HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/2/1983Wednesday, February 2, 1983
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, February 2, 1983, at 8:30 o'clock A.M.
Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock,
Jr., Vice Chairman; Alfred Grover Fletcher, and Wi.jliam C.
Wodtke, Jr. Patrick B. Lyons was delayed one hour. Also
present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; L. S.
"Tommy" Thomas, Community Services Director; Gary
Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners;
Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director; Dan Fleischman,
Bailiff; Barbara Bonnah and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy
Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
H. Malcolm Wansley, Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church,
gave the invocation, and Commissioner Lyons led the Pledge
of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
The Chairman asked if there were any additionsxto the
Agenda.
Chairman Bird, on behalf of Commissioner Lyons, asked
that a report on the Emergency Medical Committee be added to
the Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by
Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
agreed to place the above item on the Agenda.
Chairman Bird, on behalf of Commissioner Lyons who had
been delayed, requested that a discussion of an enclave in
Indian River Shores be added to the Agenda.
� FEB 2
19 3 � x PACE 70. :
PAVE.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the
Board unanimously agreed to add the above
item to the Agenda.
Commissioner Fletcher requested an item be added to the
Agenda for the Board to consider initiating a zoning change
on the property of Mary Ellen Lawson.
Attorney Brandenburg explained Ms. Lawson wants to put a
house on her property, and in order to do so, she needs it
rezoned down to residential property from commercial. He
noted that area -wide rezoning should be initiated at the
same time to avoid spot rezoning.
11 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
,SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the
Board unanimously agreed to place the
above matter on today's Agenda.
Chairman Bird requested that a proclamation for the Los
Angeles Dodgers be added to the Agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously agreed to add the above
proclamation to the Agenda.
DELETIONS TO AGENDA
Administrator Wright requested that the discussion
regarding the closing of A. G. Holley State Hospital in
Lantana be removed from the Agenda since the Hospital has
been funded through 1985.
2
M.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously agreed to remove
Item 10-A from the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of
December 23, 1982.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting
of December 23, 1982, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of JAnu-
ary 5, 1983.
Commissioner Fletcher pointed out that'...the Motion on
the Agreement regarding Library Funding, Page 6, recorded
a unanimous vote, but he remembered -voting against the
agreement. He asked that this be researched. He also
pointed out that on Page 61 reference was twice made to
"Dr. Fischer," and this should be corrected to "Robert
Fisher."
Upon research of the tape of the meeting, it was
determined that Ctammissioner Fletcher apparently had
voted for the Library Agreement inadvertently.
Thesecorrections having been made, ON
MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of January 5, 1983, were
unanimously approved as written.
3
FEB 2 1983 wK 52 PAcE X03
U
CLERK TO THE BOARD
a
A. Approval of Budget Amendment - Workmen's Compensation
The Board reviewed the following budget amendment:
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
-� January 12, 1983
To: Board of County Ccmmi ss i oners
CPr an: Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
Re: Workmen's Ccmpensaticn
Suncom Telephone: (305) 424-1012
The following budget amendment is necessary to reallocate the amount
budgeted in,these departments for Workmen's Compensation.
Account Title
Account Number
Increase Decrease
Workmen's
Ccmpensation_
001-500-513-12.14
500,
Workmen's
Compensation
001-216-519-12.14
bou.
Workmen's
C anpensation
001-600-521-12.14 -
900.
Workmen's
Compensation
004-205-51.5-12.14
1600.
Workmen's
Ccmpensaticn
004=207-524-12.14
2600
Workmen's
Compensation
004-214-541-12.14
4200.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board
unanimously approved the Budget Amendment re
Workmen's Compensation, as recommended by
Finance Director Jeff Barton.
B. Cash Bond Deposit- Request for Payment of Interest to
Depositor
The Board considered the following -memorandum dated
January 25, 1983: -
4
_I
TO: Board of DATE:
County Commissioners January 25, 1983 RLE:
THRU: Christopher Paull
(in Mr. Barton's
absence)
FROM: Jeffrey Barton
Finance Director
SUBJECT: Cash Bond Deposit—
Request-for Payment of
Interest to Depositor
REFERENCES:
Mr. & Mrs. Chuck Schock have deposited with the County's Finance
Department the sum of $3,500.00 as a Cash Bond deposit to secure
compliance with all requirements of a certain house moving permit
issued in January by the Zoning Department.
Mr. Schock has requested that the County Commission authorize
investment of these funds in a proper manner and the payment of
some or all of the earned interest to him either as earnwed and
posted, or at the end of the bond
period,
'be—� one year from the issuance of thepei hick is anticXpated to
Direction from the Board is hereby requested on whether the
interest earned on this fiduciary account deposit is to be paid to
the depositor and at what rate.
Considerable discussion was held on the matter of what
rate of interest is to be paid on bonds deposited with the
County's Finance Department, and it was noted that past
policy has been that no interest will be paid. Various
Alternatives were suggested to deal with Mr. Shock's request
that his money be invested in some manner so that interest
might be accrued and paid to him when his bond was returned,
including an irrevocable letter•of credit, as well as
Certificates, of Deposit. Finance Director Barton stressed
that the -period of time involved is a large factor in
1
investing funds and also noted that in a short period of
time, the amount of interest accrued probably would not
compensate for the staff time expended. He informed the
Board that he has deposited Mr. Shock's bond money into a
passbook account at the rate of 52%, and this is how he
would prefer to handle such funds.
5
1t9R PAGE 75
FEB 2 1983
Commissioner Fletcher asked Attorney Brandenburg if he
was in conflict of interest re this matter as he had been
contracted to move Mr. Shock's house. Attorney Brandenburg
assured him he was not. It was explained that the cash bond
deposit was for the purpose of assuring that the house in
question will be brought up to Code.
After further discussion, it was agreed that a uniform
policy should be developed.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to direct
staff to come up with a recommendation of a
uniform policy for investment or deposit of
cash bonds and report back to the Board.
The Board continued to discuss in-house costs, and
Finance Director Barton reported that there are about 25
performance bonds posted at the present time.
Chairman Bird believed there should be two Motions -
one.to deal with the long-range problem, and one to deal
with Mr. Shock's immediate problem.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,.
Seconded by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously approved the Finance Director's
action in setting up a passbook account at
current rate of interest for the deposit of
Mr. Shock's $3,500 cash bond; -the interest
to be payable to Mr. Shock.
6
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Fletcher requested that Item C. be ;removed
from the Consent Agenda at this time, and Finance pi.-ector
Barton requested that Item E also be removed from the
Consent Agenda.
A._ Approval of Chairman's signature for deputies appointed
by Sheriff Dobeck:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Chairman Bird,,the Board
unanimously approved the signature
of the Chairman on the following
deputy appointments made by Sheriff Dobeck:
Lonnie J. Gore
Richard R. Raczkowski
Anthony L. Arena
B. Reports
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau,. Special Trust Fund -
Month of December, 1982 — $30,867.20
Traffic Violation Fines by Name - December, 1982
C. Requisition for Third Quarterly Payment - Section 8
Existing Mousing Rental Assistance Program
The Board reviewed the following memorandum:
7
FEB 2 1983 fix 52 rnE 707
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
1C EAG[
DATE: January 25, 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT: Requisition for the Third
Quarterly Payment FY 1983 of
Annual Contributions Contract -
Section 8.Existing Housing Rental
Assistance Program
FROM: Edward i 'Rega REFERENCES:
Executive Director
IRC Housing Authority
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the County Commission.
In order to requisition funds quarterly from the U.S. De-
partment of Housing and Urban Development to operate our Section
8 Housing Assistance Program, we are required to submit four (4)
executed copies of HUD.Form 52663. This is consistent with our
Annual Contributions Contract entered into on December 30, 1978
and as amended August 3, 1982.
I respectfully request the Board of .County Commissioners
authorize the Chairman to execute the four copies of HUD Form
52663 for the Third quarterly payment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke,
Commissioner Fletcher voting in
opposition and Commissioner Lyons
being temporarily delayed, the Board
by a 3-1 vote approved the Requisition
for Third Quarterly Payment of the
Annual Contributions Contract -
Section 8 Existing Housing Rental
Assistance Program, HUD Form 52633,
and authorized the signature of the
Chairman.
0
r"r.-J514A3
�s U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
REQUISITION FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PftO;fiAM
SECTION 23 0 SCCTION 0 [,]
Data of Requisition 2/l/83..____ Fiscal Year Ending Date- 9/30/83 Fat Quarter Ending
NAME AND ADDRESS OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY Onciuding 7_(p Code)
FOR HUD USE Uh
Vnurher Nurr+t„
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ACC Contract Number .�4t39
1840 25th St., Suite S-321, Vern Beach Fla. 32960 Project Number F�--9-E132-'001 & 002
DEPOSITARY BANK (Name, Address and Account Number) ilio, of Months In Fisced Year 12
The First Bankers of Indian River County Typo of Projact:
Vero Beach, Fla. Acct 498-04000-1
a.
EIumbar of Units Under lease to Eligible Families as of Date of Requisition
stimated Number of Units to be under -Lease at End of Requested Quarter
c. Average Monthly Housing Assistance Payment Per Uuit as or lista of Requisition
ESTIMATE OF
DESCRIPTION REQUIRED
ANNUAL
CONTRIBUTIONS
O EXISTING 0 NEW
LI REf4An.
126
a C:41 AW*'ER
15S
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
~ 166
^"
EsTihlAtED
CUMULA + .
TOTAL. COST
ADDITIONAL
TOTAL
INCURRED
TO DATE
COST TOEND
OF REQUESTED ;,
FUNDS
(1)
(2) t3)
a C:41 AW*'ER
REQUIRED
'b)
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
^"
I. Preliminary Administrative Expense -Prior to ACC (Account 40101
0 0
2. Preliminary Administrative Exponse-After ACC (Account 4012/
9, 996
9'_396
3. Total Preliminary Administrative Expense (Lines 1 c4 2)
9, 996 0
9, 996
9.996
9,996
NONEXPENDABLE EQUIPMENT
4• Replacement of Nonexpendable Equipment (Account 7520)
' 0
5. Property Betterments and Additions (Account 7540)
0
p
S. Total Nonexpendable Equipment (Lines 4 & s)
0
0
7 600
6
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
—
7. Housing Assistance Payments (Account 4715)
444,363 102,176
102,920
205, 096
ADMINISTRATIVE FEE
8. Total Administrative Fee Approved for Fised Year
54, 309
9. Monthly Rete of Administrative Fee (Line 8 divided by number of months
in /bed/ year)
4,525
10. Amount Previously Requisitioned for fiscal year
11. Estimated Additional Amount Required to end of Requested Quarter
27,150 _
12. Total Administrative Fee (Lincs 1011)
13,575
40, 725
iNDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT AUDIT COSTS (Section 8 only)
-
13. Total Independent Public Accountant Audit Costs
SECURITY AND UTILITY DEPOSITS (Section 23 only)
14. Total Allowance Approved for Security and Utility Deposits
0
15. Amount Previously Requisitioned for Fiscal Year
16. Estimated Additional Amount Required to End of. Requested Quarter
0
17. Total Security and Utility Deposits (Lines IS do 16)
0
0
AMOUNT OF THIS REQUISITION
18. Total Funds Required to End of Requested Quarter (Lincs 3, 6, 7, 12,
13417)
263,417
19. Total Partial Payments Received for Fiscal Year to Date
099
20. Partial Payment Requested (Line 18 minus Line 19)
,
\
METHOD OF PAYMENT-
21. Requested Installment Payments
IST 2ND 3RD TOTAL
INSTALLMENT INSTALLMENT INSTALLMENT
24 439 24-439 73-,_318
1 CERTIFY that housing assistance payments have been cr will be made only with respect to units which: (1) are under iem,by Fatuities at the time such
h0ushv assistance payments are made excopt as otherwise provided in the Housing AnAsUrnce Payments Contracts
orb (2)
and the Hous Agency
year prior to the making of such housing assistance payments, adequate) Inggrounds.hos wirail
and areas for the benefit and use of the Families) to assure that decent, safe and sa�nitaryohoussiinaccommodations are be o (including mope d; a ppli Jarit pro.
visions of the abova numbered Contract have been g Provided; that all applicable pro
complied with b th h1 t
hied by nim and to the bast of m kn6' ' X_ A.a t gg Agency; and that this requisition for annual contributions has been exam•
Y *v16riiY�lwiref i�"hs�e Ennect arid'ebymplato
'Board
r
Februar 2, 1983 e
Appi-avcd , to fora
/
and leg uff'�iecy
B of Count=y Commissioners
Indian River CounLFlari _
ma�rfil'ub
(Date)
-fuu..i
l�w.,prn�,
!
Ilia FIELD OFFICE APPROVAL
,� -r
(Signature and Title of Official Authorized to Certify)
�, yrs i?raizden��ur
1c ar
(Signature and Title of
n y Attorne y ,
-� reea••e••� 07- 02 93
uthorired to Approue) (Date)
-�•�+^�� r+..L.vurvhhnts UiVItiIUN
Prevalideted by: r
(signature)
(Date)
FEB 2 1983
PAYMENT AMOUNT DATE CERTIFIED
PAID CERTIFIED FOR BY
MONTH OF PAYMENT I (initials)
rFEB 2 193
D. Release of Easement Request by,J. R Lumm
The Board reviewed the following memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: January 19, 1983 FILE: ER -12-03-09
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Release of Easement
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE Request by J. R. LuTm
Subject Property:
Lots 19 & 20, Block F, Unit 2,
Patrick Bruce King Stevens Park Subdivision
FROM: es "' REFERENCES:
Zoning Inspector
This is in response to a Release of Easement request by J. R. Lumen, owner
of the subject property. It is recommended that the data herein presented
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners.
DESCRIPTION AMID CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by J. R. Lumen to release the rear lot 10
,7 foot easements of lots 19 & 20, Block F, Unit 2, Stevens Park Subdivision.
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Florida Power and Light,
Florida Cablevision Corporation and the Utility and Right -of -Way Departments.
The Zoning staff analysis, which includes a site visit, showed that drainage
would be adequately handled by the existing front and side swales.
AERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS:
Peer site inspection by Zoning Inspector Charles Kindig, it is the Zoning
Department's opinion that to release the rear lot 10 foot easements of lots
15 & 20, Block F, Unit 2, Stevens Park Subdivision, would have no adverse
effect and would allow the petitioner to make two 50' X 124'+ lots into two
lots, 63' X 100' and 61' X 100', in order to build two homes on these lots.
However, if the easements are not released, the petitioner will be denied
his request to utilize these 2 lots as 2 wider parcels.
R?1ENIDATION:
Staff reds the release of the rear lot 10 foot easements of lots 19 &
20, Block F, Unit 2, Stevens Park Subdivision.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that in the future he did not
feel it necessary that the Board be given all the papers
that are to be executed for a release of easement, and
Commissioner Fletcher agreed that all he would like to see
is the memo reporting on the staff inspection of the site.
9
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher,
the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 83-11 approving the Release of
Easement requested by J. R. Lumen -
Lots 19 and 20, Block F, Unit 2,
Stevens Park Subdivision.
RESOLUTION N0. 8 3 11
Wf�REAS, the Board of County Carmissioners of Indian River =ty,
Florida, have been requested to release the rear lot 10 foot easements
of lots 19 & 20, Black F, Unit 2, Stevens Park Subdivision, according to
the Plat of same recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 54, of the Public Reoords
of Indian River County, Florida; and;
WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of
Stevens Park Subdivision, Unit 2, for the public utility and drnage
purposes, and;
WHfftEAS, the request for such release of easements has-been submitted
in proper form:
NOW, THMUIVRE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TITS BOARD OF COUNTY CaZlISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y, FLORIDA, that the following lot line exits
in Stevens Park Subdivision, Unit 2, shall be released, abandoned and
vacated as follows:
The rear lot 10 foot easements of lots 19 & 20, Block F,
Unit 2, Stevens Park Subdivision, according to the Plat
of the same filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Plat Book 4,
Page 54.
BE IT FUR'I7R RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County
Oxmassioner5 and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are
al.it'ooJ zcxl and 6 rected. to exec -ate a release of said lot line easements
hereinabove rk.,_fetred to in farm proper for recording and placing in the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
r E ts � iyts3
r
This 2nd day of February 1983.
.it.
Im
BOARD OF COUNTY COWSSIONERS OF
TNDTNJ 13.TV1R COUNi'Y, F..T.ORIDA
7111 BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
10
FEB 2 1983 . G;U,R
E. Approval of Bill for Public Defender
The Board reviewed staff memo and letter from the
Public Defender as follows:
TO: The,Honorable Members of DATE: January 26, 1983 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
AGENDA ITEM -
SUBJECT: Bill for Public Defender
FROM: Michael Wri REFERENCES:
County Admi str for
Attached is a letter dated August 19, 1982 and
another letter dated December 29, 1982 from Elton H. Schwarz,
Public Defender, relating to a bill in the amount of $204:00
for the purchase of tapes.
Because these letters make it clear that it would be
less expensive to buy the tapes rather than hire a Court
Reporter for each case, it is recommended that the bill
for Indian River County in the amount of $204 for purchase
of 240 tapes be approved.
It is also recommended these funds be transferred to
the proper account from the Board of County Commissioners
General Contingency Fund #001-199-513-99.91. The balance
in this account is currently $273,147.
MARTIN COUNTY OFFICE:
(MAIN OFFICE)
SUITE 215, COURTHOUSE ANNEX
P. O. BOX 2314
STUART, FLORIDA 33495-2314
( 309) 283.6760 EXT. 380
OFFICE OF
ELTON H. SCHWARZ
PUBLIC DEFENDER
NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA
August 19, 1982
Board of Commissioneys
Indian River County
2145 14th Avenue
Vero'Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Cost of Deposit ons
Dear Commissioners:
1
DIRECT LINES TO MAIN OFFICE:
( 305 ) 2014VI$8 (STUART)
(305) 464.D1064 (FORT PIERCE)
( 305) 562,M3S (VERA BEACH)
(813) 783,7,?$ (OKEECHOBEE)
REPLY TO: 41ruart
DI.S,TRLBUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator'
Attorney
Personnel
Public Works
Community Dev. .-
Utilities
Finance
I have recently ordered a supply of one hour..audiocassettes for
usage in the taking pf.depositions in cases involving our in.d1gent
clients under State purchasing Contract 480-60-83-1. Although the
cost of tapes such as this were not included in our budget request
for county funds,I anticipate including these items in our county
billing for next monph as a main office expense to be allocated be-
tween all four counties within the circuit based upon population. I
hope the following will provide an adequate explanation as to this
change in our procedures.
For over eight Tears I have attempted to minimize the cost of
discovery depositionls in criminal cases through the use of in-house
cassette dictating moachines and reusable cassette tapes. Since these
tapes are allowed.to be reproduced in court when needed during trial,
we have been able to keep the transcription cost at a minimum as well. -
As a comparison, the court established a -fee for a stenographic court
reporter to attend the taking of depositions at $15.00 per hour. The
court reporter's notes of the deposition are neither available to or
readable by the attorneys handling the cases and the vast majority of
these depositions would ordinarily be transcribed. Since Rule 3.220(k)
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that "After a defendant is
adjudged insolvent, the reasonable costs incurred in the operation of
these rules shall be taxed as costs against the county.", our procedure
for handling of these depositions has undoubtedly resulted in a sub-
stantial savings to the counties and the taxpayers. It has also been
our practice to reuse these cassette tapes whenever a case has been
concluded and we felt it was unnecessary for them to be retained.
Unfortunately, as a result of certain issues being raised by the
State Attorney's office, I now find that our
practice of reusing these
tapes cannot be continued. Rule 2.070 and Rule 2.075 of the Rules of
Judicial Administration require that these tapes be -retained for any-
where from 5 to 75 years depending upon the type of case and its dis-
position. Since these tapes also constitute "court records" they
should probably be retained by the Clerk of the Court for7;permanent
storage. r
12
B 19852
ME 71
al"110., Rom
!KGt'_� 4
Since the cost of these one hour tapes under State Contract is
less than $1.00 each, including case and lables, this will still re-
sult in a substantial. savings to the counties over the $15.00 per
hour rate charged by the court reporters,I am reluctant to resort to
individual motions tSl tax the costs of these tapes against the counties
in each case in whic�j we take depositions. The costs involved in the
additional paperwork would only.defeat the primary purpose of using
tape recorded depositJons and be counter-productive.
Should any of yqu, or your County Attorneys, or Clerk of the
Court have any questl,ons concerning these procedures, I hope that
you will contact me Ilersonally.
Very truly yours,
1to.n�H. Schwarz
Public Defender
The Finance Director was asked by Commissioner Wodtke
if money had been budgeted for this item before the purchase
was made, and Mr. Barton stated it was not, but he did
believe Mr. Schwarz had mentioned this at budget time.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to deny
approval of payment of invoice for audio
cassette tapes.
Additional discussion followed and Administrator Wright
interjected that if the invoice was not paid, the services
of a court reporter might be necessary, which would involve
a much greater expense.
Commissioner Fletcher understood the Board's problem
with approving this payment; he noted, however, that we have
an obligation to carry on the judicial system and felt if
the Board disapproved this payment, that we should follow
with some action to see that the tapes are paid for.
Commissioner Wodtke pointed out that it is against the
law to order something that is not budgeted.
13
Commissioner Scurlock suggested changing the Motion on the
floor, but Commissioner Wodtke would not agree to second a
revised Motion. The Motion was withdrawn.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher,
Commissioner Wodtke voting in opposition
and Commissioner Lyons being temporarily
delayed, the Board voted 3-1, to approve
payment of the $204 invoice for the tapes
and to direct the Chairman to write the
Public Defender advising the proper pro-
cedures involved in purchasing -budgeted
and non -budgeted items, according to
Florida statutes.
F. Approval of payment to John Young, Attorney for services
re: Reinhold Construction vs. County
The Board reviewed the following memos from the
attorney and the Administrator:
14
FEB 2 1983
52 75
F"'-- FS198
2 3
TO: Board of
County Commissioners
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg
County Attorney
s E71. 6
DATE: January 25, 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT: Reinhold Construction vs.
County Commission of
Indian River County --
Invoice of Hamilton, James,
Merkle and Young
REFERENCES:
Attached to this memorandum please find an invoice for the services
of John Young of the law firm of Hamilton, James, Merkle and Young
on the Reinhold Construction vs. Indian River County construction
claim case. The invoice has been corrected to show a total amount
due at this time of $13,413.52. I recommend payment of this amount
from an account as determined by the County Administrator.
Respec ully submitted,
/ y Bran enbug
TO: The Hohorable Members of DATE: January 26, 1983 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
ITEM FOR CONSENT AGENDA -
SUBJECT: Reinhold Construction
vs County Commission of
Indian River - Legal Fees
FROM: Michael Wrighl REFERENCES:
County Admini fetor
It is recommended the attached bill in the amount of
$13,413.52 be paid from Construction Account #301-130-519-33.162
Lawsuit Costs. The current balance in this account is
$183,761.00.
15
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher,
the Board unanimously approved payment
to Hamilton, James, Merkle and Young
in the amount of $13,413.52.
PUBLIC WORKS
Traffic Signal Jurisdiction and Maintenance Policy
The Board reviewed the following memo and policy draft:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 19, 1983 F,4:
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Michael Wright, County Administrator 4�(�, .
James W. Davis, Public Works Dir `/i
SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Jurisdiction and
Maintenance Policy
FROM: Michael L. Orr; �' \ REFERENCES:
Traffic Engi neer
r �- N- • it •• itMVLO&
The Public Works Division staff has submitted a proposal for a Countywide jurisdiction
and maintenance policy for traffic signals to the Transportation Planning Committee for
discussion and recommendation.. The Cmnnittee unanimously approved the concept of a
unified jurisdiction and maintenance policy for traffic signals during the January ll,
1983 meeting
At the present time, no formal policy exists concerning governmental responsibility for
the installation of new traffic signals at intersections of roads with different m-
tenance responsibilities, such as the intersection of County and municipal roads. in
addition, maintenance of existing traffic signals does not follow a logical assignment
of responsibility, i.e. municipalities maintaining traffic signals on County roads, and
visa versa.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
No consistent policy prevails between governmental jurisdictions within the State of
Florida. Agreements are left to local discretion.
A. Installation and maintenance of traffic signals shall be the responsibility of the
Political subdivision whose roadway has the higher functional classification as
shaven on the I.R.C. Thoroughfare Plan. Where equal classifications exist, installa-
tion/maintenance shall be determined by the roadway with the higher traffic volume,
determined on an annual basis and subject to assignment at the start of the fiscal
year -
16
FUE ` 7
FEB 2 1983
FruE71.8
This alternative was sent to each municipality within the County for comments and
approval (see attached letters). The Transportation Planning Committee endorses
this concept. Impacts to Indian River County are presented in the tables below:
Existing Maintenance of Siqnals
Indian River County
31
City of Vero Beach
31
City of Sebastian
0
City of Fellsmere
0
Town of Indian River Shores
0
Town -of Orchid
0
Maintenance of Signals - Alternative A
Indian River County
37 —
City of Vero Beach
23
City of Sebastian
1
City of Fellsmere
0
Town of Indian River Shores
1
Town of Orchid
0
Alternative A will increase the number of signals maintained by the County from 31
to 37. Specific transfers involved with implementation of Alternative A are:
City of Vero Beach to Indian River County
1. 17th Street/Indian River Blvd.
2. 17th Street/U. S. 1
3. 16th Street/Old Dixie Hwy.
4. 16th Street/17th Avenue
5. 16th Street/27th Avenue
6. 19th Place/Old Dixie Hwy.
7. 21st Street/Indian River Blvd.
8. 20th Place/6th Avenue
Indian River County to Town of Indian River Shores
1. John's Island/S.R. A -1-A
Indian River County to City of Sebastian
1. Main Street/U. S. 1
B. Traffic signal installation and maintenance costs shared on a proportionate percent-
age bed on the number of roadway approaches maintained by respective political
subdivisions.
C. Installation and maintenance responsibility by districting, i.e. municipalities
maintain all traffic signals within their corporate limits.
C. Do notl=g. Retain existing system of maintenance and decide upon installation
resposibility on a case-by-case basis using the Transportation Planning Committee:
i"Ok"1141�� ra. •
It is reccmmnded to adopt Alternative A. The Transportation Planning Committee, City
of Vero Beach, Town of Orchid, Town of Indian River Shores, City of Sebastian and the
City of Fellsmere have expressed their concurrence with the attached draft policy and
matrix for traffic signal installation and maintenance based on Alternative A.
7
DRAFT POLICY
Revised 11/22/82
November 22, 1982
Mayor William Cochrane - City of Vero Beach
Mayor Pat Flood, Jr. - Sebastian
Mayor Lee Johnston - Town of Orchid
Mayor Ed Nolan - Indian River Shores
Mayor Alvin Thomas - Fellsmere
Re: Traffic Signal- Jurisdiction/Maintenance Policy
Sir:
The Indian River County Transportation Planning Committee
has determined that it would be beneficial to establish a
County -wide policy relative to the maintenance of traffic
signals. Maintenance within the text of this policy shall
include the upgrading and/or modification.
The attached matrix has been developed from the following
suggested policy:
1. A signal approved for installation or installed by the
State on a State highway system will, be the maintenance
responsibility of the political subdivision in which it
is located (this has been State Department of Transpor-
tation policy). Should maintenance of the State highway
be transferred to the County, the determination of main-
tenance responsibility would be based upon Number 2.
below.
2. A signal at the intersection of two roadways having
different maintenance responsibilities will be
maintained.by the political subdivision whose roadway
18
52 %E719
FEB 2 1983
Traffic Signal - Jurisdiction/Maintenance Policy
November 22, 1982
Page Two
710
has the higher functional classification. Should the
classification be equal, the responsibility will be
assigned to the political subdivision whose roadway
has the higher traffic count which could be determined
periodically, as may be necessary.
3. A traffic.signal at the intersection where roadways are
maintained by the same agency (except the State - see
Number 1 above) shall be maintained by that agency._
Please consider these proposals, and should you concur or
have comments, you may contact the writer.
Very truly yours,
Jeffrey R. Barton
Councilman
18a
Cfl
Go
W
F4
NOTES: SIGNAL MAINTENANCE
Signal Maintenance is defined to include upgrading and/or modification.
Major Road is the road with a higher functional classification.
Minor Road is the road with a lower functional classification.
6
* Responsibility of political subc?ivision where located.
1
1
FEB 2 1933 FADE 722
Jim Davis, Public Works Director, referring to the
matrix contained in the material presented to the Board,
stated that the policy really focuses on a unified
jurisdiction and maintenance plan for all governmental
jurisdictions within the County. Mr. Davis then presented
the staff recommendation for approval of Alternate A, which
is based upon the hierarchy of the road intersection and
after that, upon traffic volume, noting that the proposed
Policy was sent to each municipality within the County for
comments and approval, and their concurrence has been
indicated.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, to
approve recommendation of staff specifying
adoption of Alternate A, Traffic Signal
Jurisdiction and Maintenance Policy.
Lengthy discussion ensued regarding traffic light
maintenance and the costs involved, and Mr. Davis reported
that he did not anticipate additional personnel costs. The
basic cost would be involved with the 16th Street project
which will be paid for by the Gas Tax.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we maintain any traffic
lights in the City of Vero Beach and Mr. Davis answered that
there were currently 4 lights being maintained in the city
limits of Vero Beach. Commissioner Wodtke felt that the
County is taking on too much cost responsibility and that
the City of Vero Beach should take on more of the expense.
Finance Director Barton pointed out that was why the
matrix was developed, and further noted that the funding is
from the Gas Tax, which is for everyone's use on those
roads. Mr. Davis emphasized that one of the benefits would
be the control of lights - especially on 16th and 17th
20
Streets where we could synchronize the lights for smcother
traffic flow.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3-1 with
Commissioner Wodtke opposed.
Chairman Bird expressed concern about the red flashing
signal lights, especially those at 43rd Avenue and ;Walker,
which are not working at times. He feared this might put us
in a hazardous liability situation.
Administrator Wright stated this would be taken care
of.
Petition Paving - Final Assessment Roll
The Board reviewed the following recommendation by the
Public Works Director:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 24, 1983 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Final Assessment Roll - Petition Paving
16th Avenue - 2nd Street to 4th Street
14th Avenue - 2nd Street to 4th Street
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. �, REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of 16th Avenue and 14th Avenue is complete. The final cost for the
work was:
16th Avenue
14th Avenue
$22,103.44
$23,554.38
Both are under the original estimates. The Final Assessment Rolls have been
prepared and are ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are
to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to be made
twelve months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four months
from the due date at the rate of interest established by the Board of County
Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the final determination of the
special assessment. The interest rate shall be 12% per annum.
21
FEB 2 1983Pkv
4 .4
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to the benefitted owners will be less than
computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative presented
is to approve the final assessment rolls.
It Q10NI &U
It is recam*ended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of
16th Avenue and 14th Avenue be approved by the Board of County Commissioners
and that they be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection.
Mr. Davis reported that the assessment worked out to be
about 50� a front foot less than anticipated in both
projects.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the
Board unanimously approved the Final
Assessment Roll for the paving of 16th
Avenue between 2nd and 4th Streets as
recommended by staff.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the
Board unanimously approved the Final
Assessment Roll for the paving of 14th
Avenue between 2nd and 4th Streets as
recommended by staff.
Said Assessment Rolls areon file in the Office of the
Clerk.
City of Fellsmere Request to Curb
The Board reviewed the following memorandum:
22
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: January 25, 1983 FILE:
Board of County ccamissioners
Through: Michael Wright, County Administrator
SUBJECT. City of Fells ere Request to curb
C.R. 507 Median
FROM: Ji„ mss,i' REFERENCES: 1) Albert van Auken to Jim Davis
Elie Warkss irector dated 1-18-83
2) Minutes of Sept. 14, 1982
Transportation Planning
Committee Meeting
DESCRIPTION AND CMMITIONS .
During the June 16, 1982 meeting of the Board.of County Commissioners, staff was
directed to submit the request to curb C.R. 507 (3,800 L.F. of curb) from Fells -
`&are Mayor Thomas to the Transportation Planning Ccamittee for their recc m -
tion. The T.P.C. considered the matter on 9-14-82, and a copy of the minutes of
that meeting is attached. Basically, the Committee reomwnded that', cost estimates
for railroad cross ties and landscaping be obtained. A cost estimate for this work
has been obtained, and the materials Cost is estimated at $7,270.50. A cost
estimate for curbing has been obtained, and this cost is estimated at $3.45 per
lineal foot (Trodglen Paving).
ALTERNATIVES AND. ANALYSIS
The alternatives presented include:
A. install cross ties at a materials cost of $7,270.50.•(See memo dated
• 1-18-83 from Albert van Auken to Jim Davis)
B. Install concrete cubing at a cost of $3.45 per lineal, foot. For the
3,800 L.F. of cub, the cost would be approximately $13,110.
C. Allow existing condition to remain.
It is reOmwnaed that Alternative B be approved whereby the County and City jointly
mpartira pate in the oonstniction of the concrete curb and landscaping to the C.R. 507
median at a cost of approximately $13,110. Funding to be from Road and Bridge
Materials Account (uncatrmi tted funds $50,000).
Jim Davis explained that their first recommendation was
for the installation of cross ties on C.R. 507 Median in
Fellsmere, but they since have learned that Trodglen Paving
has acquired a new machine that.pours set -form curbing and
has since estimated a cost of $13,110. It was his recom-
mendation that the County should go ahead with this company
and have concrete curbing installed. Commissioner Wodtke
asked if the $13,110 figure was the total cost of labor,
etc. Mr. Davis explained that the figure is just for the
concrete curbing work and does not include our labor, but
that our labor charge would be considerably less than if we
No
�.� 2 1983 1?15
FEB 2 1983 52, FA --L;,7 726
went with the railroad cross ties. In addition, it would be
better for future maintenance to have homogeneous curb.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher,
the Board unanimously approved staff
recommendation specifying Alternate B,
the installation of concrete curbs.
Commissioner Lyons entered the meeting at 9:45 a.m.
Indian River County Beach Renourishment
Chairman Bird explained that a week ago the following
letter came across his desk for his signature. He felt that
the Board should have some approval on this item prior to
his sending the letter and asked for it to be put on the
Agenda.
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
Mr. Al Bishop
Chief, Bureau of Water Management
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8241
Subject Fiscal Year 1985 Public Works Program -
Indian River County Beach Nourishment
Suncom Telephone: (305) 424-1012
January 24, 1983
Ref. Letter: Al Bishop, Chief, D.E.R. Bureau of Water Management to the
Honorable Patrick B. Lyons dated December 20, 1982
Dear Mr. Bishop,
In accordance with Section 373.026(9), Florida Statutes, Indian River
County has in the past two years suhizii.tted applications for the Indian River
County Beach Nourishment Project to be included in the FY 83 and FY 84 Public
24
Mr. Al Bishop
Chief, Bureau of Water Management
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation
January 24, 1983
Page Two
Works Program budgets. Our County residents are elated that the Beach Nour-
ishment Project was recam-ended by the Florida D.E.R. to be included in the
State's Public Works Program for FY 83 in the amount of $130,000. and for
FY 84 in the amount of $2,170,000. (Estimated Federal Funding Requir ts).
Attached are excerpts from the Preliminary Public Works Appropriations Program.
At this tima, the Indian Rivar County Beach Nourishrment Project Qwps
of Engineers' report is in the Washington office of the Chief of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engine-ers awaiting approval and forwarding to the Secretary of the
Army, Office of Management axil Budget, Congress and the President. It is not
certain.that approval will be forthcoming during FY 83. As a result, Indian
River Comity requests that the Bureau of Water Management act, on behalf of
the County, to :uasura the proper advancing or carry over of funds already
approved so that the County will remain in a proper financial posture for
State and Federal Funding. As requested on page 2 of your December 20., 1982,
letter, this letter is submitted to formally request inclusion :in the 1985 FY
Public Works Budget in the event that the Beach Nourishment Project -is delayed.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. If you need any further
information, please contact Mr. James W. Davis, P.E., Indian River Co=ty
Public Works Director, at 305-567-8000 (Ext. 245).
Sincerely,
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Board of County Commissioners
Jim Davis stated that the letter is basically asking
the D.E.R. to communicate to the federal government the
sponsor of the project in order to keep our funding status
current.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the 1983 sponsor was
cited as the City of Vero Beach while the 1982 sponsor was
r
mentioned as Indian River County. He felt there should be
25
FEB2 1983 r��E
FF--- - 1
FEB 2 1983 2 FSE 728
clarification as to the actual sponsor, and it was agreed
a
that by Florida Statute it must be the County.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the
Board authorize the Chairman to sign and
forward the proposed letter to the Depart-
ment of Environmental Regulation.
In the following discussion, Commissioner Lyons felt
that the phrase in the first paragraph of the letter, "Our
county residents are elated that," should be deleted before
the letter is forwarded and say instead, "It is noted that
the Beach Nourishment Project was recommended, ...'°
Commissioner Fletcher questioned whether the last line
in the letter that states r this letter is submitted to
formally request inclusion..." formally commits us.
Mr. Davis stated that the letter is merely formally
requesting that the funding be advanced; it already is in
the 1984 budget, and Administrator Wright believed this
letter just keeps our options open.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that the funding levels
for state participation have not yet been set, and he had
some serious concerns that they will be much less than in
the past.
Commissioner Fletcher was concerned that we are
stretching things out by giving the Corps of Engineers and
other agencies the impression that we intend to go ahead
with this project.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that the Strock Report
indicates that we should move ahead and actually establish a
funding formula by districts, and if that would be the case,
he would anticipate some sort of referendum. He would not
support creating such a district without a referendum.
26
Discussion continued as to the fact that.we actually
have not reached a local decision as to whether this commu-
nity really desires a Beach Nourishment Project and on what
basis they wish to continue.
Chairman Bird felt there is some confusion as to when
the final decision-making process on this project will take
place, and suggested there should be further discussion
before taking any action.
Commissioners Wodtke and Lyons withdrew their motion.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that the Beach Restoration
and Preservation Committee, of which he is Chairman, has a
total commitment to proceed with the Corps of Engineers
pumping plan and that their recommendation would be to
proceed and push for funding. They have begun to look into
different funding methods, and he hoped they might be able
to come up with some proposed funding participation .formulas
in 30 days, but the problem is that we do not know schen we
will be made aware of the federal funding levels. Ho had no
problem with going to a referendum on the matter, but felt
November of 1984 would be too late for the beaches.
Commissioner Lyons believed we are at a point where it
is time for the Commission to reach a decision by vote as to
whether we support a beach sand pumping process or not. He
stated that he was now satisfied in his own mind that
apparently there is no alternative - sand pumping is the
only way that has been proved at all practical. After
reaching a decision, the next question is the funding.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his trip to view the
various.beach projects in other counties changed his atti-
tude, and he now feels the beach project is necessary,
especially since the beaches are so beneficial to our
community. He continued that he would go on record indi-
cating that he would be in favor of a beach renourishment
program.whereby the major impact is borne by the private
27
FEB 2 1983 c Pkv
Fr" -FEB 2 1983 fox ��
u ..�
ownership, as well as the City of Vero Beach, with some
sharing by those in the unincorporated area of the County.
Commissioner Lyons said he would support a
renourishment program provided we could find a way to
finance it in a way that is equitable. He noted that parks
and recreation in the County are supported by the General
Fund, and he would have no trouble with the County bearing a
share of the cost for the public lands that are involved and
have the monies come out of the General Fund.
Chairman Bird expressed his support of the Beach
Nourishment Project if we can find a fair and equitable way
of funding and suggested a funding workshop be held jointly
with the City of Vero Beach.
Commissioner Fletcher appreciated the other commis-
sioner's views on renourishment, but did not believe the
method proposed by the Corps of Engineers is the only
alternative or the correct one. He saw no point in repeat-
ing a process that would not be permanent and believed a
submerged breakwater would be a better solution than
pumping. He further felt we have adequate beach and that to
anticipate losing our beaches is not a valid belief.
Commissioner Wodtke did not agree. He felt our beaches
are disappearing and we must do something about it. He
noted if the City Council were the one who had to be the
sponsor, it would be a much easier situation, and he felt
possibly we should scrap the current beach committee and
form a new bipartisan committee to work out funding methods.
M M r
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that
the Board go on record as supporting the
Corps of Engineers project for beach
renourishment and request the Beach
Restoration & Preservation Committee
to come back to this Commission within
60 days with a formula for funding that
can be found acceptable by the Board of
County.Commissioners.
Further discussion ensued regarding the need to have
the City involved.
Frank Zorc addressed the Board, reading from the
minutes of a previous meeting of the. Board of County
Commissioners, which he felt demonstrated that the Board
had already agreed to do what they are proposing to do
today, and that it had been further indicated that no
commitment would be made until the County had full
information on a funding formula.
In the ensuing discussion, it was explained that the
Commission is not making a commitment today and will not
until the committee comes back with an acceptable funding
formula; they mainly are trying to bring this matter to a
head by stating that the Commission does support beach
renourishment, which was not stated in the previous Motion.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4-1 with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in
opposition.
r
Further discussion followed on the subject of
beach renourishment.
29
FEB 2 1983
x 4 ?w f -A
I
FEB 2 1983 . 52,p3;
Telephone: (305) 587-8000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lions,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the
Board by a 4-1 vote, with Commissioner
Fletcher opposed, directed the Chairman
to sign the proposed letter to the DER
dated 1-24-83, but to delete "Our County
residents are elated" and insert "It is
noted that the Beach Renourishment Project
was recommended..."
Mr. A7 Bishop
Chief, Bureau of Water Management
Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Building
Tallahassee, F1.•32$01-8241
Subject: Fiscal Yegr 1985 Public Works Program -
Indian River.County'Beach Nourishment
Suncom Telephone: (308) 424.1012
February 22, 1983
Ref. Letter: Al Bishop, Chief, D.E.R. Bureau of Water Management to the
Honorable Patrick B. Lyons dated December 20, 1982
:r
Dear Mr. Bishop,
In accordance with Section 373.026(9), Florida Statutes, Indian River .
County has in the past two years submitted applications for the Indian River
County Belch Nourishment Project td be included in the FY 83 and FY 84 Public
Works Program budgets. It is noted that the Beach Nourishment Project was
recommended by the Florida D.E.R. to be included in the State's Public Works
Program for FY 83 in the amount of $130,000 and.for FY 84 in the amount of
$2,170,000 (Estimated Federal Funding Requirements). Attached are excerpts
from the Preliminary Public Works Appropriations Program.
Al this time, rhe Indian River County Beach Nourishment Project Corps
of Tit►glzlrrepot, in th:., Washington office of the Chief of the U.S. Army
Cuj p -i l;n>>i loos -5 4%vil i t ing ai)prova] nn,: forwarding to the Secretary of the
Arnw, Ot- c- of "•t, rz -+:rlm•nt- an,] Budget, Congress and the President. It is not
coi'tain fliat. al)prrn 6i iel i1 he forthcoming during; FY 83. As a result, Indian
R.it-er a ntNI requos,--. Chat the Bureau of Water i`Ianagement act, on behalf of
thr cotillt+ , to UISO1'(• nct� proper advancing or carry over of funds already
30
approve(I so that tho County will remain in a proper financial posture for
State and Federal Funding. As requested on page 2 of your December 20, 1982,
letter, this letter is submitted to formally request inclusion in the -.1985
FY Publir Works Budget in the event that the Beach Nourishment Project is
delayed.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 'If you need any further
information, please contact Mr. James W: Davis, P.E.,•Indian River.County
Public Works Director, at 305-567-8000 (Ext. 245).
Sincerely,
-Chairman Richard N. Bird
]Board of County Commissioners
Local Option Tax for Beach Renourishment and Care
The Board reviewed memo from Attorney Brandenburg:
TO: Board of DATE: January 24, 1983 FI -4,E: -
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Local Option Tax for
Beach Renouriahment and
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg Care
REFERENCES:
County Attorney
Representatives of the City Council of Vero Beach have approached
the County to determine whether any interest exists for the County
and the City to jointly sponsor an -amendment to the general lacy
provisions that would allow the imposition of a local option "bed'
tax" for beach renourishment and care. Currently Florida Statutes
5125.0104 gives counties the option to impose a touristdevelopment
tax. One suggestion would be to request the legislature to add
language to this section to allow the imposition of a tax on the
same basis after referendum approval of the residents of the County
to be --used for beach renourishment and care.
If the County Commission is in favor of pursuing this matter
further, please authorize this office to draft a proposal and
present it to the legislative delegation on February 8, 1983
Respec lly submitted,
r WBrandenburcgj
William Cochrane, Mayor of Vero Beach, came forward to
address the commissioners in regard to funding of the Beach
Renourishment Project. He felt that the tourists who visit
Vero Beach should help pay for the beaches and requested the
30a
FE B 2 1983 5 2 FAE ` 3
9 t1K 52.FxE 734
support of the Board in having the law amended so that the
uses for a Resort Tax could be broadened to include beach
care, beach renourishment, and beach acquisition.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that
the Board of County Commissioners go on
record as supporting the use of Resort
Tax for funding beach care, beach
renourishment and the purchase of
beach property.
Discussion was held as to the advisability of using
words relating to acquiring beach property, and it was felt
advisable to keep the request to the Legislature as simple
as possible.
Commissioners Lyons and Wodtke agreed to reword their
Motion as follows:
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the
Board voted 4-1, with Commissioner
Fletcher opposed, to have the Commis-
sion go on record as supporting the
use of a Resort Tax for beach nourish-
ment and care, to authorize the County
Attorney to draft a proposal in this
regard for presentation to the local
Delegation, to adopt a Resolution
supporting the State Legislature in
adopting it, and to request the State
Association of County Commissioners,
the City of Vero Beach, and the League
of Municipalities to do the same.
31
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds - General
Development Utilities, Inc.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that General Development
is asking the County to extend the date of the terms agreed
to in Resolution 82-48, dated May 5, 19.82 in regard to
issuing industrial development revenue bonds for expanding
their sewerage services.
Commissioner Fletcher asked.if General Development had
initially paid us a $1,000 application fee,and Attorney
Brandenburg stated they had and had also agreed to pay any
further expenses incurred by the County in extending the
date of the agreement.
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtker
Commissioner Fletcher voting in
opposition and Commissioner Scurlock
having left the room briefly, the
Board by a 3-1 vote approved adoption
of Resolution 83-12, authorizing an
extension of an additional period of
time for those inducements and comit-
ments set forth in Resolution 82-48.
32
FEB 2 1983 c52 PuE 7,35
r FEB 2
M
RESOLUTION NO. •83-12
,5= 2. P'a'in' 736
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA OF AN AMENDATORY
INDUCEMENT LETTER EXTENDING FOR AN ADDITIONAL
PERIOD OF TIME THOSE INDUCEMENTS AND COMMITMENTS
SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 82-48; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
X
WHEREAS, on May 5, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County (the "Issuer"), adopted Resolution No. 82-48, entitled:
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIV-
ERY BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, OF A LETTER OF INTENT AND
INDUCEMENT AGREEMENT TO GENERAL DEVELOPMENT UTI-
LITIES, INC., WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE
BONDS TO FINANCE SAID COMPANY'S INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES '
FOR THE FURNISHING OF SEWERAGE SERVICES.
(the "Inducement Resolution"), in connection with the proposed issuance of industrial
development revenue bonds (the "bonds") by the Issuer to finance the acquisition of
certain real property, and the construction and equipping thereon of improvements
comprising industrial facilities for the furnishing of sewerage services (the "Project"), to
be owned and operated by General Development Utilities, Inc. (the 'Borrower"); and
WHEREAS, the Letter of Intent and Inducement Agreement authorized to be
executed and delivered pursuant to the Inducement Resolution provides that the agree-
ment resulting from *the acceptance by the Borrower of the Letter of Intent and
Inducement Agreement shall be deemed cancelled if the bonds are not issued and
delivered to the purchaser thereof by December 31, 1982; and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has advised the Issuer that it is proceeding with the
proposed Project with all due diligence but will not be in a position to request the Issuer
to issue the bonds prior to December 31, 1982; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY:
Section 1. Extension of Time. The Issuer hereby agrees to extend those
inducements and commitments set forth in Resolution No. 82-48 for an additional period
of time; provided, however, if for any reason (other than that which. shall be the fault of
the Issuer) the bonds are not delivered to the purchaser or purchasers thereof by October
17, 1983, then the provisions of the proposal evidenced by Resolution No. 82-48 and this
Resolution and the agreement resulting from their acceptance by the Borrower shall be
deemed, cancelled.
Section 2. Authorization of Execution and Delivery of Amendatory Induce-
ment Letter. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of the Issuer is
hereby authorized to execute, and the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of the
LKL-1/3/83-#126 -1-
33
Issuer is hereby authorized to attest, the Issuer's letter addressed to the Borrower in
-Substantially the form attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein,
with such changes therein, whether made prior to the execution thereof or thereafter, as
shall be approved from time to time by such officers executing the same, such approval to
be conclusively evidenced by their execution thereof.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Lyons
moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner ,who
being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Wodtke an ,upon
Chairman Richard -N. Bird
Aye
i
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Absent
Jr.
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons AX*e_
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
Y
Commissioner .A; Grover Fletcher Na
The Chairman thereupon declared the Resolution duly passed and adopted this
2nd day of _ February , 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI&olONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
(SEAL)
By:
RICHARD N. BIRD
Charman
,� •\ i
ATTEST: 1�/� �
APPROVED�£i?TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
-
unty Attorney
d
-2-
33a
FE 2 1 83 _ � �c WE 73 '
FEB 2 1983
}
Exhibit A
General Development Utilities, Inc.
Miami, Florida
Re: Amendments to Letter of Intent and Inducement Agreement
in connection with proposed financing by General Develop-
ment Utilities, Inc., of industrial facilities for the furnishing
of sewerage services (the "Project") situated in Indian River
County with industrial development revenue bonds issued by
the County.
Gentlemen:
Based upon your representations to the officials and representatives of Indian
River County, Florida (the "Issuer") that you are proceeding with all due diligence toward
conclusion of arrangements necessary to acquire and construct certain industrial facilities
for the furnishing of sewerage services (the "Project") and to finance said Project with the
issuance of industrial development revenue bonds by the Issuer, the Issuer proposes that
paragraph 5 of that certain letter addressed to you and authorized to be executed and
delivered by the Issuer pursuant to Resolution No. 82-48 (the "Letter of Intent and
Inducement Agreement"), be amended to read as follows:
5. Upon acceptance by the Borrower of this proposal, the
Issuer shall keep open and outstanding this commitment and
inducement to the Borrower for a reasonable time so long as the
Borrower shall be proceeding with appropriate efforts toward
conclusion of any arrangements necessary to the Project; provided,
however, if for any reason (other than that which shall be the fault
of the Issuer) the bonds are not delivered to the purchaser or
purchasers thereof by October 17, 1983, then the provisions of this
proposal and the agreement resulting from its acceptance by the
Borrower shall be deemed cancelled. In such event, or in the event
Of its earlier cancellation by agreement between the Borrower and
the Issuer, neither party shall have any rights against the other and
no third party shall have any rights against either party except:
(a) The Issuer will transfer and convey to the Borrower all
the Project components (and sites, if any) which shall have been
acquired by the Issuer; provided the Issuer has received adequate
compensation therefor from the Borrower.
(b) The Borrower will pay to the Issuer the amount of all
expenses which shall have been incurred by the Issuer in connection
with the Project and which were authorized by the Borrower,
including any administrative fees of the Issuer in reviewing and
processing Borrower's bond issuance application.
-3-
33b
(d) The Borrower will pay the out-of-pocket expenses of
officials and representatives of the Issuer and counsel for the
Issuer incurred in connection with the Project, will pay Livermore
Klein & Lott, P.A., bond counsel for the Issuer, and will pay the
legal fees of Freeman, Richardson, Watson & Kelly, P.A., Special
Counsel retained by the Issuer in accordance with their fee letter
dated March 16, 1982 addressed to the County Attorney, and
reasonable legal fees for legal services related to the Project or
the financing thereof.
If this proposal shall be satisfactory to the Borrower, please have the
acceptance statement which follows this proposal executed by the proper officers of the
Borrower duly authorized and provide an executed copy to the Issuer, whereupon this
proposal will constitute an agreement in principle with respect to the matters herein
contained.
(SEAL)
Attest:
Yours very truly,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Chairman, Board of County
Commissioners
�
ailG
Ierk, f3oiird of Coun
Commissioners aI'l , randen►tbu
C , y A[iornew
' T
c
1 l
The terms and conditions contained in the foregoing proposal by the Board of
County Co 'missioners of. Indian River County, Florida are hereby accepted this 41W day
of' 1983.
(SEAL
f
,Attest:
GENERAL DEVELOPMENT
UTMMES, INC.
33c,
FEB 2 1983 0'0 739
pr
FEB 2 1983 9ft POC -340
Preliminary Plat Approval of Luria's Plaza at Vero Beach
The commissioners reviewed staff recommendation in the
following memorandum:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 24, 1983 FILE:
of the Board of SD-8�!-12"-003
County Commissioners
SUBJECT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
OF LURIA'S PLAZA AT
VERO BEACH SGRDIVIS.ION
Patrick Bruce King, A CP
FROM: - REFERENCES:
Clare Zimmerman it
It is requested that the information presented herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their meeting on February 2, 1983.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
The applicant has requested that preliminary plat approval be
granted to Luria's Plaza Subdivision. The Board of County
Commissioners tabled this request for plat approval for two
weeks at their meeting on January 19, 1983. The request was
tabled so that the developer and planning staff could more
fully discuss the conditions of approval which staff had
recommended.
Briefly, the history of the Luria's Plaza Subdivision is as
follows:
In May,'1982 the developers of Luria's Plaza requested site
plan approval for a 117,960 sq. ft. retail shol
ng
This shopping center was to consist of 36 retailstoresterin.
three separate structures. The site plan which the developers
submittedrto the County showed the shopping center on one large
lot, and two separate, smaller lots, both of which fronted on -
U.S. #1 and which the developer indicated were to be separated
from the Luria's Plaza development and ultimately sold to other
developers.
At the'June 1, 1982, TRC meeting the Luria's Plaza development
was reviewed. At the time staff made the following
recommendations and statement -s:
"1) That the subdivision procedure be followed as per the
County's Subdivision Ordinance #75-3. This requirement is
being asked since an actual division of three parcels is being
created by this development. Two of the parcels will be leased
or sold at a later time for future development (they will be
parcels that abut U. S. W. Through the subdivision process
we can control access to those parcels and have a plat on
record of the subdivision, as well as the 10th Avenue dedica-
tion to the rear of the shopping plaza..
2) That the traffic circulation be slightly amended to meet
the approval of the County Traffic Engineer. The Staff Planner
noted the applicant had redesigned the traffic circulation
pattern and there were two, very minor problems with it, which
involve cutting down on some curbing areas near the buildings
which reduce the angle of the traffic circulation."
34
M M M
On July 22, 1982, the Luria's Plaza site plan received.approval
subject to five conditions. Two of these five conditions were
that:
1) the subdivision procedure be followed, as per the County's
Subdivision Ordinance 75-3, since three parcels are being
created,
2) the traffic circulation be slightly amended to meet the
approval of the County Traffic Engineer.
The developers of Luria's Plaza have submitted a pxeaixminary
plat which shows the three parcels which they are er.e4ting as a
result of their development. They are requesting preliminary
plat approval, as per the conditions of their site plan ap-
proval, and staff has reviewed their plat as per the County's
Subdivision Ordinance 75-3.
It should be mentioned that the second condition oftheir site
plan approval listed herein, amending the traffic circulation
on site to meet the approval of the County Traffic Engineer,
has not yet been met. The applicants have discussed recom-
mended changes with the Traffic Engineer, but have not complied
with all the changes which the Traffic Engineer has requested,
nor have they submitted amended drawings reflecting any changes
which have been made on site.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS:
Section 3 (A)
states that:
(3b) of the County's Subdivision Ordi.nan.ce 75-3
"The Board, in studying the preliminary plat, will take into
consideration the requirements of the community and the best
use of the land being subdivided. Particular attention will be
given to width, arrangement and location of streets, lot sizes
and arrangements, as well as requirements for school sites,
public building sites, parkways and highways. Adequate street
connections will be required to ensure free access to and
circulation for adjoining subdivisions and lands."
In conformance with this section of the subdivision regulations
staff has made the following recommendations:
1) During the initial subdivision review, a drainage easement
was provided along the northern border of the property to allow
access to a portion of the drainage system on the site. Since
that time, the Planning Department has received correspondence
indicating that this pipeline is being put in a different
location than shown on the original site plan. For that reason
it is recommended that the drainage easement shown on the
preliminary plat be relocated to correspond with the actual
location of the pipe.
2) Because of the subdivision's size, location and the type of
development involved, it is recommended that the developer
install one street light at the entrance of the proposed
shopping plaza at U.S.#1 and one street light at the
intersection of 10th Avenue and 17th Street.
3) Also, because of the impact which a development of this
size would have on the traffic on U. S. #1, it is recommended
that some method of facilitating ingress and egress to the
proposed subdifvision be provided by the developer.
34a
FEB 2 1983 t 2 PnE 741
Staff recommends that a deceleration -taper lane be constructed
by the developer along U. S. #1. This lane should be 0' (0
feet) wide at the northern boundary of Tract 1 and taper to 12'
wide at the entrance to the shopping plaza (a distance of
141.41, as platted). This would eliminate southbound traffic
which is entering the shopping plaza from having to practically
stop on U. S. #1 to complete their turn. In constructing this
taper lane, the developer should be responsible for relocating
any sidewalks, curbing and powerline poles as may be necessary.
The developer must get all D.O.T. permits as required.
4) In order to avoid possible accidents from traffic entering
and exiting the shopping plaza, it is also recommended that the
inbound traffic be limited to one lane in the entrance drive
and that the second inbound lane, which has been proposed on
the site plan, should be utilized as a traffic divider with a
10' wide planter median being constructed in it.
5) Staff also recommends that the 25' wide drive which paral-
lels the retention basin and curves around the northeast corner
of the property be reconstructed so that it is a stub street
which extends to the property line, rather than a curve.
6) Staff further recommends that the applicant dedicate to the
public an ingress and egress easement at the -entrance to
Luria's Plaza Shopping Center, this easement should curve to
the north with the parking pavement and parallel the retention
basin. It should continue to the border of the property. This
easement should be 48' wide at the entrance to the development
and continue at this width for 233' at which point the easement
should curve north. The easement should be 25' wide as it
parallels the retention basin until it reaches the northern
border of the property. The reason for this recommendation is
so that if future commercial development were to occur on the
site immediately north of the property, internal traffic
circulation among all the commercial developments along U.S.#1
in that area would be insured.
The Florida Department of Transportation was contacted in
reference to these recommendations. Mr. Paul White, of D.O.T:,
stated that permits are issued by D.O.T. for construction of
deceleration lanes on U. S. #1 and, in fact, deceleration lanes
on U. S. #1 are encouraged by D.O.T. to facilitate traffic
flow.
The applicant has been informed of all staff recommendations
and is willing to comply with Items 1, 2 and 5. However, they
are not willing to comply with Items 3, 4, and 6 that is, con-
struction of a deceleration taper lane, construction of a 10'
wide planter median in the center of the entrance drive and
dedication to the public of an ingress and egress easement at
the entrance way and along the eastern edge of the parking lot.
The applicant has stated they would be willing to install a
traffic signal at the entrance of the development. However,
the County Traffic Engineer has said that a deceleration lane
would facilitate traffic movement on U. S. #1 to a greater
degree than a traffic light would. Traffic turning right into
the shopping center would not have to come to a stop on U. S.
#1 if a deceleration lane were constructed. Traffic turning
left into the shopping center can use_the existing center turn
lane. A traffic signal at the entrance would force all traffic
to stop. A deceleration lane, used in conjunction with the
existing center turn lane, would remove traffic entering the
shopping center from the traffic flow, without forcing all
traffic on U. S. #1 to stop or significantly reduce their speed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny
the preliminary plat approval request for Luria's Plaza at Vero
Beach Subdivision unless and until the applicant complies with
the conditions listed herein.
34b
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock
that the Board accept the recommen-
dation of staff to deny the preliminary
plat approval of Luria's Plaza until the
applicant complies with the conditions
listed.
Attorney Brandenburg commented that the Board could
either deny the plat and require the applicant to cozy back
again or approve it based on inclusion of the six con-
ditions.
Michael O'Haire, attorney representing the applicants,
addressed the Board. He did not believe plat approval was
actually necessary. He reviewed the history of the project,
emphasizing that the rules have been changed too late - that
the structures are permitted and ready for occupancy. He
stressed that.the applicant agreed to comply with staff's
first conditions which dealt with interior circulation and
minor curb problems, but what is being required now is
neither interior nor minor. Leases have already been
executed - curbs are in place, etc. Mr.. O'Haire argued that
staff has been negligent in informing his clients of the
conditions now proposed and they felt that what staff is
proposing would actually impede traffic flow rather than
improve it. He noted that in an effort to compromise, his
client has offered to bear the expense of installing a
traffic light, which he feels would be more beneficial
overall than the proposed deceleration lane and changed
entry.lane, etc. Mr. O'Haire suggested that, if all else
fails, his client be allowed to have a professional traffic
study done.
Chairman Bird asked Public Works Director Davis if a
traffic Eight at Luria's Plaza would make a light at the
35
ew' 3
FEB2 1983 c
IF
527�, ,, L
K -Mart shopping center still necessary. Mr. Davis stated
that D.O.T. approval would be needed for the Luria's light
and that they already had approval for the K -Mart light.
Commissioner Wodtke felt that a traffic light at Luria's
might not be a bad alternative to solving the traffic hangup
problem.
It was agreed that there is a problem and we must find
the best way to handle it.
Jim Davis pointed out that staff was not negligent in
informing the developer that the subdivision procedures
should be followed, and it was noted that the applicant
apparently has proceeded on with his site plan knowing that
he had not faced up to the problems involved with a sub-
division.
J
Bruce King, Community Development Director, felt there
was some misunderstanding on the design in regard to the
Ohio engineering firm being used on this project. He stated
his staff was authorized to develop a long-time solution to
the problem of ingress and egress and that to have only one
lane in and one lane out on U.S. #1 for the 3 -in -1 develop-
tnent was not sufficient. He explained the 10th Street
access is being developed to loop the three developments
together on the western end of the development.
Mr. O'Haire continued to argue that all three parcels
were shown on the site plan submitted in June of last year,
and the applicant was then told what was required,'but in
January the applicant's representative was handed a report
with conditions he had never seen before.
Bruce Douglas, engineer from the Douglas Corporation,
and Design Services, a design firm, addressed the Board and
stated that he felt there was a change in the planning
requirement process and that the developers had fulfilled
the original conditions of the site plan and that Bruce King
was in error when he said they had not fulfilled the
36
conditions. He went on to explain that his clients do
realize the problem and want a good solution found, but feel
that the deceleration lane is not the answer. He also
stated his resentment of his representative coming into the
meeting of January -19, 1983 and finding out new requirements
or conditions had been added to staff recommendation of
preliminary plat approval, and added that he also resented
the implication that his firm did not care about Vero Beach
but wanted to move full speed ahead regardless.
Commissioner Fletcher expressed his resentment toward
the developer in that the reason the Commission did not take
action at the January 19, 1983 meeting was to afford the
developer the opportunity to make an effective change or
hold discussion with us on ways to solve the problem,, and
that he even felt more resentment in that -the developer had
gone ahead with paving and grading after the January 19th
meeting without coming back to us.
Discussion continued at length on the requirement for a
single lane entry, the impact on traffic flow, etc.
Michael Orr, County Traffic Engineer, stated that the
basic purpose of the deceleration taper is to get the
turning traffic out of the main flow on U.S. #1; there is no
storage because the vehicles are not required to stop. He
agreed that a traffic signal may be required in the future,
but that this should be looked at when all the development
is in so we could connect all the sites and maximize the use
of a single light.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Attorney Brandenburg if we
are in our legal right to impose these requirements and
conditions
at this time,
and
was assured that the Commission
does have the
right, although
any
applicant has the ability to have a
matter reviewed in court.
r
37
I FEi 1983
c52 %E 7-45
FEB 2 1983 K g-2 F
Commissioner Bird asked Bruce King if 4 lanes -- 2 in
and 2 out -- plus the deceleration lane, and the consider-
ation of a traffic light becoming necessary in the future,
might be an acceptable solution. Mr. King stated that they
would accept a 4 -lane solution with a planted median.
Commissioners Fletcher and Scurlock agreed to modify
their motion and reworded it as follows:
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously approved the preliminary
plat approval for Luria's Plaza with the
inclusion of all staff recommendations of
six conditions dated January 24, 1983, with
Condition #4 being modified to read, "recom
mended that the entrance drive be four lanes —
two lanes in and two lanes out -- " to be
divided by a ten -foot wide, planted median.
38
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
11:50 o'clock A.M. for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 o'clock
P.M. Commissioner Scurlock was unable to return to the
meeting because of illness; all other Commissioners were
present.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING LOTS IN OSLO PARK (ELLIOTT)
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, toy -wit:
VERO 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 -&- ///' e -
in the matter of %=ZU/Zra l —1 & 0XV
In the
lished in said, newspaper in the issues of Mi
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, for a 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.
Sworn to and subscNF
et is day of l A.D. 19
L Z P(Business Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit COLict, Indian River County, Florida)
r
39
NOTICE —RVALICHEARING -_ i
Notice of Hearing -lo consider the following;
proposal to rezone land from-
C-1 "Commerclai District" to M-1
"Restricted Industrial District. The subject
property presently ,owned by Lawrence J.
Elliott is located at -me Northwest intersection
of 10th Avenue, S.W: Sr1d 9th street S.W.
The subject properly is described as.
Lots 21 & 32, 13I0ek E, OSLO PARK SUB-
DIVISION, according to the plat: thereof as
filed in the office of the ClerkL of,the. Circus
Court of Indian River County, Florida, in Pla
Book 3, page 96.
A public hearing 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 County Commission Chambers
of the County Administration Building, located
at 1840 2Sth Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, February 2,1983, at 1:30 p.m.
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 in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is based:
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Richard N. Bird
Chairman
Jan. 14,26, IM.
DrAft
( P��E.
FE B 2 1983 six PnF . 4
-Y
Planner Art Challacombe reviewed staff recommendation,
as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: November 29, 1982 FILE: IRC-82-ZC-23,
Board of County Commissioners #463
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Patrick Bruce King, AICP
LAWRENCE ELLIOTT REQUEST TO
REZONE LOTS 21 & 22 OF BLOCK E,
SUBJECT: OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION LOCATED
ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OSLO
ROAD $ 10th AVE., S.W. FROM C-1,
CMD ERCIAL TO M-1, INDUSTRIAL
FROM: ,canis Johnson
ohnso REFERENCES:
Staff Planner
It is requested the data herein presented be given formal consideratior_.by
the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on February 29.
1983.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On November 10, 1982 the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended
approval of the request to rezone Lots 21 and 22 of Block E, Oslo Park Subdivi-
sion from C-1, Commercial to M-1, Industrial. The two lots contain approxi-
mately t 12,000 square feet. The applicant proposes to build an auto sales and
service shop. The applicant submitted a site plan which indicated the repair
area of the shop is not an accessory use but the primary use. The proposed
shop is therefore,'not permitted in C-1, Commercial. The proposed use is
acceptable in the M-1, Restricted Industrial District, Section 22A(2) " ..Main-
tenance, repair, reconditioning..." and Section 22A (1) "...retail sales...".
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Environment - The subject property is not within a designated flood hazard area.
It contains no environmentally sensitive areas. The vegetation consists of
scattered Florida Slash Pines and scrub vegetation.
Land Use - The area of Oslo Park Subdivision south of 8th Street, S.W. contains
approximately 64 lots which are typically 8,000 square feet. The subdivision is
approximately 50% developed. The existing commercial uses are auto trim repair,
salvage and storage facilities, as well as some wholesale distribution facili-
ties. Outdoor storage without visual screening is common. The area north of
8th Street, S.W. contains an established single family residential area. In
this residential area, twenty-two of the 94 lots (Blocks F, G., H, and K, which
lay north of 8th Street, S.W.) contain occupied residence s.Although the majority
of uses in blocks south of 8th Street are commercial, there are seven lots in
Blocks D and E which contain single family residences. Tbere are four single
family residences on the south side of Oslo Road. There is a citrus processing
facility on the south side of Oslo Road, opposite Block E and the subject pro-
perty.
The Plan encourages redevelopment of the mixed use areas in uses similar to
and compatible with existing land uses. Although there are residential uses
in Blocks D and E, the majority of the uses in the subdivision are industrial/
commercial. It is anticipated that Blocks D and E would develop in a manner
similar to the existing` land use pattern of Blocks A, B, and C. The vacant
parcel east of Oslo Park Subdivision should be encouraged to develop in a general
commercial or office use to provide an intermediate area between industrial uses
in Oslo Park and provide a buffer to the residential area to the south on Oslo
Road.
- = 40
Utilities.- Municipal/County water service is available to the subdivision. The
subject property is also served by the Oslo Park Fire Station located -directly
south of the water plant, approximately 1,000 feet west of the subject property.
Traffic - The capacity of Oslo Park, around the subject property, is approximately
12,000 Average Daily Trips per day with a volume capacity ration of .42 or 42%
of the existing capacity is presently utilized. The increased traffic generated
by the completed development is anticipated to be approximately 560 Average Daily
Trips per day and 180 peak hour trips. Based on a maximum development of the
park in a M-1, Restricted Industrial District, the projected ADT on Oslo Road
will be 5,500 and peak hour trips would be 680. This would result in a volume
capacity ratio of .46 or 46% of the existing capacity. This would result in a
volume capacity ratio of .46 or 46% of the existing capacity. The subject property
is facing Oslo Road, in addition, 10th Avenue, S.W., is also paved.
RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed rezoning will allow land use compatible with existing uses and is
in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the policies listed for the mixed
use district. Based on the foregoing discussions, Staff recommends approval.
Mr. Challacombe reported that staff previously brought
before the Board a County initiated rezoning for land in
this vicinity, and they now are looking at this rezoning in
the same light. The predominant uses in the area are geared
to industrial - numerous wholesale distributing facilities,
car paint shops., etc. There are some existing
non -conforming single family homes but because of the MXD
area, it was felt the industrial use would be the most
appropriate in the long term and staff, therefore,
recommended approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher's only question was about the
traffic analysis, which indicated that Oslo -Road is at 460
of existing capacity.
Mr. Challacombe stated that this relates only to a
portion of Oslo Road. Some of Oslo Road is hardly traveled
at all as you go further west.
41
EE B'2 1983 I c 5 FA 19
wK 52 utf 750
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletdlier, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Scurlock
being absent, the Board by a 4 to 0 vote, unani-
mously adopted Ordinance 83-9 rezoning lots in
Oslo Park Subdivision as requested by Lawrence
Elliott.
ORDINANCE NO. 83-9
WHEREAS,•.the Board of County Commissioners of•Indian River
_ -1 -
County, Florida, di:d 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 follows:
l.. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the
following described property situated in Indian
River County, Florida., to -wit:
,Lots 21 & 22,.Block E, OSLO PARK SUBDIVISION, according to the
plat thereof as filed in the office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of Indian River County, Florida, in plat gook 3,
Page 96.
Be changed rom C-1 Commercial to M-1, Restricted Industrial
District. \\\
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described
.i_n said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and ad'optr:d by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian diver unty, Florida, on this 2nd day of February , 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVTr.i2 COUNTY
By
✓�^
RICHARD N. BIRD
Chairman
IM 2
EXPLANATION OF DURATION OF A SITE PLAN APPROVAL
The Board reviewed memo from Attorney Brandenburg and
letter from George Kraft, as follows:
TO: Beard of DATE:
January 24, 1983 FILE:
County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Section 23 ( h) :of the
Indian River County
Zoning Code
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES:
County Attorney
The Chairman of the County Commission requested•this office to
prepare a memorandum explaining the current provisions of the
Zoning Code as they relate to the duration of a site elan annrnval_
The specific provision reads;
"(h) Time limit; The site plan approval shall terminate
twelve (12) months thereafter if construction.has not been
started. Extensions of time may be made by the Board of
County Commissioners -at its discretion.
In the event the property receiving site plan approval
shall be sold, transferred, leased or the ownership
thereof changed in any way, the site plan approval shall
become null and void."
The plain meaning of this section allows an applicant to commence
construction at any time prior to the termination of the twelve
month period or extension if any to avoid the termination clause.
Once the construction has commenced there are no other applicable
provisions providing a time limit to complete construction. The
code does not define the term construction and does not indicate
how extensive the construction must be to prevent the automatic
termination of the site plan.
Respectfully submitted,
44
G an enburg
CRIB/mq
43
FEB 2 1983 BOOK 52��'�.
FEB 2
ec°.Fait 72
a
oBA TA;r:'I:;:, A3.30CIATI0:1, IIN
3536 ,iartha's Lane
Nero Leach, -1. 32960
January 18, 1983.
Board of :ounty ,.Ommissioners
1 ?4,0 25th 3 treet
{sero Beach, 'l. 32950
Gentleman:
I find there is no clear cut definition o" what
constitutes "start of construction" as it pertains to
building permits. This enables those who possess site'
plans on occasion, to play an endless game of stalling
rather than pzocede with sincere, "substantial construc-
tion".
It is my opinion from listening to your deliber-
ations that you are in favor of a record of substantial
construction, especially when dealing with stalled con-
struction and requests for site plan extensions. The
Board of Commissioners may therefore wish to act to spell
all this -out. Jondominium: construction which ceases at
the point of pouring footers is a practice which should
be curtailed.
'Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours very truly,
ueor� . Kraft
b P esiaent
Hobart Landing Homeowners Assoc., Inc.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that the Zoning Code is
not very explicit when it talks in terms of construction,
and if construction has been started to any degree during
the 12 month period, the site plan approval will not expire.
It was the Attorney's suggestion that his office work
together with the Community Development Department to come
up with a new definition for this Section of the Code
clarifying term and what is meant by starting construction.
44
0
M
Commissioner Lyons expressed concern as to how this
might affect large integrated developments which are done in
phases and felt they should be afforded some protection.
Mr. Kraft, of Hobart Landing Homeowners Association,
stated that he wrote his letter because they have been
living with a situation of unfinished development which
never seems to end, and their community has been more more
or less.destroyed cosmetically through would-be development..
He believed substantial construction should include About
350 of construction on a large project and possibly 70% on a
small project.
Discussion followed on the possibility of some type of
administrative review of site plans annually. Commissioner
Fletcher felt the problem is figuring out the criteria for
the degree of completion. He believed if -you -were to use the
end.result value of the project, the percentage of value
completed might give some indication. It was agreed that we
need a clear'formula.
Art Wilson, developer of property near Hobart Landing,
objected to Mr. Kraft's implication that his development is
in a state that is detrimental to the community of Hobart
Landing. He stated that he has spent a very considerable
sum upon development; he has worked diligently and in good
faith; and he would like the Board to inspect the site and
assess it themselves.
It was explained that the Board is addressing a general
situation and trying to clarify the terminology in the
ordinance; we are not debating the merits -of a specific
situation.
Mr. Kraft offered the further thought that if a
development requires a package plant and there has been no
application to the. DER, this would be an indication that the
developer is not planning to build. He stated that his
45
w 52 PAGE 753
suggestion was a general one and did not specifically allude
to Mr. Wilson; although, he has heard iindirectly that Mr.
Wilson is trying to sell his property.
Chairman Bird again noted that the Board does not wish
to get involved in a debate about the merits of any specific
project, and it was suggested that Mr. Kraft and Mr. Wilson
get together and try to communicate better.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
instructed the Attorney and the Community
Development Department to work together on a
new provision to clarify the expiration of
site plans under the Zoning Code.
LETTER TO LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION - REPEAL OF SPECIAL ACTS
Attorney Brandenburg noted that at the last meeting he
had proposed repealing the old Special Acts still in the
Code Book for the purpose of cleaning up the Code, and with
One exception these old Special Acts can be repealed by
local Ordinance. He, therefore, proposed to write the
Legislative Delegation, as follows, requesting their
assistance in introducing a Bill to repeal a Special Act
relating to Indian River County pertaining to plats and
platting of lands (Chapter 29155, Acts of 1953, as amended):
46
i
M M
Qti�ea�. BOARD OF COUNTY COA MISSIONERS
4 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
s -
W 1�
January 26, 1983.
Indian River County
Legislative Delegation
Dear Sirs:
M
GARY M.BRANDENBURG
County Attorney
(305) 567-8000
CHRISTOPHER J. PAULL
Asst County Attorney
13051 567-8000
Attached please find a local bill designed to repeal an old
special act relating to the platting of land in Indian River
County. This matter cannot be taken care of on a local ordinance
basis as the act applies both to the unincorporated area -and all
the municipalities within the County. The County and;ll the
municipalities have home rule powers sufficient to adopt platting
requirements without the aid of such a special act. The effect of
this special act remaining on the books is to complicate and
confuse County and municipal efforts to adopt platting and
subdivision ordinances as such ordinances are not allowed to
conflict with special acts of the legislature.
The adoption of this bill should have no economic impact upon
Indian River County or the municipalities therein.
Indian River County is currently in the process of developing a
new subdivision ordinance which will proceed to public hearing in
the near future. The County proposes to work with the local
legislative delegation in establishing a date for the bill to
become effective.
Indian River County requests your cooperation in coordinating this
effort with the State of Florida Legislature.
Very truly yours,
Gary M. Brandenburg
County Attorney
Chairman Bird noted that we approve plats contingent on
rights of way being dedicated, and wanted to know how we
make sure this is done.
Attorney Brandenburg believed this should be checked by
Community Development and no building permits should be
issued until all conditions of the site plan have been met.
He pointed out that if the County had followed this pro-
cedure and not issued a permit until all conditions had been
met, the.Luria Plaza situation would not have arisen.
47
19
.e:.'r="�^m`,��'.�-�'r�, ,z•"�zre��.��'Si�7��'�.�' f w.�v' �rl�-�4a5tMkaKMR s.�. +, .,, k"`k.:;. ..
FEB 2 1983 890K 52, Pw 7l%
The Board had some further questions about the County's
ability to record plats without this Special Act, and
Attorney Brandenburg assured them that the County does have
these powers; there were some conflicts which he desired to
eliminate and then adopt all the requirements in one
ordinance. The Attorney explained that the only reason we
have to go to the Legislature on this is because it.applies
to the municipalities also, and upon checking, it has been
determined that the municipalities have no objection to
repeal of this Special Act.
The Board had no objection to the Attorney's proposed
letter.
APPOINTMENT TO BUILDING CODE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND
APPEALS
Discussion ensued as to the fact that although the
Commission makes the appointments, the Board of Adjustment
should recommend the appointees. It was noted that the
Present incumbents on the Building Code Board are:
Rita Thomas
Johh -A. Kirchner
Fred Plair
Michael Wodtke
Dorothy Hudson
Board Secretary Elizabeth Forlani reported that the
incumbents were contacted and all indicated that they were
'milling to continue to serve.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Fletcher, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
agreed to ask the Building Code Board of Adjust-
ments and Appeals to designate the individuals
they wished the Commission to appoint.
DESIGNATION OF SEBASTIAN RIVER AS AN AQUATIC PRESERVE
Commissioner Fletcher informed the Board that he was
very much interested in pursuing the possibility of
am
0
designating the Sebastian River as an aquatic preserve. He
believed this would require legislative action but did not
have any of.the pertinent criteria or requirements to
present now, and he wished to have the Board's permission to
use the County staff to assist him in researching this.
The Board had no problem with Commissioner Fletcher
pursuing this and using the County staff, and it was felt
Community Services Director Thomas would be most
knowledgeable in this area. Mr. Thomas expressed his
willingness to work with Commissioner Fletcher on this
project.
Attorney Ted Herzog informed the Board that he was
attending the meeting on behalf of Hugh and J. Pat Corrigan,
property owners in the vicinity of the Sebastian River. He
noted that the Corrigan family would like -to make sure,
whatever investigation is made, that consideration be given
to their considerable agricultural activities in this
district. Attorney Herzog noted that Thomas Barnes and
Marvin Carter also were interested as to how this investi-
gation would proceed, and he requested, in behalf of the
Corrigans and the Drainage District, that Commissioner
Fletcher delineate his objectives and keep them advised.
In the ensuing discussion Commissioner Fletcher stated
that he was concerned not only with the shoreline and the
river bottom, but also with the -islands in the river, and he
would like to determine ownership rights. He noted that
under the Land Use Plan, this area is designated as
environmentally sensitive, and he would view this
further research as a complement to that designation.
It was noted that the shorelines of the river are in
two different counties, and Commissioner Fletcher stated
that he anticipated meetings to get the property owners
involved.
49
FEB 1933 c52 PuE 75'l
FEB 2 1983 8. K U,
Attorney Brandenburg pointed out that privately owned
property cannot be included within an aquatic preserve
without the permission of the property owner.
Chairman Bird directed that Commissioner Fletcher
proceed as requested and coordinate the efforts of the staff
in with their other routines.
DISCUSSION RE PROPOSED TREE ORDINANCE
Commissioner Fletcher noted that the Tree Ordinance was
put together a year or two ago by the Planning & Zoning
Commission, who forwarded it to staff with their comments.
Planner Janis Johnson who was working on this, no longer
works for the County, and Commissioner Fletcher wished to
have this ordinance continue to move on towards adoption.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Fletcher,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to authorize
staff to formalize the proposed Tree Ordinance,
return it to the Planning & Zoning Commission
for review and ask them to send it back for
Board consideration as soon as possible.
Commissioner Lyons noted that this has already been
through our Planning staff, and he felt the Attorney should
review it before it goes back to the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
Administrator Wright stated that he will see that this
is coordinated and gets back to the Board promptly.
THE CHAIP14AN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
MARY ELLEN LAWSON PROPERTY
Commissioner Fletcher brought up the question of
50
rezoning property belonging to Mary Ellen Lawson so that she
would be able to rebuild.
Community Development Director King reported that since
the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, his
department has not been in a position to start the
administrative rezoning process. In the interim several
people have initiated rezonings in their own behalf and paid
the fee. During adoption of the plan last summer there were
several County initiated rezonings. Basically, now there
are many people who desire rezoning of small areas; :;however,
these small rezonings verge on qualifying as "spot" ;Zonings,
and this creates the need to look at administrative rezoning
of larger areas to be processed at one time.
Question arose as to how you can "spot" zone in an MXD
area where there are houses mixed with commercial, etc., and
it was noted that the other houses in the area also are
non -conforming.
Discussion continued as to Mrs. Lawson's need for a
zoning change so that she can build with the money that has
been donated, and Mr. King noted that it will require staff
doing an analysis of that entire area. He emphasized that
his present staff is pushed for time just trying to maintain
their current development review activities, and he does not
have sufficient staff to start initiating these admin-
istrative rezonings.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
directed that the Planning Department proceed with
the steps needed to effect the rezoning of the
Mary Ellen Lawson property in whatever way is
the easiest.
51
FES 2 1983 wx V PAtE 75'
ES 2
1983 OWK 5 P, Pa� F 76 0
PROCLAMATION _ LOS ANGELES DODGERS
Chairman Bird read aloud the following proclamation
welcoming the Los Angeles Dodgers and directed that it be
made a part of the Minutes.
BOARD OF CO UIQ i ' Y C(Utr1MISS1ONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
February 2, 1983
P ROC-LAAAT I ON
Suncam Telephone: (305) 424-1012
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, on behalf of all the County citizens, extends a warm
welcome to the LOS ANGELES DODGERS and the VERO BEACH DODGERS.
Indian River County is immensely proud of their DODGERS, who
train here every spring. This year will mark the 36th
anniversary of the DODGER organization holding spring training in
Indian River County. This year will also mark the fourth
anniversary of the VERO BEACH DODGERS.
The facilities constructed by the DODGERS are of
unparalleled. quality; the players are true champions in every
respect; and the 'DODGER management is responsible for molding a
dynamic, never -give -up team.
The Board of County Commissioners wishes to express
appreciation to the DODGERS, for choosing to locate in and become
a part of Indian River County.
We wish you every success in 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COPRIISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
%" l
kich,:.rd N. Bird, Chairman
44
Don C. ScurL-ock, Jr., Yic9fChairman
F1':•-iliali� C. Wodtke, Jr.
. - A. :,rover Pletcher
52
COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM EMPLOYEES
The Board reviewed the following memo from Commissioner
Lyons regarding medical insurance for Library employees:
TO: Board of County DATE: January 25, 1983 FIDE
Commissioners
SUBJECT: County Medical Plan
FROM: PatyckA. Lyons REFERENCES:
Now that the Vero Beach. and Sebastian Libraries are, through
contract, a part of a County Library system, I am requesting
that the Board of County Commissioners agree to have'th,e
regular full-time employees be placed on the County medical
plan.
The breakdown for each. full-time employee would be as
follows:
1. Family Plan = $110.09./mo. which. includes, group
insurance and $5,000 life insurance
2.. Single Plan = $ 45.89/mo. (_as above)
Commissioner Lyons reported that he had been requested
that the Library employees be allowed to participate in the
County medical plan. He believed they should be allowed to
participate, and noted this will only allow them to buy
hospitalization through our source. The libraries will have
to allow for this in their budgets.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that we had a volunteer
organization that was taking care of their own insurance
in-house with their own budget; he could see second and
third steps following and had some problems with the
concept.
53
FEB 2 19083
FEB
1983 Sam f5P*;F 762
Commissioner Lyons stated that the Veto Beach Library
a
does not have a medical plan, and Administrator Wright felt
there will be six full time employees.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that we have allowed Mosquito
Control to come under our group plan and he believed they
pay separately.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Fletcher
voting in opposition and Commissioner Scurlock
being absent, the Board by a 3 to 1 vote author-
ized the Administrator to advise the libraries they
may participate in the County medical plan as long
as this is paid from their own budgets.
DISCUSSION OF FIND'S NEW PROGRAMS
Commissioner Lyons reviewed the FIND proposal, which
would include funding of two marine patrolmen for each of
the coastal counties and would also make it possible for
FIND to participate in channel erosion projects, such as
along Jungle Trail. He noted that he did not necessarily
agree with everything in the proposal, but he did feel that
FIND could be a big help to us, particularly in the matter
of river patrol. He informed the Board that both he and
Representative Patchett have been involved with fishermen
who want to control net fishing and have further protection
of the grass flats, the manatees, the fish, etc., and this
proposal by FIND would help with further protection of the
grass flats by having "NO WAKE" zones. Commissioner Lyons
pointed out that we do not have the taxing capability to add
a patrol ourselves, and he would like to ask that the
Commission indicate in a Resolution its interest in seeing
FIND change its direction to participate in marine patrols
and in erosion control.
54
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher for purposes of discussion,
to adopt Resolution 83-13 as described above.
Commissioner Fletcher questioned whether the creation
of the taxing district and the supporting infrastructure at
the state level will supply the desired results. He further
believed it may be found that there is no longer a_need for
FIND'S existence and that FIND is just looking for
justification to expand itself and raise further taxes in
the process.
Commissioner Lyons noted that FIND still has a
considerable role.because of the large amount of property
they have. He believed that FIND should stay in existence
and that there are a lot of thi-ngs-they could do that would
be to the benefit of the public.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that FIND started out on the
Spoil Island situation, and what he reads is that they now
are looking at their future potential. He agreed they are
looking to expand - they have a 3 million dollar surplus
which is only for navigational purposes, and this will take
new direction on their part.
Chairman Bird asked if it is felt that FIND would levy
additional taxes or work with their unexpended funds, and
Commissioner Lyons felt it is possible they might.tax, but
if they get overambitious, he believed they would be made
aware of it.
Commissioner Fletcher believed that FIND has done an
admirable job, but felt most of the initial intent for that
agency has been taken over by others, and he did not want to
build agencies that are duplicating services.
Chairman Bird felt they are looking for other areas
because of that very reason.
55
P 4 c F 76
L
FEB 2 1983 ' t, -i--764
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3 to 1 with
Commissioner Fletcher voting in opposi-
tion and Commissioner Scurlock being absent.
RESOLUTION N0. 83-13
w
F THE BOARD OF COUNTY -COMMISSIONERS THE
- ro A•RESOLUTION O FLORIDA, ENCOUR
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, PATROL AND TO AID IN
FLO�tIDA INLAND NAVIGATION NE TRICT TO CHANGE IT
DIRECTION TO INCREASE MARI
EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS ALONG THE INDIAN RIVER.
WHEREAS,
the Florida Inland Navigation District has
report informing located along the
released a repo the 11 counsurplus of funds; and
Intracoastal Waterway
that they have a
WI�EREAS r
FIND would like to utilize these funds in the
henun►ber of marine
he waterway by increasing t
a* ;s surrounding t funding channel
ersons'in each of the 11 counties and, by
patr'olP aftd .
h sical' improvements;
erosion projects and other p y supports the
WHEREAS, the Board -of County Commissioners
' n of FIND to further protect the economic
change in the direction the Iridian River.
j ecological resources which exist along
and ecolog
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED By THE BOARD OF COUNT
FLORIDA, that:
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY► portion of the fund to
1. FIND be encouraged to use a P
rine patrolpersons for each of the 11 counties,
hire additional marine enhancing the policing
inclucjinq India's River County. thereby
effort in the :median River, and
2. F 199
is also encouraged to use the remainder of the
control projects to benefit
fund to aid in
rhe various erosion
this scenic area.
56
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was
as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird - Aye,
Vice -Chairman Dom C. Scurlock, Jr. - Absent
Commissioner A. Grover Fletcher - Nay
Commissioner Pat4ick B. Lyons - Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr.- Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolutionduly
passed and adopted this 2nd ;day of February,, 1983.`
J
BOARD OF.COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,. FLORIDA
t �
RM1ARD N. BIRD
.,Chairman
Commissioner Lyons went on to talk about a Bill for
protecting fish and grass flats. He noted that we have two
state laws that are never enforced in connection with nets,
and he would like to go to the meeting of the Legislative
Delegation and request they strengthen that activity. The
Board had no objections.
REPORT ON EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, MEETING
Commissioner Lyons noted that he is Chairman of the
above committee; they had good attendance at their meeting,
and he felt it was made quite clear to everyone what the
goals of that committee are based on the Motion made by this
Commission. They have formed a sub -committee to study the
problems of duplication of service calls on ambulance, fire,
etc., and are also working on radio communication problems.
fi
57
FEB! 21 1983
PMK 5,49.1 P,Au B- 5
FEB 2 1983
1K v52
He believed they have settled on how the dispatching should
be done and felt that they are making progress.
COUNTY ENCLAVE IN THE WM OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES
Commissioner Lyons reported that the Town of Indian
River Shores is concerned whether development of the County
property within the Town might be inconsistent with the
wishes of the neighbors. In discussing this with Attorney
Brandenburg, he noted that we have an on-going review of the
Master Plan and suggested we ask for a review of this
particular property to see whether it should be LD -1 or
LD -2. Indian River Shores has requested, per the following
letter, that the designation of the enclave be changed from
LD -2 to LD -1.
February 2, 1983
Indian River County Commission
1840 - 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Gentlemen:
The Town Council of the Town of Indian
River Shores and the Indian River County
Commission have long been concerned with
problems caused by growth on the barrier
island. Of particular concern is one parcel
of County property in the center of town
and completely surrounded by the town. This
enclave is just south of the Town Hall and
runs from Highway AIA to the ocean. A small
map is attached to identify this property.
The Town would request that the County
take action to insure that the property which
is presently zoned single family.by the
County remain zoned single family.
The Town Council met today and requests the
following:
(1) Zoning of this parcel be single family
in conformity with the single family zoning
of Indian River Shores which permits 2.9
units per acre.
(2) The County Comprehensive Land Use Plan
be modified to reflect the zoning by.changing
from LD2 to LD1.
Respectfully submitted,
}
5.EGier rt, Mayor
TOF I RIVER SHORES
58
_I
� � O
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Fletcher, to refer
the request of Indian River Shores for re-
consideration of the Land Use designation of
the finger of County property contained
within their municipality back to the Plan-
ning & Zoning Commission and ask them to set
it up for review at their earliest convenience.
Commissioner Fletcher wished to know why the Town did
not annex this property, and it was pointed out that the
property owner has to consent. It was further noted that
the request for redesignation is coming from the Town and
not from the legal owners of the property.
COMMISSIONER FLETCHER CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
APPOINTMENT TO EXTENSION OVERALL COMMITTEE
Commissioner Wodtke recommended that Kathy Rovella, a
registered nurse, be appointed to the Extension Overall
Committee. He noted that she already has been in touch with
Judy Wakefield, Extension Director.
Commissioner Fletcher wished to recommend that Joyce
DeGraeves also be appointed to this committee.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Fletcher, the Board unanimously
appointed Kathy Rovella and Joyce DeGraeves to
the Extension Overall Committee.
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
59
follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 84319 - 84496 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 3:15 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
d
Clerk
60
W
Chairman
W
, PaI