLUSIVE, THAT THE CITY
WOULD BE WILLING TO TURN OVER ALL THEIR ASSETS AT THEIR COST.
COMMISSIONER BIRD DISCUSSED COST ESTIMATES AND INQUIRED
WHETHER THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE DEVELOPMENT COSTS FROM PUTTING IN THE
PUMPING STATION, ETC., THAT THEY WILL PASS ALONG IN THE FORM OF
IMPACT FEES.
MR. GREGG STATED THAT THE CITY HAS DEVELOPED AN IMPACT FEE
THAT WILL CONSIDER THE ADDED COST OF GETTING ACROSS THE RIVER TO
SERVE THE SOUTH BEACH, BUT THE COST OF THE STORAGE TANK AND THE
PUMPING STATION WILL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS FEE, WHICH WILL AMOUNT
TO APPROXIMATELY $1,000 FOR NON -VESTED BEACH RESIDENCES. HE THEN
DISCUSSED FIRE PROTECTION, STATING THAT HE, AS A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA,
FOUND IT EXTREMELY UPSETTING THAT THERE IS A CONSIDERATION NOW TO
IMPOSE AN IMPACT FEE FOR SOMETHING WHICH EVERYONE WHO IS VESTED
ALREADY THOUGHT THEY HAD.
COMMISSIONER BIRD NOTED THAT IT APPEARS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
AN IMPACT OF $1,000 ON NON -VESTED RESIDENTS FROM THE CITY'S STAND-
POINT AND $800 FROM THE COUNTY'S STANDPOINT.
COUNCILMAN GRd
CLARIFY THIS AND REPORT
GG STATED THAT HE HAS A FIGURE THAT MAY
D THAT THEY HAVE 400 1" TAPS; THEY HAVE CLOSED
IT OFF AND HAVE NO MORE. THESE ARE ACTUAL FIGURES AND THE 400 1" TAPS
TRANSLATE TO 577 LIVING UNITS.
CHAIRMAN LYONS SUGGESTED THAT WE BRING THIS DISCUSSION TO
A CLOSE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING WE WILL LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION AND
GO FROM THERE.
DISCuSSION FO
MEETING DATE, AND IT WA
AS EARLY IN THE AFTERN
DOT SET FOR 2;30, BUT
MEETING WILL BE IN THE
LOWED IN REGARDING TO SETTING A WORKSHOP
AGREED TO HOLD IT ON THURSDAY, MARCH 26TH,
N AS POSSIBLE. THERE IS A MEETING WITH THE
SSIBLY THAT CAN BE MOVED UP EARLIER. THE
OUNTY COURTROOM IN THE 2001 BUILDING.
THE BOARD STUDIED THE ADMINISTRATORS MEMO EXPLAINING THE
BACKGROUND OF THE PROPO!
LOCATED IN THE LM -1 AND
AL RE MINI -WAREHOUSES AND RECOMMENDING THEY BE
M-1 DISTRICTS.
' 43
MAR 111991 aoflK- 46 ���E 43
- -- --- ---
r MAR 111981
TO: Honorable Members
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Neil Nelson
County Administrator
DATE: March 6, 1981
BonK 46 parf 44
FILE:
SUBJECT: Amendment to C-1 Commercial District
REFERENCES: Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting
This amendment proposal was initiated by the County Commission when Mr. Art Wilson
asked for a rezoning of the property of Mr. Dean Bruce from C -1A to M-1 for the
purpose of erecting mini -warehouses. This property is located on the north side
of Cemetery Road between U.S.#1 and Old Dixie Highway.
These gentlemen withdrew the application for the rezoning upon the suggestion of
the County Commissioners who agreed to initiate the proposal to amend the 'above
indicated section of the ordinance. This public hearing on rezoning was held in
September, 1980, and the public hearing on the proposed amendment was held on
December 17, 1980, at which time the issue was referred to the Planning and Zoning
Commission for consideration.
The final discussion on this matter was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission
on Thursday, March 5, 1981, and they recommended against adoption of the proposed
amendment by a 3 - 1 vote.
Tony Soviero, County Attorney, suggested that the provision of the proposed amend-
ment would allow mini -warehouses as a special exception. The special exception
provision would allow the Planning and Zoning Commission considerable discretion
in the determination of the compatibility of use on a site by site basis.
The Planning staff suggested that the C -1A Commercial District allows some more
intensive uses than the LM-1,Light Manufacturing District. The C -1A District
does not specify intended purpose of the district, but contains only special
exceptions. The LM -1 District, however, states the purpose of the district as:
Purpose of district: The LM -1, Light Manufacturing District, is
intended to provide a restricted Light Industrial -District for
enclosed storage, research, development, and manufacture of small
products making the use of processes of manufacturing not likely
to be objectionable to neighboring properties because of noise,
vibration, odors, smoke, air pollution or other physical mani-
festations. The development standards in LM -1 Districts are in-
tended to assure an open, uncrowded and attractive appearance
through limitations on yards, setbacks, coverage and location of
incidental activities. The LM -1 District uses shall bd located
with convenient access to transportation facilities. (Ord. No.
74-27, 1-15-75)
The M-1, Industrial District allows storage under the following provision:
(A) Uses permitted. In this district a building or premises may
be used only for the following purposes:
1) Retail, wholesale, rental, distribution, auction and/or
storage of new or used goods.
Based on these considerations, it is felt mini -warehouses are most appropriately
located in the LM -1 and M-1 Districts.
DEAN BRUCE, OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ON U.S. 1 NORTH OF
CEMETERY ROAD PREVIOUSLY UP FOR REZONING, SPOKE IN FAVOR OF HAVING
MINI -WAREHOUSES ALLOWED AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN C -IA ZONING, NOTING
THAT THEY ARE ONE OF THE LEAST OFFENSIVE THINGS THAT COULD BE PUT IN
THIS ZONING. HE CONTINUED THAT HE FELT THIS WAY EVEN THOUGH HE IS
NOT NOW GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN BUILDING MINI -WAREHOUSES ON THIS
PROPERTY. MR. BRUCE EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NO SEWER AND WATER IN
THE AREA WHERE.THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED, WHICH HE FELT WOULD PROHIBIT
BUILDINGS, BARS, RESTAURANTS, MOTELS, ETC., BUT WOULD NOT POSE A
PROBLEM WITH MINI -WAREHOUSES.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER COMMENTED THAT MR. BRUCE APPARENTLY
IS ASKING THE BOARD TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO MAKE THIS LAND MORE
SALEABLE AND HE DID NOT FEEL THE BOARD CAN CHANGE ZONING JUST FOR THIS
PURPOSE BECSE IF THEY DID, THEY WOULD HAVE A FLOOD OF APPLICANTS.
HE CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH REZONING THE PROPERTY
IF MR. BRUCE ACTUALLY WERE GOING TO BUILD A MINI -WAREHOUSE.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE CONCURRED THAT HE WOULD NOT VOTE FOR
ANY REZONING TO PUT MONEY IN SOMEONE IS POCKET ON A SPECULATIVE BASIS
AND HE ONLY CONSIDERED THIS REQUEST BEFORE SO THAT MR. BRUCE COULD
ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT MINI -WAREHOUSES. HE POINTED OUT THAT TODAY WE
ARE NOT DEALING WITH A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT JUST CONSIDERING
WHETHER WE WISH TO ALLOW MINI -WAREHOUSES AS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION IN
C -IA ZONES ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTY.
THE GENERAL CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD WAS THAT THEY DID NOT
FAVOR AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW MINI -WAREHOUSES IN C -1A AS A
SPECIAL EXCEPTION, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT NO ACTION WAS
REQUIRED SINCE THERE WOULD BE NO ORDINANCE CHANGE REQUIRING A PUBLIC
HEARING.
CHANGE ORDER N0. 17 - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE HERCULES KONTOULAS
RECOMMENDED THAT CHANGE ORDER #17 - ADMINISTRATION BUILDING BE APPROVED.
45
MAR 111981
BOOK 46 PAGE 45
MAR 111991 Bou 46 PAGE 46
HE EXPLAINED THAT THIS INVOLVES AREAS IN THE SCHOOL BOARD WING THAT
NEED MORE TELEPHONE OUTLETS. THESE WERE PRESENTED BY SCHOOL PERSONNEL
BECAUSE OF THEIR REORGANIZATION AND CHANGES IN STAFF.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER QUESTIONED THE ATTORNEY AS TO THE
SCHOOL BOARD REQUESTING CHANGE ORDERS TO A COUNTY BUILDING, AND
ATTORNEY COLLINS FELT THAT IS THE PROCEDURE, BUT THAT WHEN THE SCHOOL
BOARD REQUESTS CHANGE ORDERS THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, IT SHOULD BE
AGREED THAT WE WILL BE PAID BACK.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO WHETHER AT THE TIME THE LEASE
WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD WAS NEGOTIATED AND THE DRAWINGS APPROVED, THEY
WERE AWARE OF THE NUMBER OF OUTLETS THAT WERE GOING TO BE PROVIDED.
MR. KIRSCH OF CONNELL, METCALF & EDDY EXPLAINED THAT•AT
THE TIME THE PLANS WERE COMPLETED, THE SCHOOL BOARD HAD A SET OF PLANS
AND WENT OVER THEM TO PLACE THE OUTLETS. IN THE COMPUTER AREA, HOWEVER,
THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT EQUIPMENT THEY WOULD PURCHASE OR LEASE, AND
IT WAS NECESSARY TO WAIT UNTIL THEY GOT THIS EQUIPMENT.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS SUGGESTED THAT
SINCE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE THAT THE CHANGE ORDER BE APPROVED SUBJECT
TO THE ADMINISTRATOR RECEIVING ASSURANCE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD WILL
RECOMPENSE.
UPON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMIS—
SIONER BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED CHANGE ORDER N0. 17 —
ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, AND AUTHORIZED THE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN SAME
UPON RECEIVING THE SCHOOL BOARDS COMMITMENT TO RECOMPENSE THE
COUNTY FOR THE CHANGES INVOLVED.
l
OWNER
CHANGE ARCHITECT ❑
ORDER CONTRACTOR (]
FIELD ❑
AIA DOCUMENT G701 OTHER
PROJECT: Indian River County
(name. address)AdministratIon Bldg.
TO (Contractor)
f—Reinhold Construction Inc.
P.O, Box 666
Cocoa, F1. 32922
CiiANGE ORDER NUMBER:17 (seventeen)
ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO:
CONTRACT FOR. Additions
J CONTRACT DATE:
You are directed to make the following changes in this Contract:
Cp- 43 (Rev. 1/19/81)
1- provide additional dupl
rex receptacles, telephonAtsooutlets
introtams
telepower" poles in Rooms W-189,1909 and 191.
W-162,185,186,192, and 193.
9363
& Renovatoons
$5,181.92
The proposed changes in the work may result in additional time required
beyond the contract complitiotn date. Additional time will beadded
dedcontoactor
the contract that is directly related to this change order. T
will be paid for the additional required days at the rate of $300.00
(three hundred) per day for fixed overhoad costs. The number of days are
reflected in CP- 43.
Owner request - see attached Change Proposal
S 2,748,000.00
The original Contract Sum was . . . . . . . . • • • . • $ 207,398.18
Net change by previous Change Orders . . . . . . • • • • . • • • . $ 2,955,398.18
The Contract Sum prior to this Change Order was . . . . . • . • • • • • ' ' 5,181.92
The Contract Sum will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by this Change Order . • . $
2,960,580.10
The new Contract Sum including this Change Order will be . • • • • • • • ' ' ( )Days.
The Contract Time will be (increased) (decreased) (unchanged) by
The Date of Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is
Connell Metcalf l; EdJy Reinhold Construction Inc.
ARCHIT ECTJ-3 X 1 iie iWB�— CONTRACTOR
U. "a es El r-33134 cocoa , F --3232-2
Address Address
BY / /" r BY
DATE 312 2 ! ,F1 DATE
Indian River County
OWNER 445 -44th -Ave
Vero Beach,f 23 960
Address
BY
DATE
AIA DOCUMENT G741 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AIAS • O 1970 • THE O%E PAGE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE Of ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE., NW, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
47
Bou 46 PAGE 47
_I
MAR 111991 Boa 46 FACE 48
CHANGE ORDERS 18A, B, C, & D - RE FIRE FALLS, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
MR. KIRSCH OF CONNELL METCALF & EDDY EXPLAINED THAT AT THE
TIME THEY LAID OUT PLANS FOR THE COUNTY, THEY MET WITH THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE MARSHALL AND WENT THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING. MANY OF THE WALLS DESIGNATED AS FIRE WALLS ALREADY ARE
EXISTING FIRE WALLS AND HAVE A TWO-HOUR FIRE RATING, WHICH IS HIGHER
THAN THE ONE-HOUR RATING WE NOW NEED. THESE WALLS WERE ACCEPTABLE TO
THE FIRE MARSHALL. WHEN THE CEILINGS WERE OPENED, IT WAS FOUND THAT
IN MANY CASES, THE EXISTING FIRE WALL DID NOT REACH ALL THE WAY UP TO
THE UNDERSIDE OF THE CEILING STRUCTURE. THIS IS REQUIRED BY CODE,
AND THESE ARE THE THE NEW WALLS THEY HAD TO PUT IN ON THE PLANS DESIG-
NATED AS ONE-HOUR FIRE WALLS; WHERE THERE WERE OPENINGS THAT HAD TO
BE CLOSED, IT WAS INDICATED TO PUT IN NEW FIRE WALLS. ISR. KIRSCH NOTED
THAT NO FIRE WALL CAN BE A PARTIAL FIRE WALL; THE WHOLE WALL HAS TO BE
A FIRE WALL. HE POINTED OUT THAT NO QUESTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE
CONTRACTOR ABOUT FIRE WALLS EITHER WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH THE BUILDING
TOGETHER OR AT THE PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING. THE FIRST TIME ANY
QUESTION CAME UP WAS IN NOVEMBER WHEN THEY WERE INFORMED BY THE CON-
TRACTOR THAT HE DID NOT FIGURE IN HIS BID PRICE THE EXTENSION OF THE
FIRE WALLS. THEY NOW HAVE RECEIVED NEW COSTING FOR THE FIRE WALLS -
$69,697 TO PROVIDE ONE-HOUR FIRE RATED WALLS UP TO THE UNDERSIDE OF
THE STRUCTURE; $33,870 RELATED TO REMOVAL AND RE -INSTALLATION OF ACOUS-
TICAL CEILINGS; $7,500 FOR ELECTRICAL RELOCATION; AND $2,000 FOR
TOUCH-UP WORK. MR. KIRSCH STATED THAT HE COULD NOT ACCEPT THOSE PRICES.
HE CONTINUED THAT ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MANY AREAS THEIR PLANS COVERED,
THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTION OF WHAT THE CONTRACTOR UNDERSTOOD AND WHAT
HE RAN INTO.
QUESTIONS FOLLOWED AS TO WHETHER IT WAS ISR. KIRSCHES' POSITION
THAT THE PLANS CALLED FOR THE ADDITIONAL FIREWALLS. MR, KIRSCH SPREAD
OUT THE PLANS AND POINTED OUT THE EXISTING FIRE WALLS AND WHERE THEY
HAD TO BE EXTENDED AND FELT THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE UNDERSTOOD.
y
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE, HERCULES KONTOULAS,
INFORMED THE BOARD THAT HE CONCURRED WITH MR., KIRSCH BECAUSE BEFORE
BIDDING TOOK PLACE, HE HAD THE CEILINGS IN THE CORRIDORS TORN DOWN
AND THIS CONDITION WAS EXPOSED. HE DID NOTE THAT THERE COULD BE SOME
QUESTION, BECAUSE THE PLASTERED CEILING AREAS WERE NOT TORN OUT.
MR. SNODGRASS OF REINHOLD CONSTRUCTION POINTED OUT THAT
THERE IS A VERY SPECIFIC SYMBOL ON THE PLAN WHICH STANDS FOR NEW DRY-
WALL PETITION FLOOR TO ROOF WITH ONE-HOUR FIRE RATING. HE NOTED THAT
MR. KIRSCH APPARENTLY IS SAYING THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE ASSUMED THAT
SYMBOL WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE WALLS HE NOW IS INCLUDING AS FIREWALLS.
CHAIRMAN LYONS ASKED WHETHER MR. SNODGRASS AS A CONTRACTOR
OR MR. KIRSCH AS AN ARCHITECT WOULD, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF DRAFTING
PRACTICE, ASSUME THAT THE FIRE WALL SYMBOL APPLIES ONLY A CERTAIN
DISTANCE AND GOES NO FURTHER,
MR. KIRSCH STATED THAT IF HE, AS A CONTRACTOR KNOWING THE
CODE, SAW THIS AND HAD A QUESTION, HE WOULD FOLLOW THE CODE AND ADDRESS
THE QUESTION TO THE ARCHITECT.
MR. SNODGRASS EMPHASIZED THAT THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
TO PROVIDE WHAT IS ON THE DRAWINGS AND THAT IS WHAT THEY BID AND CON-
TRACTED FOR. HE STATED THE FIRE WALLS THEY BID ARE VERY CLEARLY SET
OUT, AND THE CONTRACTOR HAD NO H44Y OF KNOWING ABOUT ANY OTHER FIRE WALLS,
ARGUMENT CONTINUED IN THIS VEIN, AND THE BOARD INDICATED THAT
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THEY WOULD ASSUME A RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR
WOULD BE AWARE OF. THEY DOUBTED THAT HE WOULD EXPECT WE WOULD WANT
TO BE PROVIDED WITH HALF A FIRE WALL IN A ROOM AND FELT IF THERE WAS
ANY QUESTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE ASKED,
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO WHEN THE FIRE WALL PROBLEM FIRST
SURFACED, AND .JOSEPH "BUDDY" FOXWORTH, THE CONTRACTORS SUPERINTENDENT,
STATED THAT THIS FIRE WALL THING HAS BEEN COMING UP SINCE DAY ONE; THAT
HE, HIMSELF, POINTED OUT THAT THE FIRE WALL SYSTEM WAS NO GOOD AND
WOULD NOT WORK, AND EVERYONE IGNORED IT.
COMMISSIONER WODTKE ASKED WHY REINHOLD EVEN BID THE JOB IF
THEY KNEW FROM itDAYONE" THAT THE FIRE WALL WAS NO GOOD, AND MR.
49
BQQK 46 PAGE 49
.•;_.sr�:. ,..-�,--'��.�i--�s-�a^ s a.., Tem'�r'T�'.e�-..n::aFsa.�s�..�'�T����uv..�-' ,'.'-',ua6..�wT_'^�'.xaTT :--^�,ic.t�,. :.� ,�._7., n.:u��v c,�.,..�' . "-'p. .-�,��,� .., rti_..s�a y._ircR .n _.
m
MAR 111981 BOOS 46 PAGE 50
SNODGRASS STATED THAT WHEN THEY BID THE JOB, THEY HAD ONLY THE PLANS
TO GO BY; IN NO PLACE, OTHER THAN THAT ONE SYMBOL DOES IT INDICATE
FIRE WALLS, AND AT THAT TIME, THEIR SUPERINTENDENT HAD NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE PLANS.
THE DISPUTE CONTINUED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS ASKED IF THE
ARCHITECT DID INDICATE THE FIRE WALLS ON THE PLANS, WHY WOULD HE APPROVE
ANY CHANGE ORDER FOR THE COUNTY. MR. KIRSCH STATED THAT THERE DEFINITELY
WERE SOME UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS WHICH NEITHER HE NOR THE CONTRACTOR
COULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF.
DISCUSSION THEN FOLLOWED AS TO IDENTIFYING THE UNFORESEEN
CONDITIONS THE ARCHITECT CONSIDERED TO BE VALID CHARGES AND AUTHORIZING
A CHANGE ORDER ON THOSE, IT WAS NOTED THAT WE NEED A DOCUMENT WHICH
WILL SERVE TO MOVE THIS JOB ALONG AND TO DEFINE OUR DIFFERENCES.
MR. SNODGRASS CONTINUED TO CONTEND THAT EVEN IF ALL THE
CEILINGS HAD'BEEN TORN DOWN, THEY STILL WOULD NOT KNOW WHAT THE FIRE
WALLS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT SHOW ON THE PLAN. HE
SUGGESTED THAT TO GET THIS THING MOVING, THE COUNTY GIVE -THEM AN ORDER;
THEY WILL PROTEST IT; THEY WILL DO THE WORK; AND THEN THEY WILL DEMAND
THAT THE FULL MATTER BE ARBITRATED.
THE BOARD CONCURRED, AND ATTORNEY COLLINS NOTED THAT THERE
IS AN ARBITRATION PROCEDURE SET OUT IN THE CONTRACT.
MR. KIRSCH STATED THAT HE WOULD WRITE UP AN ORDER, BREAKING
OUT FROM HIS LIST ANYTHING THEY CONSIDERED UNFORESEEN.
COMMISSIONER BIRD QUESTIONED, IF WE STILL ARE GOING BY THE
SAME SET OF PLANS THAT THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT UNDERSTAND BEFORE, HOW
CAN WE EXPECT HIM TO UNDERSTAND THEM NOW WITH THE NEW CHANGE ORDER,
AND COMMISSIONER WODTKE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT BEING ASSURED THAT
THE FIRE WALLS WILL BE TOTALLY BUILT AND NOT HAVING THE CONTRACTOR
COME BACK A MONTH OR SO FROM NOW STILL SAYING HE FEELS SOME WALLS WERE
NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN, AND WE STILL HAVE ONLY HALF OF THE
FIRE WALLS BUILT.
01
� � r
MR. SNODGRASS STATED THAT THEY WILL FINISH THE JOB; THEY
ARE OBLIGATED BY THEIR CONTRACT TO DO SO. IF THE BOARD ORDERS THEM
TO DO THE ADDITIONAL WORK AND REFUSES TO ADJUST THE CONTRACT, THEY
WILL ONLY DO THE WORK UNDER PROTEST AND THEN DEMAND AN ARBITRATION.
MR, KIRSCH EMPHASIZED THAT HE WILL GIVE THEM A LIST OF
WHAT HE FEELS IS REASONABLE. HE NOTED THAT ALL HE WANTS IS A ONE-
HOUR FIRE RATED WALL TO BE BUILT BY THE PLANS AND CONTINUED THAT
EVERY FIREWALL HAS A NUMBER AND EVERY NUMBER IS LINED OUT WITH A
DESCRIPTION. HE ESTIMATED IT WOULD TAKE HIM ABOUT A WEEK TO GET THIS
INFORMATION COMPILED AND READY FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER.
AFTER FURTHER DISCUSSION, IT WAS AGREED TO CALL A SPECIAL
MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 18TH, AT 7:00 P.M. IN ROOM 202
OF THE 2001 BUILDING TO REVIEW THE CHANGE ORDERS DISCUSSED.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL - QUEENS WAY SUBDIVISION
ADMINISTRATOR NELSON RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY
PLAT OF QUEENS WAY SUBDIVISION AS SET OUT IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO:
51
MAR 111981 46 uu 51
TO: Board of County CommissioncQATE: 3-4-81
FROM: Neil A. Nelson
County Administrator
BOOK 46 PAG E 5�
FILE:
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat Approval
of Queens Way S/D.
REFERENCES:
Description and Conditions
Carter Associates, Inc. has requested preliminary plat
approval of Queens Way Subdivision. The T.R.C. met on this
subdivision January 6, 1981 and unanimously recommended approval
with the following stipulations:
1. That the easements, rights of way, road maintenance,
and drainage facilities maintenance would remain
with the developer and/or the property owners
association as private.
2. An agent for the developer will meet with the County
Engineer to further define and discuss the road
configuration and layout. The County Engineer
has met with the agent and has reviewed the plat
and in his memo to the County Administrator dated
2-24-81 recommended preliminary plat approval.
Alternatives and Analysis
The developers have met all requirements for preliminary
plat approval.
Recommendation
That the Board approve the preliminary plat of Queens Way
Subdivision.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY GRANTED TENTATIVE APPROVAL OF QUEENS
WAY SUBDIVISION.
52
SALE AND REMOVAL OF VACATED DWELLING UNITS AT ROAD & BRIDGE COMPLEX
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THE ABOVE BUILDINGS ARE SET OUT
IN THE FOLLOWING MEMO:
TO: Honorable Board of LATE: March 2, 1981 FILE:
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Sale and Removal or Demolition
of 2 Existing Single Residences
Presently on Road & Bridge Div.
Complex Site - 4625 41st Street
THRU: Neil A. Nelson, County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.w REFERENCES:
County Engineer
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Presently, two dilapidated single family wood frame residences exist on the
above subject site. Inspection of these structures reveal that they are not
usable not, economically restorable. The buildings occupy a site which could
be used for the temporary location of the Soil Conservation Service mobile
office scheduled for arrival in mid - March 1981. This office trailer requires
a septic tank connection. An existing septic tank serves these buildings which
the Health Department does not object to us using for the office trailer.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
To accomodate the Soil Conservation Service mobile office and to rid the
County of any future liability and cost associated with the two deteriorated
frame buildings, the following is suggested:
1. Advertise to sell the 2 existing frame buildings in an "as is" condition
with relocation to another site being the responsibility of the purchaser.
2. If no bids are received for the purchase of the structures, instruct the
Road and Bridge Division staff to demolish and remove the structures, at
the same time, preserving the integrity of the existing septic tanks if
possible.
3. Once removal of the buildings is accomplished by either (1) or (2) above,
prepare the site to accomodate the Soil Conservation Service mobile office
trailer, utilizing the existing septic tank if possible.
4. If -the existing septic tank is destroyed or unusable, reconstruct, repair,
or replace the septic tank as required.
53
MAR 111991
d
BOOK 46 PACE 53
MAR 111981
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
I
Boox 46 PACE 54
Based upon the above analysis, the following is recommended:
1. Approve the advertisement for bids to sell the existing 2 frame buildings
including removal by the intended purchaser.
2. If no bids are received, approve demolition and removal of the existing
structures.
3. Approve temporary placement of the Soil Conservation Service mobile office
trailer at the subject site utilizing the existing septic tank and/or a
new tank if needed at a cost of approximately $700.00 to be installed by
the County.
Funding to be from account # 004-214-541-34.61, Road & Bridge Department.
Recommend placing this item on the agenda of the regular scheduled March
11, 1981 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER CONCURRED THAT THE BUILDINGS HAVE NO
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY AND ARE NOT USABLE, BUT HE FELT THEY DO HAVE
SOME USABLE LUMBER. HE SUGGESTED THAT THEY BE ADVERTISED NOT "AS IS°
BUT FOR SALVAGE MATERIAL AND THAT THE ATTORNEY DRAW UP A DISCLAIMER
FOR ANYONE GOING IN THERE TO TAKE OUT WHAT THEY WANT.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWED AS TO THE DISADVANTAGES OF HAVING A
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS IN AND OUT OF THESE BUILDINGS, AND IT WAS FELT
THEY SHOULD EITHER BE REMOVED OR DEMOLISHED.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WODTKE, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY AUTHORIZED'THE ADMINISTRATOR TO ADVERTISE
FOR EITHER DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF THE SUBJECT DWELLINGS.
L)ISCUSSION RE POSSIBLE CLOSING OF WINTER BEACH TRANSFER STATION
THE BOARD STUDIED THE FOLLOWING MEMO RECOMMENDING TEMPORARY
CLOSING OF THE WINTER BEACH TRANSFER STATION:
9E
TO: Board of County CommissionGATE: 3-3-81
FROM: Neil A. Nelson
County Administrator
F1 LE:
SUBJECT: Winter Beach Transfer
Station
REFERENCES:
Description and Conditions
Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. in the Solid
Waste Management Plan of January 1978, recommended that
the County consider the closing of the Winter Beach Station.
Based upon this a survey of this station was conducted. The
results of this are as follows:
February 4, 1981 - no refuse
" 5, - no refuse '
" 6, - 3150 lbs.
7, " - 2920 "
8, " - no refuse
9, - 8,490 lbs.
Total six day survey - 14,560 lbs. = $65.52 total revenue
for this period.
Cost to service - labor & fuel - approximately $83.00
same period.
Recommendations
Because of the maximum use of this station by residents
of this area and the cost of labor and equipment to service
-same, I recommend this station be closed until the demand
increases.
4-11. �'c - '
eil Nelson, County A inistrator
IN DISCUSSION, IT WAS GENERALLY AGREED THAT SIX DAYS WAS
A VERY SHORT SURVEY TIME AND THAT TO DISCONTINUE USE OF THIS STATION
WOULD CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN BENEFITS. TO ALLEVIATE COSTS, IT
WAS SUGGESTED THAT PICKUPS BE MADE LESS FREQUENTLY.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER FLETCHER, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
SCURLOCK, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DIRECTED THE ADMINISTRATOR TO LEAVE
THE WINTER BEACH COLLECTOR STATION OPEN.
55
MAR 111981
BOOK 46 PAGE 55
r
MAR 111991 8Pw 46 PACE 56
STATE AID AGREEMENT FOR COUNTY LIBRARY
THE BOARD REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING MEMOS EXPLAINING THE
STATUS OF STATE FUNDING FOR THE LIBRARY:
TO: The Honorable Board of
County Commissioners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
DATE: March 5., 1981 FILE:
SUBJECT: Indian River County Library
State Aid Agreement
REFERENCES:
Secretary of State, George Firestone, has informed us that Indian River
County's application for 1981 State Aid Library Funds has been approved.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Florida Statutes provide for State assistance to counties operating
public library systems, under certain conditions.
Conditions under which the library must operate in exchange for receipt
of these grant funds relate to the existence of a "free Public Library" and
access to financial records when an audit review is deemed necessary by the
Florida Division of Library Services. The formula provided under section
257.17-19 of Florida Statutes allows for State aid of up to $.25 for each
dollar of local expenditure for library services during the preceding fiscal
year. However, due to less than full funding in the State budget, it is
necessary in this fiscal year, as it has been in past fiscal years, for the
State to prorate the reimbursement among the fifty-four eligible counties.
We have been advised that Indian River County's prorata share for fiscal year
1980-81 is $12,057.00. This figure represents 43.95;' of the amount for which
Indian River County qualified under the State formula.
The Secretary of State's Office has requested that the County execute the
"State Aid to Libraries Agreement", returning appropriate copies to the
Secretary's office. Upon receipt of the executed agreement the State will mail
a check for approximately 50% of the eligible funds, with the balance of the
funds expected for payment on or about July 1, 1981.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
The Administration recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
agreement with the State of Florida and authorize the Chairman's signature.
Revenues were anticipated in the current budget from this source. Failure to
receive these funds, due to not executing the requested agreement, will result
in a revenue shortfall.
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM �e
FOR ei l'SZ� Nel son, County dmini strator
BY r �s
PAGE 1 of 1
56
TO: Honorable Members of the DATE: March 5, 1981
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Neil A. Nelson,
County Administrator
FILE:
SUBJECT: State Aid to Libraries
REFERENCES: Secretary of State George
Firestone's letter dated
February 6, 1981
We are in receipt of above referenced letter addressed to Chairman Lyons,
requesting the Board of County Commissioners to support the Secretary's budget
request for "full funding" of the State Aid to Libraries law.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Florida Statutes Section 257.17-19 provide for State funding to county
libraries under a formula which allows $.25 for each $1.00 of local expenditure.
Fifty-four counties presently qualify for the approximate $3.75 million which
has been appropriated by the Legislature. This appropriation allows for a
prorated distribution which represents approximately 43.95% of the amount for
which the fifty-four eligible counties qualified. For fiscal year 1979-80, the
proration was 42.87%.
Secretary Firestone has submitted a legislative budget request for FY 1981-82
of $10,048,983; an amount necessary to allow funding to the counties at the level
authorized by the statutes. He has requested that we communicate with our
legislative delegation indicating support of the budget request.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
In fiscal year 1980-81, Indian River County will receive $12,067 under the
"aid to libraries" program. Under Secretary Firestone's budget request for FY
1981-82. it has been estimated we will receive $30,325. While this difference
of $18,000 is not substantial in terms of our total budget, it would help offset
some of our current and. anticipated cost increases; particularly those which
-are the result of "state mandates".
Based upon the above review and discussion, the Administration recommends
the Board of County Commissioners direct the preparation of appropriate
communications with our delegation with copies to Secretary Firestone and SACC,
and authorize the Chairman's signature.
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
FOR '� �®
NeiA�*A.
�soou4nty-<-ministratTr
BY
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
WODTKE, BY A 4 TO I VOTE, COMMISSIONER FLETCHER VOTING IN OPPOSITION,
THE BOARD APPROVED THE AGREEMENT FOR STATE AID TO LIBRARIES AND
AUTHORIZED THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRMAN.
57
MAR 111981
BOOK 46 PACE 57
MAR 111991
STATE AID TO LIBRARIES
Agreement between
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
DIVISION OF LIBRARY SERVICES
and the
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
of
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
This Agreement, made and entered into this
BQOK 46 PvE 58
lith day of
March , 1981, by and between the State of Florida,
Department of State, Division of Library Services, hereinafter referred
to as the DIVISION, and the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the DIVISION is authorized pursuant to Sections 257.17,
257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes, to administer operating, equalization,
and establishment grants for public library service; and,
WHEREAS, funds have been appropriated to the DIVISION under Sections
257.17, 257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has made application and certified eligibility
for receipt of a grant authorized under 257.17, Florida Statutes; and,
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has centrally expended for the operation of public
library service during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1979, the
amount of $ 109,827 , exclusive of federal and state
grants;
NOW THEREFORE, WITNESSETH THAT the parties hereto mutually agree, in
execution of the Agreement, as follows:
The COUNTY agrees to expend grant funds awarded pursuant to this
80 - Al
Agreement in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Chapter
257, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 16-2, Florida Administrative Code,
relating to free public library service, and to provide access to
financial records when an audit review is deemed necessary by the
DIVISION.
II
The DIVISION, for and in consideration of the COUNTY performance
hereinunder, awards an operating grant in the amount of twelve thousand
and sixty-seven
dollars
($ 12, 067 ), to be released in quarterly allotments, in accordance
with the schedule set forth in ATTACHMENT A.
IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have agreed and executed
the Agreement the date and year first above written.
ATTEST:
Clerk of the.Circuit C urt
X -M George Firestone
Secretary of State
State of Florida
rs
BQOK 46 f:�GE 59
MAR 111981
October 1, 1980
January 1, 1981
April 1, 1981
July 1, 1981
ATTACHMENT A
Quarterly Allotments
$ 3,016.75
$ 3,016.75
BOOK 46 PAGE 60
Payments
$ 6,034
$ 6,033
The first payment will be made on receipt of the signed contract.
The third and fourth quarterly allotments will be processed for payment
in April, 1981.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER DISCUSSED "STATE MANDATES" AND
REPORTED THAT HE HAD BEEN INFORMED THE ONLY MANDATE THE LIBRARY
BOARD WAS AWARE OF WAS THAT THE LIBRARY MUST BE A "FREE" LIBRARY.
DISCUSSION CONTINUED REGARDING OBTAINING FULL FUNDING, AND COMMIS-
SIONER SCURLOCK NOTED THAT BY ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT, IF WE
SHOULD WANT TO INITIATE CHANGES AT THE LIBRARY; WE WOULD NOT BE
ABLE TO ENTER INTO A FEE STRUCTURE. THE CHAIRMAN STATED THAT HE
WAS TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THIS IN ANY EVENT. COMMISSIONER FLETCHER
NOTED THAT THE LIBRARY BOARD BROUGHT UP THE POSSIBILITY OF GOING
TO A TAXING DISTRICT TO SUPPORT THE LIBRARY.
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BIRD, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
FLETCHER, THE BOARD UNANIMOUSLY DIRECTED THE PREPARATION OF APPRO-
PRIATE COMMUNICATIONS WITH OUR DELEGATION IN REGARD TO SUPPORTING
SECRETARY FIRESTONE'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR "FULL FUNDING" OF STATE
AID TO LIBRARIES LAW.
DISCUSSION RE ADDITIONAL ZONING INSPECTOR
CHAIRMAN LYONS NOTED THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR HAS DISCUSSED
WITH EACH COMMISSIONER HIS REASONS FOR THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:
61
BOOK 46 PACE 61
MAR 111991 Boor 46 PAGE 62
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 2, 1981 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Zoning Inspector Addition
FROM: Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: Planning & Zoning Director
County Administrator Memorandum Attached
The Planning & Zoning Director
addition of a Zoning Inspector to
Zoning Department. This request w
81 budget process.
DESCRIPTIONS AND CONDITIONS
The Zoning Division presently
and 2 Zoning Inspectors. Present
make it impossible to adequately
this limited staff compliment. B
Department are funded from the Co
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
has renewed an earlier request for the
the Zoning Division of the Planning &
as originally made as part of the 1980-
authorized three positions, a Zoning Supervisor
work load requirements and anticipated increases
carry out the responsibilities assigned to
oth the Planning & Zoning Divisions of the
unty wide municipal service taxing unit.
Based upon the work load discussion contained in the attached memorandum
from Planning & Zoning Director Rever, the Administration feels that it is
appropriate at this time to authorize the addition of one Zoning Inspector
position for the Zoning Division. We believe this addition will assist the
Planning & Zoning arms of County Government in maintaining and protecting
the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed in Indian River County.
Failure to create the additional position at this time will result in a
continuing backlog of Zoning violation inspections and a possible deterioration
in evaluation of Zoning requests.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Estimated cost to create this position for the balance of the current fiscal.
year is approximately $10,000.00. Funds are available within the MSTU Contingency
Account and can be tra.nsfered to the appropriate salary account for this purpose.
It is recommended the Board of County Commissioners approve the creation of
one additional Zoning Inspector position for the balance of the current fiscal
year at an estimated cost of $10,000.00. It is further recommended the Board
authorize transfer from the MSTU Contingency Account to the Zoning Division
Salary Account for this purpose.
Should there be any questions regarding this matter or should any additional
information be desired please advise.
NAN:ms
Attachment
r � �
ON MOTION BY COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER
BIRD, THE BOARD BY A 3 TO 2 VOTE APPROVED THE CREATION OF ONE ADDI-
TIONAL ZONING INSPECTOR POSITION AS RECOMMENDED IN THE ADMINISTRATOR'S
MEMO OF MARCH 2ND, WITH COMMISSIONERS FLETCHER AND WODTKE VOTING IN
OPPOSITION.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
CHAIRMAN LYONS ANNOUNCED THAT THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS
OF THE NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT WOULD CONVENE IMMEDIATELY AFTER
ADJOURNMENT OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING.
THE SEVERAL BILLS AND ACCOUNTS AGAINST THE COUNTY, HAVING
BEEN AUDITED, WERE EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE CORRECT, WERE APPROVED
AND WARRANTS ISSUED IN SETTLEMENT OF SAME AS FOLLOWS: TREASURY FUND
NOS. 69605 - 69816 INCLUSIVE. SUCH BILLS AND ACCOUNTS BEING ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE WARRANTS SO ISSUED
FROM THE RESPECTIVE BONDS BEING LISTED IN THE SUPPLEMENTAL MINUTE
BOOK AS PROVIDED BY THE RULES OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR, REFERENCE
TO SUCH RECORD AND LIST SO RECORDED BEING MADE A PART OF THESE
MINUTES.
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, ON MOTION MADE, SECONDED
AND CARRIED, THE BOARD ADJOURNED AT 6:01 O'CLOCK P.M.
ATTEST:
CLERK
MAR 111981
63
Boa 46 PAGE 63