HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/10/1982Wednesday, March 10, 1982
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, March 10, 1982, at 8:55 o'clock A.M. Present
were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Alfred Grover Fletcher,
Vice Chairman; Dick Bird; Patrick B. Lyons; and William C.
Wodtke, Jr. Also present were David L. Greene, Assistant
County Administrator; L. S. "Tommy" Thomas,
Intergovernmental Coordinator; Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to
the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves
and Janice Caldwell, Deputy Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
February 2, 1982.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 2, 1982, as
written.
PUBLIC HEARING - UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIER
The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
MAR 10 1982 UOK J9 PAGE 102
MAR 101992
VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
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 daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a . nt1t.CQ
in the matter of "' 1� A21Q0
16 ,_ _30111111111111 11111111
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues of `-1iQR.. 3 _ 19 S a
Court, was pub -
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, fora period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; 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
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. ct
Sworn to and subscribed bet a me 's day of A.D. 19 'A D
0
(Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Co&d, Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
NOTICE
NOTICE IS HER EBY GIVEN that the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian. River
County, Florida will hold a public hearing for
comments concerning the designation of a
portion of the Barrier Island in Indian River
County as " "Undeveloped Coastal Barrier"
by the Department of Interior. This'
designation will affect the availability of Flood
Insurance for the designated property. '
All interested parties shalt have the op-
portunity to be heard by the Board in the
County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building located at 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday,
March 10, 1982 at 9 00 A.M.
Copies of the maps showing the proposed
undeveloped Coastal Barriers will be available
for public inspection in the Planning and
Zoning Department located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida.
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 verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based.
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida
By: Doug C. Scurlock Jr.,
Chairman
March 3,1982
Art Challacombe, Senior Planner, reviewed the following
memorandum dated March 4, 1982:
TO: The honorable Board of
County Commissioners
DATE: March 4, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
UNDEVELOPED COASTAL BARRIER
FROM: David L. Greene REFERENCES:
Assistant Administrator
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On February 10, 1982 the County Commission approved a public
hearing for March 10, 1982 in order to adopt formal comments
concerning the Undeveloped Coastal Barriers propoted by the
Department of the Interior. Through media coverage the staff
has attempted to inform County residents as to which areas are
proposed as Undeveloped Coastal Barriers and the implications
of the proposals. The public had opportunity to discuss with
and question Federal officials in a public meeting sponsored
by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council -on February 24,
1932 in the St. Lucie County Civic Center.
ANALYSIS:
The major effect of an area being designated as an Undeveloped
Coastal Barrier is that Federal Flood Insurance for new con-
struction or substantial improvement to existing structures
will not be available after October 1, 1983. Structures which
are insurable prior to October 1, 1983 will remain eligible for
Federal Flood Insurance, however, if the structure is damaged
to a point beyond 50 percent of its value, the term "sub-
stantial improvement" will apply and Federal Flood Insurance
will not be renewed.
Prohibition of development is not the intent of the proposal.
Lending institutions which use Federal money will be allowed
to finance construction in these areas even if Federal Flood
Insurance is not available. The choice of assuming the risk
is placed entirely upon the management of the individual lend-
ing institutions.
The County is being requested by the Department of the Interior,
to make comments concerning the proposed Undeveloped Coastal
Barrier designations.. The areas within Indian River County
which are involved include:
1. From approximately the northern 1/3 of Johns Island
to the Sebastian State Recreation area, except for
Summer Place Subdivision and Wabasso Beach Park.
2. From the St. Lucie County Line, northward approxi-
mately 1750 feet.
When the comment period expires (March 22, 1982) all materials
and.information received by the Department of Interior will be
compiled and presented to the United States Congress in August
of 1982. This will begin a second review period to determine
if Congress and the Department of Interior understand the data
which was presented. October 15, 1982 will be the final cut-
off date for comment concerning the proposed designations.
MAR 101982
C
NOK ,TME 10,14:a
MAR 101982
NOK -49 PAA 105,
Federal officials are aware that the maps which delineate the
Undeveloped Coastal Barriers are, in some cases, out dated.
On March 15, 1982 an aerial photograph of the -United States
Coastline from Maine to Texas will be taken. This will allow
the Department of Interior to further document developed or
undeveloped areas and also to confirm any comments received
which concern the extent of development.
The criteria for considering an area developed is basically,
if there is greater than one unit per five acres and a full
compliment of infrastructure. A full compliment of infra-
structure requires that there be vehicle access to each lot
or building site plus reasonable availability of some combin-
ation of utilities and services such as a water supply, a sewer-
age system, and electrical service required to support develop-
ment. Ability to use on site wells and/or septic system on
each lot or building site, when legally authorized, will consti-
tute water supply and sewage infrastructure. The presence of a
single road, or even a through highway, plus associated electric
transmission and waterlines in this highway corridor (on a
Coastal Barrier) does not constitute the necessary full comple-
ment of infrastructure necessary to support development.
Commitment or legal arrangements necessary for, and leading
toward, construction of either structures or infrastructure will
not be considered relevant to the development status of Coastal
Barriers except to the degree they are actually reflected in
the existance of structures or infrastructure on the Coastal
Barrier.
Within the proposed Undeveloped Coastal Barrier in Indian River
County there are several areas which meet or exceed the criteria
established in order to be considered developed. These areas
are:
1. Ambersand Subdivision - approximately 48 acres divided
into 84 lots with + existing structures. Development
density is approximately .39 units/acre. Location is
Section 33, Township 30S, Range 39E, at the northern
end of the designated area.
2. Riverside Estates Subdivision - Approximately 5.82
acres divided into 22 lots with three existing single-
family residences. Development density is approxi-
mately 1.94 units/acre. Location is Section 36;
Towrlship 31S, Range 39E, near the southern end of the
designated area.
3. A portion of Johns Island Subdivision - Approximately
z65 acres with 117 single family residences. Develop-
ment density is approximately .44 units/acre. Location
is Section 6, Township 325, Range 40E and Section 1,
Township 32S, Range 39E, forming the southern boundary
of the designated area.
4. White Surf Subdivision - Approximately 1.77 acres
divided into three lots with one single family resi-
dence. Location is Section 34, Township 33S, Range
40E, near the St. Lucie County Line.
There are no other areas in the proposed Undeveloped Coastal
Barriers within Indian River County which meet. the criteria to
be considered developed. The designation of other undeveloped
areas not included in the proposals should be considered.
These areas include:
1. Northward from Round Island to approximately the
southern boundary of the Moorings. Much of this area
would not meet the criteria to be considered developed.
2. Brevard County's Coastal Barrier, which is immediately
adjacent to the North, is not proposed as an Undeveloped
Coastal Barrier. Development in the southern -portions
of Brevard County is minimal and may not meet the
criteria to be considered developed.
The County should encourage the Department of the Interior to
further study these areas and ammend the proposals as appropriate.
Additionally, several errors were made in the information summary
developed by the Department of the Interior. These include:
1. Section 7 reads 4,060 total acres and staff's 'calcu-
lations
calcu-
1 ti ns indicate 4,167 total acres.
2. Section 8 reads 3.1 Beach length (miles) and staff's
calculations indicate approximately 8.75 miles.
3. Section 9 indicated no publicly owned land exists,
however, Ambersand Beach Park is 3.2 acres and owned
by the County.
4. Section 12 indicates Jungle Trail as a paved road.
RECO'. DIENDATION :
The staff recommends that the information presented herein, and
public comments be forwarded to the Interior Department for
consideration.
Mr. Challacombe advised the Board that he recently
attended the workshop presented by the Department of
Interior concerning the undeveloped Barrier Island and the
Federal Flood Insurance. With the criteria and definitions
imposed on the County the Department of Interior, the burden
of proof was on the County to show that the barrier island
was developed. He pointed out that the maps used to
determine the undeveloped coastal barriers are outdated and
there are many other inconsistencies that were used as
criteria. Mr. Challacombe then mentioned various attorneys
who have raised objections to this matter, on behalf of
their clients, as well as objections from the Town of Orchid
and from the Vero Beach Board of Realtors. He added that
the Department of Interior did not consider the
MAR 101982 5 BOOK 49 PAE 106
1
MAR 10 1982 am 19 -
07
Comprehensive Land Use Plan, as they were not overly
convinced it was relevant criteria.
Lengthy discussion ensued.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that when the map is
adopted, it would be used for purposes other than just to
indicate undeveloped areas; one example would be in case of
a declared hurricane disaster.
Discussion followed, and it was determined that
agricultural areas were not specifically addressed in the
criteria.
The Chairman asked if there was any one present who
wished to be heard.
Michael O'Haire, attorney, came before the Board on
behalf of a number of people on *the Barrier Island. He
commented that the government has stated banks cannot lend
money unless the property owner has federal flood insurance.
Now they are putting the risk back on the property owner -
if you cannot get flood insurance, you cannot get a
mortgage. Having required it, the government is not going
to let people have flood insurance any more. Attornev
O'Haire reported that he had fought hard and long not to
encourage development on the Barrier Island, but he felt
this had gone too far. He advised that the maps do not
reflect much of what is on the ground; the bridge in Wabasso
is not even shown and the north line on their map cuts right
through John's Island. Attorney O'Haire stated that their
only hope would be to point out to the Department of
Interior that their maps are in error. He noted that our
barrier island is a vast and substantial land mass, not a
sand bar, and whole sections of land have been devoted to
citrus in the northern part of the barrier island. Attorney
O'Haire stated that there is another area in the criteria
that states if activities of man have changed the nature of
the island, possibly it would not be considered a barrier
island. He noted it was interesting that the City of Vero
Beach and ,the Town of Indian River Shores were having a
water dispute at this time. Attorney O'Haire commented that
the density classifications on the barrier island represent
the lowest densities of almost any area in the northeast
part of the country, and the Department of Interior did not
consider local residents or development in formulating the
maps.
The effect of what the Department of Interior is doing
to the citrus people is mind-boggling, Attorney O'Haire
noted, and they are taking away from Indian River'County an
asset that it would otherwise have - the tax base. If this
land is included in their map, Attorney O'Haire continued,
it would never be developed. He added that it takes away
from the County any flexibility or planning ability; also if
the map is adopted as proposed, this County will have
nothing more to say with what happens on the barrier island.
Attorney O'Haire reported that he submitted a resolution to
the County Attorney for the Department of Interior. He felt
they had formulated their maps without local consideration
and have put the burden of proof on the County. Attorney
O'Haire urged the Board to consider and adopt the resolution
that he had prepared, and see that it is forwarded to the
Department of Interior prior to March 22, 1982.
Mr. Ragsdale clarified some points. On three different
occasions, in speaking with federal officers, they had
indicated they would not put restrictions on lending
institutions; but he has been unable to find this fact in
writing. He continued that the Department of Interior was
aware that their maps were out -dated and they will be using
new maps to correct the inaccuracies in the present maps.
Chairman Scurlock commented that it would be
interesting to see if the government would pay for this
land.
CK A n8
J9 ME JLU
MAR 141992
Mr. Ragsdale reported that he had been told this was
not a "taking" issue.
Michael Rhodes, representing the John's Island
community, came before the Board and reported that they had
a particular problem with the map as it was drawn. He felt,
under the Department of Interior criteria, they more than
met their definition of "developed;" as the living units
were there and it was a very active community. Mr. Rhodes
advised they have written their Congressmen, the Department
of Interior, and the Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission and
have provided the Planning Department with the same
material. He then requested that the Board exclude them
from the map in order that they not be classified as
"undeveloped."
Edgar Schlitt, Realtor, approached the Board and
referred to the maps prepared by the Department of Interior.
He stated that some of the Congressmen admitted there was
very little discussion at the time this item was passed;
therefore, it was not given a great deal of consideration.
Mr. Schlitt felt to be fair there should have been local
input, and he thought it would be well for the Board to make
the point that this was not given the proper consideration.
He stressed that if this Bill had gone into effect a dozen
years ago, we would not have seen a development like John's
Island, and there still are lands to the north of John's
Island that are equally as beautiful and could be developed.
He then talked about flood insurance, and commented that
maybe the people should suggest that the federal government
get out of the federally -subsidized flood insurance
business.
Hep Walker, citizen, came before the Board and talked
about the south portion of the County, which he considers to
be developed property.
William J. Stewart, representing Gordon Nutt, came
before the Board and referred to the proposed regulations;
which are now in the "comment period." He continued that
any one who is familiar with the north beach area would
logically say that the property was in the early stages of
development, and he noted there were no provisions in the
proposed regulations for vesting. Attorney Stewart reported
that he had called several banks to see if they would make
loans for oceanfront property without flood insurance, and
they said "certainly not." He thought the whole thing about
flood insurance was strange; on one hand the government was
using the map for flood insurance, and on the other hand
they were saying they are getting out of the flood insurance
business. Attorney Stewart also recommended that the Board
consider the resolution drafted by Attorney O'Haire. He
felt the government was going to take away our planning
ability, and he thought the County could do a better job of
this by themselves.
Charles Davis, representing the Vero Beach -Indian River
County Board of Realtors, came before the Board and reviewed
the following letter:
MAR 10 1982
D
Boas 49 PALE 110
MAR 101982 WK 9 pat ill 1
VERO BEACH - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF REALTORS°
Post Office Drawer G
2182 Ponce De Leon Circle
R E A LTO RO Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Phone (305) 567-3510
re "Undeveloped Coastal Barriers" Maps
Public Hearing, March 10, 1982
March 9, 1982
Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr. 4 ;
Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Vero Beach, Florida
V
Dear Mr. Scurlock: `V- j'
Wednesday morning you will be hearing comments fr(i&t'he public
regarding the U.S. Department of Interior's definition of "undeveloped
coastal barriers" and "flood -prone" lands in our county. The Vero
Beach -Indian River County Board.of Realtors is greatly concerned with
the designation of such areas and the subsequent effect that the des-
ignation will have on the availability of Federal Flood Insurance as
of October 1, 1983.
In question are criteria used by the Department of Interior in
drawing up its maps of Indian River County. Our research indicates
1. use of outdated maps of the county which do not
correctly reflect the current development of
coastal barrier regions (residential, grove or
other) ; and -
2. inclusion of areas which are historically.considered
non "flood -prone," specifically North county citrus -
groves, the Orchid township, portions of John's
Island and various individually owned parcels.
Therefore, we are of the opinion that the methodology by which
the Department of Interimr determined "flood -prone" and "undeveloped
coastal bariier" regions is not uniform....is not accurate in reflect-
ing the development of these areas .... and is not complete in differ
entiating areas which are currently prone to flood from those which
have not experienced flooding for over seventy-five years.
As a professional organization concerned with the protection
of private property rights of landowners in our county, we are
directly opposed to sweeping generalizations made by a distant
bureaucracy which has demonstrated its lack of knowledge of Indian
River County. On behalf of private property owners - individual
homeowners as well as citrus grove owners - we oppose the'iridiscrim-
inate use of meaningless terminology which, if left unchallenged,
may very well precipitate the loss of private property rights to
Indian River County landowners.
We therefore urge your support of our efforts to modify the
maps currently under review, so that they will correctly reflect
Indian River County's coastal barrier regions.
Respectfully,
Vero Beach -Indian River County
Board of Realtors
r
0��
Charles E. Davis
Chairman
10 Legislative Committee
L
Mr. Davis continued that the Board of Realtors are concerned
with the rights of the smaller landowners in this area as
they have no idea of what is happening; they will not be
able to get a mortgage and build a house, and they don't
know it yet. Mr. Davis expressed resentment for people in
Washington usurping the local government.
Robert C. Nall, of McKinnon & Stewart, briefly reviewed
his letter of February 25, 1982:
LAW OFFICES
MCKINNON & STEWART
CHARTERED `-
x
POST OFFICE @OX 3345
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 3 960
CHARLES R. MCKINNON
%VILL:AM J. STEWART
RDOERT C. NALL
February.25, 1982
H?%'D DEELIVERY
Mr. Dennis Ragsdale
Staff Planner
Indian River County Planning
& Zoning Department
County administration Building
1340 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Department of Interior Coastal Barrier 14aps
Dear Mr. Ragsdale:
3355 OCEAN DRIVE
TELEPHONE (305) Mit-3500
With regard to the above captioned matter, enclosed
for your information please find a copy of my letter on
behalf of the John's Island Property Owners Association, Inc.
As you know, it is our contention that.the northerh portion
of John's Island has been erroneously classified as "urdeveloaed"
on the Draft Coastal Barrier Maps.
If your research shots different figures with respect to
acreage, nurd:)---r of structures and the resulting density set
forth in my letter, I could appreciate it if you would inform
me of those differences.
We request that the Indian River County Planning & Zoning
Department rec^rziend to the County CorrLmissicn and to other
concerned governmental agencies that John's Is?and be classified
as "developed" in the final Coastal Barrier Mangy.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
MAR 10 1982
Very truly yours,
11"12� �1/111411/,L"Ll 'Z�0/
Robert C. 11all
NGK 49 PAE 112
11 ,
MAR 10 1992
LAW OFFICES
tvlcKINNON & STEWAR i
CHARTERED t'
FROST OFFICE DOX 3345
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32'36O
CHARLES R. 14CKI14NON
WILLIAM J. STE`.VART
ROBERT C. NALL
February 23, 1982
Mr. Jack Hauptman
Staff Di rector
Coastal Barriers Task Force
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.
Albert Green, Ph.D.
National Par; Service
Washington, D.C.
WK 19 PAtE113
3355 OCEAN DRIVE
TELEPHONE (305) 231-3500
Re: Request for change in categorization of
Joi'n's Island, Town of Indian River Shores,
Indian River County, Florida, from undeveloped
to developed coastal barrier fastland.
Gentlemen:
This law firm represents the John's Island Property
C -overs Association, Inc., a Florida non-profit corporation
consisting of lando.mers in the John's Island residential
development in the To m. of Indian River Shores, Indian River
County, Florida.
The coastal barrier maps accompanying the Draft infor-
mation Sur-maries for Undeveloped Coastal Barriers categorize
the northern portion of John's Island as undeveloped coastal
barrier. The affected area is marked in yells:•.* on the enclosed
copy of the pertinent portion of the coastal barrier ;yap. The
Department of the Interior has requested comments anu recom-
mendations concerning the accuracy of the•Dra_`t Information
Summaries.
Please retard this letter as a request on behalf of the
John's Island Property Owners Association, Inc., to change
the coastal barrier map to show that the northern portion of
John's Island, hereto ore classified as undevelopeL, is
developed in accordance With the requirements set forth in
the Draft Information Summary fcr the reasons that fellow.
The Draft Information Summary in its definition of un-
developed coastal barriers sets ferth three requirements, all
of which must be met, for a coastal barrier to be classified
as undeveloped. The pcl-tion of John's Island categorized on
the present coastal barrier map as undeveloped does not meet
-two of the three requirements necessary for an area to be
categorized as undeveloped.
(l.) The first requirement is that within all or part
of an undeveloped coastal barrier, few man --made
structures may be present.
(a) In connection with the structures require-
ment, a density threshold of one structure
per five acresoffastland is used for
categorizing a coastal barrier as developed.
If the density of structures is greater than
one unit per five acres, the fastland is
developed. If the density is less than one
unit per five acres, the fastland is undeveloped.
A comparison of the present coastal barrier
map with an .aerial photograph prepared in
January 1981, by the Florida Department of
Transportaticn for the Florida Department of
Revenue, indicates that approximately 284.85
acres of fastland in the northern portion
of John's Island have been categorized as
undeveloped on the coastal barrier map. The
aerial photograph, which has had plat map
overlays -added and is marked to show precisely
the area which we seek to classify, as developed,
will be submitted to you at the February 24,
1982, meeting in Fort Pierce, Florida, on the
undeveloped coastal barrier map. .
The photograph indicates that there are 107
structures, as defined in the Draft Informa-
tion Summary, on that portion. of John's Island
classified as undeveloped. Since the aerial
photograph was taken in January 1981, 1.0 new
structures have been added to that portion
of John's Island for a total of 117 structures.
Using these figures for calculation, there
aie 2.21 units per 5 acres of fastland. There-
fore, under the Draft Inforn;ation Surmary
requirements, that portion of John's Island
should be categorized as developed.
(b) Moreover, the Draft Information Summary states
that all or part of a coastal barrier will be
considered.developed, even when there is.less
than one structure per five acres, if a full
complement of infrastructure is in place. The
portion of John's island categorized as un-
developed does, in fact, have a full complement
of infrastructure. Roads, docks, water supply,
sewage system,'and electrical services are,
and have been, in place and available to the
residents.
(c) Even absent the required nuamber of structures
and absent an infrastructure, a coastal barrier
may still be developed as long as it is a part
of a "phased development" and has been part of
the overall plans for the development since its
inception. The northern portion*of John's Island
meets this criterion also.
(2) A second requirement for categorizing a coastal
barrier as undeveloped is that the structures
present and man's activities thereon must'not
significantly impede geomorphic and ecological
processes. The very nature and extent of the
John's Island development has changed the geo-
morphic and ecological processes although develop-
ment, at all times, has been designed and implemented
in harmony with the environment.
MAR 10 1982
13 EVOK PAGE 114
J
BOOK :49 PAGE 115
MAR 101982
In summary, that portion of Jo:n's Island categorized
as undeveloped should be reclassified as developed under the
,as
of the Draft Information Surunaries for the
following reasons:
(1) The density of structures is 2.21 units per 5
acres of fastland and this donsity e:.ceeds the
1 unit per 5 acre threshold necessary for coastal
barrier fastland to be categorized as developed;
(2) a full complement of infrastructureis in place;
(3) the coastal barrier is part of a phased develop-
ment; and
(4) the structures and man's activities thereon have
altered the geomorphic and ecological processes
on that portion of the coastal barrier.
For reference, attaches: please find a misting of all the
plats, with Indian River County Flat Book numbers and pages,
.in the total john's Island residential development.
Very truly yours,
Robert C. Nall
B. T. Cooksey, an attorney representing a group of
citrus growers in the area which include the following:
Lier Groves, Earring Point Groves, Ryall Groves, Kennedy
Groves, Deerfield Groves, Mr. Cooper, D. C. Prior, Sam
Prior, Islet Groves, J. B. Dalbora, and W. P. Serman Groves,
approached the Board. He reported that of the 4,160 acres
of land in the coastal barrier undeveloped areas, there are
1,596.19 acres of citrus groves. Attorney Cooksey stressed
that agriculture is a large and vital industry, and pointed
out that the Department of Interior definitions, which are
draft definitions, do not contemplate agriculture. He then
displayed aerial photographs of the area and asked the Board
to tell the Department of Interior, in a very loud and clear
voice, that citrus is an industry that is important and
vital, and it should be included in the parameter of the
developed lands - even if they have to change their draft
form.
Attorney Cooksey expressed amazement at the so-called
public hearing held by the Department of Interior, which he
felt
was
a total
waste of
anyone's time
since no
record was
even
made
of it.
All the
Department of
Interior
said was to
send them what the County had by March 22, 1982 regarding
this matter. Attorney Cooksey felt Bill 863 was one of the
most dangerous things that had ever been brought up before
the Legislature. He again urged the Board to speak up in
Tallahassee and tell them that agriculture is development,
and that this property has been developed and is being
utilized. Attorney Cooksey felt their simple arbitrary
definition simply does not hold in a situation that produces
the finest grapefruit in the world.
Discussion followed as to having the County Attorney
work with the other attorneys in modifying the resolution
prepared by Attorney O'Haire.
15
BOOK PE
MAR 101982
nox 49 FaE 11.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if they could borrow Attorney
Cooksey' s agriculture map as he wanted to be sure it was
transmitted to Washington.
Attorney Cooksey stated that the map was prepared by
Lloyd and Associates, and it will be going to Washington.
He noted that additional material is being taken to
Washington independently by other concerned people, but what
is needed is the backing of the public officials to cry out
and tell the Department of Interior to let our local people
determine the things that are of such vast importance to
this community.
Ben Bailey, local citrus grower, informed the Board
that he and several others went to Tallahassee regarding
several Bills concerning this matter. He then discussed the
tremendous job the County did with the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan and stressed that something tied to a federal Bill,
based on an erroneous map, could be very dangerous. Mr.
Bailey warned that if we do not get exempted from this map,
it would mean that we are not going to have American -backed
development. There will be development, however, as
Canadians and Arabians can get insurance, but he would
rather see local control than outside developers. Mr.
Bailey further stated that the characteristics of our
barrier island really are not the same as a lot of the other
34 barrier islands mentioned. He stated the people
concerned feel the County should control their destiny and
govern themselves and urged the Board to defeat this Bill.
Commissioner Lyons agreed that this was another example
of the federal government trying to run the local
government.
Ted Herzog, representing Indian Harbor Associates, who
have 400 acres on the barrier island, came forward to
express opposition to this proposition. He continued that
the Department of Interior is in trouble; they know that
16
their maps are inaccurate and they must act quickly to save
face. He emphasized this proposition was forcing people,
who are trying to cooperate with local -level planning, to
try to develop quickly in order to avoid the parade of
horribles that the Department of Interior was going to be
imposing. Mr. Herzog felt it was important that the Board
take a broad position at the local level, which would oppose
any intervention in the entire barrier island.
Lee Johnston, Mayor of the Town of Orchid, came before
the Board and read the following Resolution that was passed
on February 18, 1982:
MAR 101987
17
Boos 49 PALE .
F'"_
MAR 101982 49 pAtEilo
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Town of Orchid, Indian River County, Florida, has
specifically reviewed the United States Department of Interior Draft
Map dated January, 1982, delineating the undeveloped coastal barrier
designated as "Vero Beach Unit P-10, Indian River County, Florida",
and
WHEREAS, it appears from the review of the aforementioned map
that the Town of Orchid is designated as coastal barriers to be
covered and included within the provisions of said map draft, and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Orchid, after due
consideration of all factors considers its lands to be a developed
area and would like to express and note the following:
1. That there was a United States Post Office established on
August 27, 1887 and remained active until 1925. A school house was
built in 1915 and served the community for ten years. The first
orange groves planted for commercial harvest were planted in 1890
and in 1902 the first commercial plantings of grapefruit were esta-
blished; and since that time in 1902, all available land suitable
for commercial agricultural use has been in a developed state.
2. In 1965 the community of Orchid applied for and was granted
a Town Charter to preserve the character, beauty and charm which the
original settlors found in the area. Responsible decisions and
actions are certainly in evidence to this day exemplifying the careful
and judicious planning and development of the Town of Orchid while
preserving its distinctive natural beauty.
3. In the seventeen years since the Town of Orchid's incorpora-
tion, never has the Town accepted or received Federal or State
revenue-sharing monies nor has any Federal or State revenue monies
been expended for flood relief.
4. The Town Council chose not toIimplement the Federal flood
insurance map for the Town of Orchid due to the experiences of the
past ninety-five (95) years of never having to evacuate the island
due to flood, high water or overwash.
5. That the Town of Orchid is rural in nature and extensive
portions of the Town have been developed into citrus groves which
are presently cultivated and maintained, and grove maintenance
buildings and facilities presently exist within the Town as well as
residences of private citizens with corresponding infrastructure for
these residences, buildings and facilities as defined per page 17 of
the Department of Interior Definition Draft, dated January 15, 1982,
and accordingly; the Town of Orchid is not an "undeveloped barrier
island" in the sense that term is used in the Vero Beach P-10 Draft
rIap .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town
of Orchid, that the Town of Orchid shall and does hereby state of
record that it opposes the designation of being an undeveloped area
as defined and described and set forth in the Vero Beach P-10 Draft
Map.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Orchid
that a copy of this Resolution be sent to the Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, and to the
Planning Department of Vero Beach, Florida, and to the United States
Department of Interior.
ATTEST:
Date passed:
MAR 10 1992
TOWN OF ORCHID
By -4it-COQ-4 �
Lee Jo ns n, Mayor
N
)
�� � � ; rpt, � ' • .
WOK 19 PACE :^ ;d
r1MoK 49 P�� � 21
MAR 10192
Mr. Johnston also pointed out that other municipalities
were mandated to come up with a Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
They expended a lot of time and money to do so, and if they
are included in the Department of Interior map, Mr. Johnston
felt they have wasted their time and money in preparation of
their Plans.
Pat Corrigan came before the Board and stated that he
owned land in the northern part of the County and in Indian
River Shores. He stated it was hard for a landowner to tend
to his business when he must keep going to Tallahassee to
stop the government from telling him what he can or cannot
do with his property. Mr. Corrigan affirmed that we must
preserve our rights. He briefly discussed flood insurance
and reported that there were areas west of town that were
subject to flooding. He commented that his home, which was
built on an elevation of 31, has never been flooded and
noted that they have had citrus trees die of old age, but
never from flooding. Mr. Corrigan summarized that this was
federal confiscation without federal compensation, and he
strongly objected.
Jack Rose, a resident of the barrier island, came
before the Board and spoke as a private individual. He had
studied the maps, in the course of his business, and it
seemed to him that Indian River County had been
discriminated against and treated unfairly in the designated
maps. He reported that the Town of Indian River Shores had
written a letter to the federal government requesting that
they be taken out of the shaded areas indicated as
undeveloped on their map, and that the remainder of the Town
be allowed to continue to develop, having spend $300,000 on
the water system.
On Motion by Commissioner Bird, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously closed the Public
Hearing.
The Board of County Commissioners recessed briefly at
10:30 A.M. and reconvened at 10:50 o'clock A.M. with the
same members present. Deputy Clerk Hargreaves took over
from Deputy Clerk Caldwell for the remainder of the meeting.
Chairman Scurlock listed the various concerns he felt
must be addressed:
1) Consideration of the citrus industry as developed
lands;
2) The John's Island development;
3) The vesting in the North Barrier Island;
4) The Comprehensive Land Use Plan in which the Commission
has been actively involved for a long period of time;
and
5) The issue of local control and the fact that we don't
feel the federal government should be involved in
subsidization of the insurance business.
Commissioner Lyons commented that if we were to -follow
the definitions given us, there would be no question about
the exclusion of the land that lies north of the John's
Island developed portion up to SR 510, and if we were to
exclude that, and then turn around and say the definition of
developed would include agriculture, we would find ourselves
in the position of excluding property that does have site
plans, while saying that property that is in citrus is in a
position to receive flood insurance, which would be
tantamount to saying one could be developed but'not the
other.
Commissioner Bird expressed great doubt that the people
from the Department of Interior would go into a great deal
of depth in researching the enormous amount of material
submitted to them at the meeting he and Commissioner Lyons
attended, and he, therefore, believed the Commission must
come up with a precise, well -worded Resolution to encompass
all this and to be sure that areas that are specifically
MAR 10 1982 BOOK , 49 PAE.122
21
ucK 49 PAtE.123 1
MAR 101992
developed, such as John's Island, are included as developed.
His personal feeling was that the whole plan should be
deleted and the government should relinquish these controls.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that on his recent trip to
Washington, he was specifically informed that a law has been
passed; it is going to be implemented; and they are going to
develop the rules and the map. He expressed great concern
about the seriousness of this situation and the lack of
interest shown in Washington. He continued that he had been
informed that a lot of this was done by satellite picture
with the result that Amelia Island north of Jacksonville, a
very high quality development which has retained a lot of
the natural vegetation, was shown as totally undeveloped.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed that we should have a strong
Resolution that will touch base on all the problems brought
out.
Commissioner Lyons felt we have to answer their
specific question on what is included according to their
definitions whether we like it or not, and then we fight
about the definitions.
Commissioner Fletcher believed there are two items that
have to -be addressed - the definitions and map correction.
He noted that the people have indicated correctly that the
federal government once again has demonstrated its ability
to be ineffectual at the local level. Commissioner Fletcher
asked if the Commission felt the hearing input reflected a
desire for the government to remain in the insurance
business. He noted that particular issue could be skirted
or it could be addressed if the Commission has the courage
to do so.
Question arose as to what the Department of Interior is
trying to accomplish by this action, and it was theorized
that since funds are short now for them to purchase and
preserve property under the "Save Our Coast" program, this
� � r
is one way to make sure certain lands will not be developed
until the Department can appropriate funds to purchase them.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, that the Attorney be authorized to
draft an appropriate Resolution indicating this County's
opposition to the type of definition given us for our
barrier island, which really does not have the kinds of
problems indicated; expressing strong opposition to the
separation of various kinds of areas for flood insurance
purposes in that it leaves the highest risk areas to the
private insurers, which precludes the possibility of any
reasonable insurance rates and thus, in effect, stops
development; and heartily recommending that the federal
government completely remove itself from the flood insurance
business so that it can go to private insurers and the risk
can be spread properly.
Further discussion ensued as to the definition of --
developed lands not including agricultural lands; the
feeling that land should be classified as developed for
various reasons, i.e., it is inhabited, activity is being
carried on, etc.; the possibility of exempting any county
that has a Comprehensive Land Use Plan; the need to address
the South Barrier Island area, which is not touched on in
the drafted resolution; and the Board generally agreed that
the Resolution should state in the strongest possible
language, the County's complete dissatisfaction with both
the map and the definitions.
Discussion continued as to having all the land within
the county shown as being in the "undeveloped" areas
deleted from the map and indicating that we do not want the
government to be in the flood insurance business.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would add to his
Motion that we wish to have Indian River County exempted
from the map, and Commissioner Wodtke concurred.
MAR 10 1982 23 BOOK 49 PA 124
BOOK 9 %E125
MAR 101992
Commissioner Wodtke went on to point out that it is not
consistent or logical for the map to include these lands in
Indian River County when lands in Brevard County don't come
in under this plan and miles and miles of undeveloped
barrier island properties around New Smyrna Beach are not
even on the map. He felt we have not been treated equitably
or fairly, and Commissioner Lyons stated that even though he
is a strong environmentalist, he must agree.
Commissioner Bird emphasized the need to see that this
Resolution is channeled to the right people so that it
receives proper attention and is not lost in a morass of
paperwork.
Chairman Scurlock expressed the desire to follow up on
this with a similar Resolution to the State Legislature, the
State Association of County Commissioners and possibly with
a personal visit to some of these officials.
The Chairman called for the question on the Motion,
including the addition of a request that the County be
exempted from this map. It was voted on and carried
unanimously.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, to accept the recommendation of the
Planning Department in their letter of March 4, 1982.
Commissioner Bird did not feel that it is our '
responsibility to point out to the government the areas they
may have missed, and he further noted that in our Resolution
we are asking that the whole county be deleted.
Commissioner Lyons stated the only reason he made the
Motion this way is that it is quite possible this set of
rules may go into effect and he did not want one part of the
county under one set of rules and one under another. He
continued that he would like the Motion to include that
although we are suggesting these changes to be consistent
with our understanding of the rules, we, at the same time,
object to the rules.
Commissioner Bird's point was that the Planning
Department's recommendation is in conflict with our proposed
resolution, and if the Board does wish to accept the staff
report, he did not feel it should accompany the resolution.
Attorney Caldwell agreed that the report from staff is
in conflict with what the Board has discussed today and
would definitely be in conflict with the material that most
of the people who spoke today would be sending in
themselves. He stressed that we are trying to establish
that this area is developed, and the people who were here
earlier have engineering backup, scientific reports, etc. to
uphold their position. Attorney Caldwell believed the basic
Resolution the Commission asked their attorney to draft will
be gutted if the staff analysis becomes part of their
report.
Discussion continued as to whether we should merely
accept the staff report without endorsing it, or why it
should be approved at all if we don't agree with it. It was
noted that all this is called a "preliminary" report in
answer to their preliminary report.
Commissioner Wodtke felt we could comment basically
that "the best we are able to determine according to your
definitions is that you are greatly in error within your own
map."
Commissioner Lyons noted that he did include in the
Motion that we disagree with their definitions, and he had
no problem with having the Motion call our report a
preliminary report in response to their preliminary report.
Considerable discussion continued in regard to being
consistent. Attorney Brandenburg believed that he has a
good understanding of what the Board wants and suggested
that he proceed to draft a Resolution and work with Planning
MAR 10 1992 NcK 49 PAGE
25
r 890K 49 FAE12 7
MAR 101992
to be sure that the report attached is consistent with the
Resolution.
Commissioner Lyons withdrew his Motion and Commissioner
Wodtke withdrew his second.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Attorney to work with the Planning Department to draft a
response that is consistent with the material presented
today.
Realtor Ed Schlitt informed the Board that through the
Association of Realtors, he has a meeting scheduled in
Washington with Secretary of Interior James Watt on the
19th, and if the Board desired, he would personally deliver
a copy of the Resolution to the' Secretary. The Board
enthusiastically accepted Mr. Schlitt's offer.
PROPOSED AGREEMENT W/POST, BUCKLEY RE SANITARY LANDFILL
Assistant Administrator David Greene informed the Board
that since their memo of February 22nd recommending
acceptance of the proposed agreement, there have been some
changes and there are still additional items to be worked
out with the contract. He, therefore, requested that this
item be tabled to allow them to go back into the negotiating
stage and come back at the second meeting in April.
On Motion by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously tabled the above
item until the second meeting in April.
LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR SOUTH BEACH GROUND STORAGE TANK
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: February 25, 1982 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
Land Purchase Agreement for
SUBJECT: South Beach Ground Storage
Tank - South Beach Water
System Improvements
South Beach Water System
FROM/ Neil A. Nelson REFERENCES: y
County Administrator Improvement Agreement
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The improvements to the South Beach Water System include the
construction of a 750,000 gallon ground storage tank, capable of
supplementing fire flow and peak hour demands. The South Beach
project fund included the estimated purchase.price of land'for the
location of the proposed ground storage tank.
1.
Indications have been made from the South Indian River County
Fire District, to coordinate the location of the proposed 750,000
gallon ground storage tank with a proposed fire station to service
the South Beach area. The Fire District has also indicated they
would share the purchase price'of the land required for the fire
station.
Attempts were made to locate the ground storage tank in the
vicinity of St. Edwards School. The land area under consideration,
however, is designated for future development by the school.
The Moorings Development Corporation has been contacted by
letter to ascertain if there are any grounds for negotiating a land
area site for the proposed ground storage tank considering Indian
River County holds property within the Moorings proper.
Mr. Earl Padgett of Seagrove Development, has offered to sell
the County approximately 2.2 acres of land presently owned by Mr.
Padgett. The subject property is located adjacent to A -I -A in the
southeast corner of the lands owned by Mr. Padgett on the west
side of A -I -A, approximately 2,000 feet north of St. Edwards School.
This location has been deemed satisfactory both from an engineering
standpoint and by the South Indian River County Fire District.
Mr. Padgett indicated the basis for negotiation he -would re-
quest would be as follows:
1. The County and Mr. Padgett would agree in advance
that the sale of land would be on the basis of an
appraised price.
2. A list of 2-3 property appraisers would be submit-
ted to Mr. Padgett for his review, and a mutual
agreement as to a particular property appraiser
would be necessary.
3. The actual sale of the land would be in accord-
ance with the appraised value.
4. The transactions could proceed as rapidly as
physically possible.
MAR 10 1982 27 NOK 49 PAE �
MAR 101982
690K 19 PAE 29 1
In accordance with Mr. Padgett's request, the County furnished
him with a list of appraisers amenable to the County. He has since
reviewed the list and has recommended Mr. Jack Sherman, Armfield
Sherman & Associates or Mr. Richard Wagner, Indian River Federal
Savings and Loan - Main. Office, as appraisers for County considera-
tion.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
At this point, the County has two alternatives for considera-
tion. They are as follows:
Alternative 1
Consider negotiations with the Moorings Development Cor-
poration based upon a possible trading of land values
associated with the bridge crossing site for other pro-
perties within the northeast corner of the Moorings,
west of A -I -A, for the ground storage tank site.
Alternative 2
Consider purchasing from Mr. Earl Padgett the land area
described previously at an appraised value.
Alternative 1 will require the County to relinquish its only
land holding in the Moorings, a site located on the Indian River
as a bridge crossing easement.
Alternative 2 will require the County to agree in advance to
the sale of the land at whatever the appraised value. The County
would also have to recommend the use of one of the appraisers
mentioned previously.
It is imperative the County purchase a land area as soon as
possible in order to stay within the time frame designated by the
South Beach City/County Agreement.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon the information contained herein, the following
recommendations are submitted:
1. The Commission approve Alternative 2 for securing
the necessary land area required for the proposed
ground storage tank and fire station.
2% The Commission select either Mr. Jack Sherman or
Mr. Richard Wagner to appraise the land under
consideration.
3. The Commission agree, in writing, to the appraised
value of the land prior to its appraisal.
4. The Commission authorize the County Administrator
to contact the appraiser selected, and coordinate
the appraisal and purchase of the land under con-
sideration between the County and the South Indian
River County Fire District.
SVERDRUP & PARCEL
JOB
COMPUTATIONS FOR
SHEET NO. OF.
DATE -- --- - I'li., . -1 -
CHKD
At
4 AL
1?.77 1
Commissioner Bird informed the Board that he had some
additional information he felt should be considered before
any action is taken. He continued that since he had a
MAR 10 1982 29 800K 49 PAF 130
49A��E 1c�1
BAR 1019x2
problem with agreeing to a price determined in advance by an
appraiser, he called Mr. Padgett and learned that being
bound by an appraisal is apparently an approach Mr. Padgett
thought of to expedite matters. It appears Mr. Padgett is
willing to negotiate, and Commissioner Bird stated he would
prefer to see the Commission proceed on that basis rather
than as outlined in the memo. He further noted that Mr.
Padgett has not even seen a sketch of the property in
question.
Chairman Scurlock reported that the South County
Advisory Committee had the same concern as Commissioner
Bird, but they were advised this was not negotiable, and on
that basis, they made the recommendation to go ahead. He
believed if the Advisory Commission felt they had the
option, they would prefer to proceed on a different basis.
Commissioner Fletcher wished it qualified that Mr.
Padgett has not seen a sketch of the land.
Engineer John Robbins informed the Board that he and
Guy Wills met with Mr. Padgett on the land in question and
physically walked the land with him. At that time Mr.
Padgett felt rather than dragging this out, it would be best
to rely, on an appraiser, and those are the comments they
took to the Administrator almost verbatim.
Motion was made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke for purposes of discussion, to
accept Alternate 2 in the Administrator's memo dated
February 25th, and after receipt of the appraisal, we then
would have the option of purchasing if we consider the price
is fair.
Discussion arose about locking in that we won't exceed
the appraised value, and Commissioner Wodtke felt if we were
going to get two or three appraisals, it would be different,
but if we are just getting one, we need the flexibility to
negotiate and so -does Mr. Padgett.
Engineer Robbins reported that he had received a letter
from Mr. Padgett with a pencil sketch of a piece of property
he would consider selling, consisting of approximately 2.2
acres. He and Mr. Wills subsequently met Mr. Padgett at the
proposed site primarily just to pin down the location and
determine whether it would be adequate from a hydraulic
standpoint. Mr. Robbins continued that the problem we now
are faced with is that the Agreement with the City of Vero
Beach re South Beach stated that six months after the
actual execution of that document, or around April 20th,
the County would be in a position to advertise for bids,
etc. We have to go through the site plan approval process
which will take about 45 days, and that is why activities
have been conducted in a manner to expedite this purchase.
Mr. Robbins felt it may be necessary to request extension of
the site plan date from the City.
Discussion then followed in regard to sites available
for the ground storage tank. Engineer Robbins confirmed
that St. Edward's School had been approached in this regard
and refused, and The Moorings also were negative. The only
actual positive input has been from Mr. Padgett. Engineer
Robbins noted that when he :first contacted Mr. Padgett in
this regard, he did not have any flexibility as to negoti-
ating, and if Mr. Padgett has changed his position, Mr.
Robbins highly recommended that the Board allow him some
flexibility.
Discussion continued re not exceeding appraised value,
and Attorney Brandenburg stated his understanding was that
the Motion would authorize appraisal of the site by either
Jack Sherman of Armfield Sherman & Associates or Richard
Wagner of Indian River Federal Savings & Loan as set out in
the staff report and negotiation of a purchase price not to
exceed the appraised value.
MAR 10 1982
31
NOK 49 P6
WOK 9 F E x.33
MAR 101992
Commissioner Wodkte felt we had the option to buy
either at the appraised value or any value less.
Chairman Scurlock wished to know who will negotiate the
actual price, and Assistant Administrator Greene stated that
staff would like authorization to employ the appraiser, go
out and negotiate with Mr. Padgett, and bring an agreement
back to the Board for their approval.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
Engineer Robbins recommended that the City of Vero
Beach be notified as to the necessity to extend the
contract; he believed that since the money is in escrow and
the Commission is acting in good faith, there should be no
problem.
Chairman Scurlock reported that the South County Fire
District would pick up a portion of the funding on the basis
of how much land the fire station needed, or about 50%; the
remainder will be picked up in the actual funding mechanism
which was in place for the South County utility system.
Discussion ensued in regard to requesting the City for
a 90 day extension, and Assistant Administrator Greene
suggested that a longer period of time be requested so that
we do not set another time -period it would be difficult to
meet.
On Motion made by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to ask the
City of Vero Beach for a 120 day extension on our water
agreement for the South Beach area.
FOURTH COURTROOM ARCHITECT
Assistant Administrator Greene recommended that this
matter also be tabled since there are some additional items
that need to worked out with regard to scope of work.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously tabled approval of
the agreement with the fourth courtroom architect until the
second meeting in April.
ALTERNATIVES FOR FUNDING COMPLETION OF ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING FURNISHINGS AND EQUIPMENT
The Board reviewed the recommendation made by Finance
Director Barton:
To: Board of County Commissioners
rom: Jeffrey K. Barton
Subject: Recommendations for funding for additional purchases for
equipment and Administration Building expenses..
Alternative #1 - B.C.C. Contingencies fund
001-199-513-99.91 = $352,589.00
Alternative #2 - Federal Revenue Sharing Contingencies Fund
102-199-584-99.91 = $78,549:00
Alternative #3 - Balance left in Bond Construction Funds
$118,000.00
Staff Recommendation
To transfer $40,000.00 from Federal Revenue Sharing
Contingencies Account #102-199-584-99.91
Motion was .made by Commissioner Wodtke, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, to approve staff's recommendation, and
adopt the following budget amendment:
Account Title Account Number Increase Decrease
B.C.C. Contingencies 102-199-584-99.91 110,000
Furniture & Equipment 102-220-519-66.41 40,000
Chairman Scurlock commented on the fact that many items
are being purchased from Halsey & Griffith, and he wished to
know, although we are not in an actual bidding process,
whether someone is checking on this and calling other
companies.
Assistant Administrator Greene stated that all County
departments do go through Purchasing, and comparisons are
MAR 10 1982 Boa 49 PAtE 134
33
_ 6SOt� 49. PAtf 135:
MAR 101992
done as to price and availability. Situations have arisen
where we needed items more quickly than they could be
obtained through State contract, which is the basis of
comparison. He informed the Board that a lot of these items
were purchased by Constitutional Officers who do not
necessarily use the services of the Purchasing Department.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Constitutional Officers
make their purchases within a certain allotted budget. Mr.
Greene believed that the Commission permitted them all to
make purchases from the monies set aside, and they
apparently went ahead and made those purchases without us
officially being made aware of them.
In further discussion, it was noted that the purchases _
we have on the books are in excess of the budget by about
$1,000.
Commissioner Bird felt we should notify the
Constitutional Officers that we are over budget.
Intergovernmental Coordinator Thomas reported that he
has so notified Purchasing, and they have not issued any
purchase orders since then. He commented that the total of
the list is $54,644 at this time, but it is possible there
are some items we have not been billed for as yet.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that some purchases had
been made from Father & Son Appliances where his cousin is a
salesman, and he wished to know if this presented a conflict
of interest for him.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that it did not because the
Motionon the floor is to approve a transfer and these items
have been bought already.
The Chairman called for the question. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
Assistant Administrator Greene asked if he could
suggest that any additional purchases should be made through
County Purchasing so we can establish a control.
It was generally agreed that we have got to know what
we are going to be spending.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously agreed that the
Constitutional Officers should be informed that unless they
come through the Administration and Purchasing Department,
we will not be in a position to pay their bills for further
purchases.
PURCHASE OF LANIER "NO PROBLEM" WORD PROCESSOR FOR ATTORNEY
It was noted that the Board indicated approval of
purchase of this equipment at the previous meeting, but held
official action over until the funding could be specified.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously authorized the
purchase of a Lanier "No Problem" Word Processor for the
County Attorney's office, and approved the following budget
amendment to provide the funds for the purchase of said
equipment:
Account Title
B.C.C. Contingencies
Furniture & Equipment
Account Number Increase Decrease
001-199-513-99.91 13,972
001-102-514-66.41 13,972
STATUS REPORT ON CLOSING OF UNEMPLOYMENT OFFICE
The Board indicated acceptance of the following report
on the status of the local Unemployment Office:
MAR 10 1982 35
FLORIDA ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tallahassee
R. Dale Patchett
Representative, 48th District
Reply to:
❑ Post Office Box 2380
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
(305) 562-1444
❑ 224 The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-0060
TTCUnl) A ATTITTT.T
TO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: R. DALE PATCHETT
BDDK 9 PALE D -
Committees:
Finance & Taxation
Ethics & Elections
Mining & Reclamation (Select)
SUBJECT: STATUS OF STATE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
DATE`- MARCH 5, 1982
The local office of the Florida State Employment Service has been funded
by the state as a branch of the Fort Pierce full service office. The
employment service and the unemployment compensation offices are located
in the east half of the same facility they had been in on 14th Avenue.
There are three full time employment counselors and two full time
unemployment compensation counselors. They have a full time CETA worker
and other part-time and volunteer help.
There were 45 employment offices to be closed in the state. The Vero Beach
office was the only one to remain open with full funding. Rod Willis,
Chief of the Bureau of Employment Service in Tallahassee called my office
and stated that it was because the County Commission, the community and
myself had become involved and really wanted the office, was the reason
for it staying open on the reduced basis.
I want to personally thank you for your support, consideration and help
in keeping the office open.
PISTOL PERMIT RENEWALS AND APPLICATIONS
Assistant Administrator Greene reported that all the
following pistol permit applications and renewals were in
process and forwarded to the Sheriff before it was decided
to call a temporary moratorium to rework the qualification
course, etc. There is one remaining application which will
be on the agenda of March 17th.
0
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 5, 1982 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: -David Greene, SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Applications
Asst. County Administrator
FROM: .. REFERENCES:
C. B. Hardin, Jr. rah. D.
Asst. to County Administrator/Personnel Director
In a memorandum dated March 5, 1982, Freda Wright, Clerk of the
Circuit Court, forwarded the following applications for pistol permits
for:
Rex L. Hailey, Sr.
Emma S. Brucker
Virginia C. Davis
Robert Allen England
Christian C. Brucker
Warner S. Olds
Gilbert J. Swiger
All requirements of Ordinance 79-27 have been met and are in order.
It is recommended pistol permits be issued to the above persons.
TO:The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
>_
THRU: David Greene
Asst. County Administrator
DATE: March 5, 1982 FILE:
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Renewals
FROM: �_nREFERENCES:
.
Asst. to County Administrator/Personnel Director
In a memorandum dated March 5, 1982, Freda Wright, Clerk of the
Circuit Court, forwarded the following applications for pistol permit
renewals for:
1. Bernard Paz, Jr.
Henry A. Fischer
Thomas Nathaniel Snell
All requirements of Ordinance 79-27 have been met and are in order.
It is recommended pistol permit renewals be issued to the above individuals.
MAR 10 19828909 49 FA
37
m 19
MAR 101982
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the pistol
permit applications and renewals and issuance of licenses
to: Rex L. Hailey, Sr.
Emma S. Brucker
Virginia C. Davis
Robert Allen England
Henry A. Fischer
Christian C. Brucker
Warner S. Olds
Gilbert J. Swiger
Bernard Paz, Jr.
Thomas Nathaniel Snell
and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
REINTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION 82-11A
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 5, 1982 FI LE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Resolution 82-11a
FROM:�; �--t-- REFERENCES:
David L. Greene
Assistant County Administrator
At the March 3, 1982 meeting while approving the January 13th
minutes, desc-repencies were noted in Resolution 82-11a. At that
time it was decided to remove the Resolution from the minutes
and make the needed corrections.
The Resolution should have read Indian River County Board oj," Coun::y
Commissioners instead of North Indian River County Fire District
Commission. The signatory portion of the Resolution also needed to
be changed to reflect the proper board.
Additionally it is appropriate to include Alpha R. Payne as the
representative for the Fellsmere City Council.
The Resolution is appropriate for your consideration.
On Motion by Commissioner Fletcher, seconded by
Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution
82-11A.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-11A
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS that the following appointments are made to the
NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE to
serve for a term of one (1) year each:
PAT FLOOD, JR., MAYOR
BILLY ADAMS, CHIEF
LEROY T. PARKHURST, PRESIDENT
A. GROVER FLETCHER
NORB F. RESOP, CHIEF
NORMAN CASS, PRESIDENT
RICHARD T. WEAVER, CHIEF
PHIL SMITH, PRESIDENT
ALPHA R. PAYNE
Sebastian City Council
Representative
Sebastian Volunteer Fire
Department
Sebastian Volunteer Fire
Department
Roseland Community
Representative
Roseland Volunteer Fire
Department
Roseland Volunteer Fire
Department
Fellsmere Volunteer Fire
Department
Fellsmere Volunteer Fire
Department
Fellsmere City Council
Representative
Said Resolution shall become effective as of the 13th day of
January, 1982.
ATTEST:
Freda Wright,,,elerk
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
By `n
Chairman
MAR 10 1982 09% 140
040K 19 eaf 141
MAR 101992
Commissioner Wodtke left the meeting at 12:03 o'clock
P. M.
DISCUSSION RE SUNSHINE LAW
Commissioner Fletcher commented that he was hoping to
have discussion of the Sunshine Law and felt he needs more
direction on this, especially as relating to conversations
between Commissioners.
In general discussion, it was noted that, although
there is literature available from the State that outlines
this law very accurately, this is a complicated situation
and there are a variety of opinions. When there is any
question, it is referred to the State's Attorney's office
and he renders his opinion. It was further felt that in
general, private discussion between Commissioners which
involves a question of Commission action is, in effect,
taboo and any time a Commissioner has a question on this, he
should consult with the County Attorney.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that he would be happy to
prepare a memo or some sort of guideline on the Sunshine Law
for Commissioner Fletcher individually or for the Board as a
whole.
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Commissioner Fletcher reported that the above Committee
is supposed to begin on the 16th of next week. He notbd
that when he originally asked to be on this committee, he
did not realize that the Transportation Committee would keep
him so busy. He requested that the other Commissioners
give some consideration to chairing this committee in his
stead.
SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR JAIL BUILDING ARCHITECT
Commissioner Lyons reported that the Public Safety
Committee has put together a sub -committee to go over all
the proposals we have had for a jail architect and the
Committee is now engaged in reviewing them. They expect to
have a meeting Monday morning and hope to come up with three
or four architectural firms. They then would recommend that
there be a joint meeting with the County Commission at which
time the architectural firms could make their presentations.
Commissioner Lyons felt it is fortunate that five on the
committee were able to attend the Jail Seminar.
OUT -OF -COUNTY TRAVEL TO GOVERNOR'S PHYSICAL FITNESS WORKSHOP
Commissioner Bird requested Board approval to attend
the above all day workshop.
On Motion by Commissioner Lyons, seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher, Commissioner Wodtke being absent from
the meeting, the Board approved out -of -County travel for
Commissioner Bird to attend the Governor's Physical Fitness
Workshop in Orlando on March 11, 1982.
REPLACEMENT OF ADMINISTRATOR
Chairman Scurlock expressed the hope that all
Commissioners have contacted the Personnel Department to see
that they draw up a formal proposal and a methodology of how
to go about finding a replacement for former County
Administrator Nelson.
Administrator Greene reported that this should be on
the agenda for the March 17th meeting.
Commissioner Lyons questioned whether the Board needs
to take official action to make David Greene the Acting
Administrator. Attorney Brandenburg felt that as Assistant
Administrator, Mr. Greene currently has that authority.
There being no further business, on Motion made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:17 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
'e— ��kj 'JI
Clerk
41
.�
Chairman %0001
6009 49 pAtE 142