HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/18/1983Wednesday, May 18, 1983
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida met in Regular Session at the County Com-
mission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, May 18, 1983, at 8:30 o'clock A.M. Present were
Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice
Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Patrick B. Lyons and William
C. Wodtke, Jr. 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.
Pastor Harry Powers, New Life Christian Church, gave
the invocation and Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Commissioner Lyons requested the addition to today's
Agenda of a discussion regarding the vacancy on the District
9 Advisory Council to the Health .& Rehabilitative Services,
plus a discussion re the vacancy on the District 9 Mental
Health Board due to the recent resignation of Mrs.
Fitzgerald.
MAY 18 1983
L.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock,
the Board unanimously placed the above
matters on today's Agenda.
000 5--PAu, 471
Fr -
MAY 18 1993 moX3 P A 47-?:
Attorney Brandenburg requested the addition to the
Agenda regarding the draft of a Resolution supporting SB 141
regarding the Mental Health Bill, separating districts,
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the
Board unanimously placed the above item
on today's Agenda.
Attorney Brandenburg requested the addition to the
Agenda of the matter of the Taddie Construction litigation
suit.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the
Board unanimously placed the above item
on today's Agenda.
Chairman Bird reported that he had received an
invitation from the Macedonia Baptist Missionary Church
asking that a Commissioner attend ceremonies to be held
Thursday, May 26, 1983 at 7:30 p.m., and asked that this
matter be added to today's Agenda.
ON MOTION'by Commissioner Lyons,
--SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock,
the Board unanimously placed the above
item on today's Agenda.
Chairman Bird requested a brief discussion be added to
today's Agenda regarding the gas tax in order to give some
guidance to staff.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the
Board unanimously'added the above item to
today's Agenda under report on the Trans-
portation Planning Committee.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 4,
1983. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the
Board unanimously approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of May 4, 1983,
as written.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Application for Concealed Firearm Permit - James R. Rott
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/11/83:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: .May 11, 1983 FILE:
of the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT RENEWAL
FROM: Michael Wright - REFERENCES:
County AdminiStra or _
In a memorandum dated May 3, 1983, Freda Wright,
Clerk of the Circuit Court forwarded the following
application for a pistol permit renewal for:
James R. Rott
b
All requirements of Ordinance 82-27, which was
adopted November 3, 1982 have been met and are in order.
It is recommended a pistol permit be re -issued to the
above individual.
3ac
MAY 1'' 1983 3�oK.
MAY 18 1983
BOO CAU;`
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the
Board unanimously approved the application
for Concealed Firearm Permit for
James R. Rott.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock asked that Items C & D be removed
from the Consent Agenda at this time.
A. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violation Bureau - Special Trust Fund
Month of April, 1983 - $37,392.73
B. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk:
Traffic Violations by Name, April, 1983
C. Approval of Antenna Site Lease at Hobart Park
for Indian River County School Board
The Board reviewed the proposed Antenna Site Lease.
Attorney Brandenburg gave a brief background on this
matter and reported that they had first sent the site lease
over to School Board Attorney Caldwell and didn't hear
anything. Then the School Board got a new attorney, Russ
Peterson, who couldn't find the site lease, and another copy
was sent over. After some delay, the lease was returned as
changes were needed in the insurance provisions. The pro-
visions as originally written were contrary to what the
State law provides for school board insurance.
Commissioner Scurlock had three questions re the lease:
1) What charges would be incurred on the
electricity?
2) Where does the money go, to the General
Fund?
3) Is the insurance amount in #9 of the lease
sufficient?
2
W-
® s �
Administrator Wright stated that a monthly amount of
$10.00 in electrical charges would be incurred. Finance
Director Barton answered the second question stating that
the funds will go to the General Fund, and it was agreed
that the insurance provisions are adequate.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock`;' -
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board,
unanimously approved the Antenna Site Lease
at Hobart Park for the Indian River County
School Board.
ANTENNA SITE LEASE
THIS LEASE AGREEMENT, made and entered into this g
—e_
day of_C , 1983, by and between THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD,'hereinafter referred to as "Lessee" and INDIAN
y
RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
hereinafter referred to as "Lessor":
WHEREAS, Lessor owns and operates a communication tower
site in Hobart Park, Indian River County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, Lessee desires to rent a portion of Lessor's
property for the purpose of installing and operating an antenna
system.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
contained herein, -it is agreed as follows:
1. Lessor does -hereby lease to Lessee sufficient space
on the communication tower located at Hobart Park, Florida, to
5 75
MAY 18 1983
MAY 18 1983 do 53
install a TDD 6482 antenna with cable, together with a right to use
a control building for the installation of a Motorola Model No.
C73RCB6106 unit to comprise a system utilizing a frequency of
155.265 MHz. Lessee takes the facilities "as -is", and Lessor does
:not warrant that the facility is sufficient for the use intended by
Lessee. Any modifications necessary to make the facility usable _by
the Lessee may only be made after approval by the Lessor and shall
be made at the sole expense of Lessee.
2. The term of this lease shall be one year commencing
with the date the last party executes same. Lessee shall have the
option in its discretion to renew this lease for an additional one
year period on the same terms and conditions contained herein. Said
option shall be exercised by Lessee providing Lessor with wiitte,i
notice at least thirty (30) days prior to termination of the initial
term.
3. Lessee agrees to pay Lessor the sum of SEVENTY-FIVE
DOLLARS ($75.00) per month during the term of this lease and
renewals thereof.
4. All personal property placed or moved onto the leased
premises by the Lessee shall be at the risk of Lessee and Lessor
shall not be liable for any damage to said personal property no
matter what the cause.
5. Lessor shall pay all electric charges which may
become payable during the term of this lease for electricity used by
Lessee on the leased premises.
6. In the event that Lessee abandons the premises or
uses the premises for an unauthorized purpose, then the Lessor may
terminate this lease upon sixty (60) days written notice to Lessee.
If the leased site becomes unfit or undesirable for use for Lessee's
purposes, Lessee may terminate this lease upon sixty (60) days
written notice to Lessor.
6
7. This lease shall bind the respective parties,
assigns or successors.
8. This lease constitutes the entire agreement of the
parties hereto and shall supersede all prior offers, negotiations
and agreements. t3 revisicps of this lease shall be valid unless
executed in writing by both parties.
9. The Lessee warrants that it is insured and shall
remain so insured during the term of this lease in accordance with
Section 768.26, Florida Statutes.
10. Lessee shall comply with all applicable state,
federal and local rules and regulations and laws for the type of
activity involved. Lessee also agrees that its use of the
communication tower is limited to use that does not interfere in any
way with the tower's current occupant's use and further agrees.that
the signal broadcast by Lessee shall not interfere or degrade
signals produced by the other tower users. Lessee shall bear the
entire cost of compliance with this section of the Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
lease for the purposes expressed herein, on the day -and year written
above.
k
APPROVES TO FORM AND,
LEGAL TrTPNrWt, Y
BY:
GAR M. B
C n Attorney
MAY 18 1983
61 1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
s
BY:
Chairman
Attest:
LL1I c
Freda Wright, Clerk
V.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL
DISTRICT
BY:
Ri hard olinger,
Chairman
Attest: �rl`�
James A urns, Secretary
dbQK.: -%,53 SAGE . 7
MAY 18 19837
BOOK 3 Pit:F 78
D. Request for Site Plan Extension - Village Green South
The Board reviewed the the following memo dated 5/9/83:
TO: ®ATE: FILE:
The Honorable Members.. May 9, 1983
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
�i
Patrick Bruce King, CP
F OIVI: Mary Jane V.Goetzfried REFERENCES:
-M Staff Planner
REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN
APPROVAL EXTENSION FROM
FLORIDA ATLANTIC ASSOC.
It is requested that the'data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May 18, 1983.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On May 27, 1982,_the-Planning and Zoning Commission approved the
site plan application submitted by Florida Atlantic Associates to
develop Village.Green South, Phase VI.
The approved plan depicts 776 units to be placed on 154 acres
located on the northwest corner of the intersection of 12th
Street and 82nd Avenue.
It was determined by the State Land Planning Agency that the
combined effects of Village Green South and Village Green West
would be a development of regional impact. In Larch of 1981
Florida Atlantic Associates filed an application for development
approval of the two projects. In August of 1981, the Board of
,.County Commissioners issued a development order which would
permit, subsequent to site plan approval, the placement of 1,422
mobile home units.
Presently, the applicant is seeking a one year extension of the
site plan approval granted for the construction of Village Green
South.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Village Green West, which proposes the placement of 645 units is
presently under construction and approximately 74% complete.
However, the applicant has found that it is not economically
feasible to develop the total number of units approved by the
development order within the given time period of site plan
approval.
RECOMMENDATION -
Staff recommends that Florida Atlantic Associates be granted a
one year extension of site plan approval for the construction of
Village Green South.
8
r
Commissioner Scurlock asked for this item to be removed
from the Consent Agenda as he recalled that Florida Atlantic
Associates had agreed to designate a 1/2 acre tract for a
fire station in that area and also $40,000 for Civil
Defense. He said that the County has not received any money
as yet, nor have they received a deed for the 1/2 acre
tract, and stated he would not vote for the site plan
extension until he sees some money first.
Staff Planner, Mary Jane Goetzfried, explained that
these requirements had been reached under the Development of
Regional Impact, based upon Phase I & Phase II of the
development being more than 50% completed. At this time,
based on the zoning permits that have been issued for this
project, they are approximately 33% complete. Mrs.
Goetzfried concurred that the County has not yet received
the money or the deed to the tract,.but has been encouraging
Florida Atlantic to dedicate the property.
Commissioner Scurlock repeated his reluctance to vote
for any extension until we get our money as what he sees is
the County in general being faced with providing fire
protection to that entire area. He stated that the County
has accelerated the fire protection program for the growth
in that area, specifically the services it would provide
Village Green. At the Fire Advisory Committee meeting, we
signed an agreement for C.E. Block and Associates for
architectural services. The Fire District has demonstrated
an aggressive approach for fire protection in the County and
he feels it is time for Village Green to pay up.
Administrator Wright suggested that we delay this
matter by postponing it until the June 1, 1983 meeting to
give us a little time to work out the concerns.
9
MAY 18 1983 eQaK "3, r�c9
r MAY 18 193
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, that the
Board delay this matter until the next
Regular Meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners on June 1, 1983.
Chairman Bird asked if anyone was here from Village
Green who wishes to be heard at this time.
Jim Young, General Manager at Village Green, said they
have the matter of going ahead and deeding that piece of
property for the fire station under consideration in New
York right now and hoped to have confirmation of this
sometime this week. He stated that under the Development of
Regional Impact, they do not have that requirement until
they have reached 51% occupancy and they will not have the
510 occupancy rate until such time as development begins on
the South property.
Mr. Young expressed concern over their current site
plan expiring on May 27, 1983 and losing site plan approval
if this matter was postponed to June 1, 1983.
Attorney Brandenburg assured him site plan approval
would not be lost as the request for extension was in prior
to the expiration date, and it could be postponed over to
June 1, 1983 by the Commissioners.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if they are actively trying
to market that property and Mr. Young said they are and they
currently have 21 orders. He explained that over the last
few years, their sales had not come as quickly as
anticipated and they did not have to go into that south
portion.
The Chairman CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
10
PRESENTATION ON NEW CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMPLEX
Commissioner Lyons reported that there had been a
presentation yesterday before the Public Safety Committee,
the Facility Committee and the Finance Advisory Committee.
The meeting was held from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and they
received a very complete presentation of the report
entitled, Indian River County Corrections and Law
Enforcement Facility Study, which was prepared by W. R.
Frizzell Architects, Inc. and Correctional Services Group,
Incorporated. He introduced Mr. Thomas Pinkerton, Vice
President and criminal justice consultant of W. R. Frizzell
Architects, Inc., and Mr. Robert Buchanan, President and
jail consultant of Correctional Services, Inc.
Commissioner Lyons reported that after the joint
meeting, the Public Safety Committee made three motions:
1) Recommended a criminal justice complex
site of not less than 25 acres;
2) Recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners adopt the construction concept
of a jail as.contained in the report by Frizzell
Architects and Correctional Services, and
recommended that the concept be accepted
with minor alterations.
3) Recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners work in conjunction with
the Finance Advisory Committee to recommend
alternatives for financing this project in
increments starting at $8 -million up to
$16 -million.
Commissioner Scurlock said the Finance Committee, being
present although not voting, unanimously concurred with all
three of those motions.
Thomas Pinkerton, Vice President of Frizzell Architects
addressed the Board and explained the purpose of today's
11
MAY 18 1983 eQ�x U
MAY 18 1983 DbpK ¢.� �AGf 482
presentation is to present a brief summary of the report
they were submitting which is a feasibility study, some-
times called a pre -architectural plan, for a new criminal
justice complex. The purpose of the study was to assess the
present and future criminal justice system needs in Indian
River County, specifically, the Jail and the Sheriff's
Department, and to a limited extent, the court's facilities.
and from that assessment, to bring forth recommendations for
planning and design criteria, which would include size and
type of facilities, phasing of facilities, and of course,
site location. This does stop short of a schematic design
of actual layout, but they do have a complete architectural
program which lists the square footages.
Continuing, Mr. Pinkerton urged that the Commission set
a timeframe not to exceed 30-60 days for the final deter-
mination and selection of a specific site, which would
enable his staff to take the preliminary cost figures and
items to be presented today and determine a more dependable
cost figure so that whatever funding method is used, it will
be solidly funded. He wanted to thank the Public Safety
Committee and the Facility Committee for their leadership
and input which enabled them to develop a set of criteria
that truly represents the needs and philosophies of the
community.
Mr. Robert Buchanan, President and jail consultant of
Correctional Services, Inc., stated he and his staff have
worked with Frizzell Architects for the last three years,
mainly in Florida, in the planning and design of criminal
justice facilities. He explained that the feasibility
report gives a long-range idea of what the criminal justice
needs will be in the future.
Referring to display charts, Mr. Buchanan presented
following data and explained their methodology in arriving
at their figures.
12
He stated that Indian River County has a very serious
problem with a very dangerous jail population compared with
other jails they have worked with. The County jail retains
only the most dangerous people and meets weekly to release
others in order to reduce the jail population; 90% of the
jail population are felons who are waiting for trial or
waiting for transport to other jails. This is the reason
behind the recommendation for a large number-bf single cells
and maximum security cells.
In Florida, the Department of Corrections require those
counties whose physical facilities are not in compliance
with standards to come in compliance post haste. In most
instances the D.O.C. has allowed 2-1/2 to 3 years to
construct a new jail facility. As a result, Indian River
County is now feeling the heat of the statewide mandate to
enforce jail standards.
Mr. Buchanan projected the County's needs for the next
15 years would require a 160 -bed facility with maximum and
minimum security areas. They recommend a design calling for
two 56 -bed pods, allowing space to add other pods in the
future. The following design shows the design of a 56 -bed
pod, consisting of all single cells, which contains its own
services areas so inmates would not have to be moved
frequently.
13
BOX
3 racy 481
OAYNCOM
I
I
f R/
f�
BQpx ., rn
or / I I
PROGRAM AREA
. I
i
I
OAYROOM
I
0
o0 0
C��o o Il �JaNG@
O 9 13 240 _ IF wamuot�
Indian River County
14
� � s
4cw_
G/sLL
chi 1-
ow
.Jf1Y. co.
71
GCL{r i
csLL
GISl.Ir
GALL ¢ALL G?.LL GCLL GGLL GJiLL Ge1.1 �.LJ..
DAYAOOM
BELOW
DAVROOM N
BELOW ��/ aPCN � To
ryetq.� i
r J./ Mop -1
00"" �L
Map" PAOORAM AREA
e� 0
ora
ZZ, 111111111
aCLL
DAYROOM DAYAOOM
BELOW BELOW GBL
arCrl Ta '
' rorwwrt .
GIGLL
.V A wi
CtYP>
4*LL
vr+vue� �..�Y ti►�iow�
CELL GL' LL GULL GCLL c�LL_FFLL cC1.L'B m(r)
aydv--br_ L?YP.>
0F4c9_�5lF9]RflD DEFL79m:��
13114
Indian River County
Mho �3o
2aG39N10VGC940 Om(90
15
MAY 18 1983
-VOK 1,0 KAG _
MAY 18 198 5 48
Mr. Buchanan stated that a 48 -bed unit also would be
needed and would actually convert into a 56 -bed unit in that
the 8 beds required for juveniles could be contained in a
quadrant of that facility, the only condition being that the
juveniles must be separated by sight and sound from the
adult population.
Forty-six beds would be maximum security cells, which
cost much more to construct due to required security
hardware, doors, windows, light fixtures, etc. Any
additional housing would be probably of a less secure type,
which is less expensive.
Space Requirements - Jail
Based on the projection of future jail population, they
recommend a jail facility of approximately 56,000 square
feet. Mr. Buchanan explained that they feel it is cost
effective to include infirmary rooms in the jail rather than
have to post officers in the hospital to guard prisoners in
recovery. He further explained that some of the areas, such
as the kitchen, laundry and equipment areas are oversized to
accommodate further growth.
The functional program for the new jail contains nine subprograms which,
with their corresponding space recommendations, are included below:
•
Detention Administration/Visiting
4,095
SF
•
Intake and Reception
4,644
SF
•
Prisoner Housing
36,208
SF[1]
•
Medical and Health Care
1,268
SF
•
Kitchen/Dining Area
4,219
SF
•
Commissary and Stores
897
SF
0
Laundry
1,323
SF
0
Maintenance and Central Plant
2,444
SF
•
First Appearance Courtroom
826.SF[3]
TOTAL - 55;924
SF[2]
The jail population, which averaged 75 six months ago,
has been averaging over a 100 for the last few months. They
believe the 160 figure would be reached sometime in the late
16
1980's or early 1990's and also feel this is an extremely
conservative projection.
As to why the correctional staff would require more
people in the future, Mr. Buchanan explained the problem is
that the Florida Dept. of Corrections comes.into the act at
the stage of design development drawings. They will not let
you progress with the drawings until they are satisfied with
the staffing patterns and they will not allow the facility
to open until they feel there is sufficient staff to operate
it.
Space Requirements - Sheriff's Office
Mr. Buchanan explained that projection of future space
needs for a law enforcement facility is based mainly on
staff size. Projections of total personnel requirements
are shown below:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
STAFFING PROJECTIONS BY ANNUAL PERSONNEL GROWTH RATE AND
RATIO OF PERSONNEL TO COUNTY POPULATION
Annual Personnel Growth Rate
(4.45 Percent)
Ratio of Personnel to County
Population (549:1)
Midpoint
PRESENT 1985 1990 1995 2000
135 153 183 210 243
135 161 182 202 223
135 157 182.5 206 233
It is felt that approximately 51 staff will be required
to operate the jail and that the Sheriff's Office in the
year 2000 will include 233 staff that will be utilizing the
proposed facility. These figures seem high until you
consider how few members were on the staff just a few years
back and how that number has increased up to now. In
addition, the D.O.C. must be satisfied with the number of
staff or they will not let the facility open. Based on
staffing needs, they recommend a total of 44,000 sq. ft. for
the Sheriff's Office as shown below:
MAY 18 1983
17
e®v �3 qac
rMAY 18 1983
53 F,,U,E.¢ 8
The functional program for the new Sheriff's facility contains seven
subprograms, which, with their corresponding space requirements, are included
below:
• Administrative Division
2,756
SF
• Detective Bureau
7,026
SF
Identification Unit
9,754
SF[1]
• Organized Crime Bureau
2,457
SF
• Uniform Patrol Division
8,034
SF
Records Unit
4,094
SF
Communications Unit
2,579
SF
Maintenance and Mechanics
4,581
SF
0 Civil and Warrants Division
3,530
SF[2]
TOTAL - 44,811 SF
Commissioner Scurlock questioned if there was any way
to phase in the Sheriff's office as they are presently in
five different locations. Mr. Buchanan said it was
possible, but emphasized it is a decision that a
jurisdiction usually regrets as construction costs will
continue to escalate and their basic recommendation stands.
Construction Costs
In terms of cost, Mr. Buchanan stated these estimates,
if acted upon in the next year, will probably hold true.
However, the cost of construction may go up in the next 9-12
months as the inflationary rate -may go up again.
Nationally, construction costs on an average are estimated
at $105 per square foot. The prisoner housing costs are
$115-$120 per sq. ft. The cost of the Sheriff's Office is a
lot less at $61.75 sq. ft. The overall cost per square foot
would be $86.02 for the construction of the Jail and the
Sheriff's Office.
These square foot costs include the facility and the
attached equipment. It does not include the basic
furnishings, the site development, the preparation of the
In
parking areas, attachment of utilities, or their
architectural/engineering fees.
Operational costs are such that the initial cost of the
facility represents only 10% of the costs over a 30 -year
period.
30 -YEAR LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
OF A DETENTION. FACILITY
A/E Fees
0.5%
Furnishings/ Equipment
1.5%
Construction
8.0%
Maintenance Supplies
1.0%
Food
8.0%
Utilities
3.0%
Salaries - Civilians
27.0%
Salaries - Sworn Personnel
51.0%
19
Capital
Costs
1(196
Operating
Costs
9096
MAY 18 1983°°K3 pacq
PIP -
MAY 18 1983p.
800K 1 " 4,00
Site
Mr. Buchanan reviewed a possible future site plan,
noting that they started out with a bare minimum of 5 acres,
then went to 10, and now are recommending 25 acres as the
minimum sufficient for the next 40 years.
SHWAIMP'S DEPARTMENT
A ADMINISTRATIVE OPPICSS
■ VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
NUILOWS
r C SMALL VEM CLE EVIDENCE/
PROPERTY STORABE
■UILDINO
D ■MERBENCY OPERATION-
CSNTSR
■ PARKN110
F VEMIOLS CONFISCATION AREA
O HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
3 STORABS
a
CORRECTIONS DIVISION
7 CENTRAL SERVICE NUILOINS
S SALLYPORT-CONTROLLSO
TRAPPIC
3 PUBLIC ENTRANCE
4 NOUSEIIB POO
S PUTURS NOUSINB POO
S EXERCISE YARD
7 AAMM TOWER
COURT MOUSE
• M ENTRANCE
1 TWO STORY NUILOINO
J POUR STORY NUILOINO
SEWAGE TREATMENT
B TREATMENT PLANT
B DRAIN FIELD
#t* 7�:7 __
N 0 20 50 top
TOTAL ACRES -26.34
1300
A
1
3 � .. Q7
4 " 4
6
4
( ? 1
1s r, 5
800
SITE PLAN/INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CORRECTIONS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITY
W.R. FRIZZELL ARCHITECTS INC.
20
� � s
Mr. Buchanan originally looked at all County owned
land, naturally, to save cost of property purchase. Most of
the property was essentially too small. One large site of 41
acres was an abandoned landfill and no construction can take
place on that site for 10 years. Other areas were ruled out
because of their location, and the fact that they were
nowhere near any utilities, or, they found that the plot
itself was not conducive to construction. . —
One site they found on South Winter Beach Road, better
known as the County sandpit area, had a lot of advantages.
However, it did not have water or sewage treatment
facilities. They found that the site was 5 acres shy of
what was required as they had recommended a site of at least
25 acres.
Another site location that has just come to their
attention is a 20 acre tract to the northwest of the airport
that can be used for purposes other than airport use. It is
owned by the Airport and could be sold to the County for the
fair market price. Next to that site is another 20 acre
site which is available for sale or lease.
Chairman Bird thought that they would find that the
site by the airport is closer to 30 acres.
It was noted that the Public Safety Committee feels
quite strongly that 25 acres was a minimum, and the County
had grown so fast that they would like to see a site of at
least 35-40 acres.
Regarding the airport property, it is all within the
City where there is a height restriction of 55 feet for city
property. The height of the pods would be acceptable, but
the height of the courthouse complex (five stories) might
present some problems.
Mr Buchanan stated they are recommending the minimum
for Phase #1 which allows you to keep your figures down in
front and then add on if the population grows more rapidly
21
MAY 18 1983 BQOK rAc -L
POK
r
than anticipated. He stated that everything they
recommended was thoroughly documented as mandated by the
State.
Public Education Program
Commissioner Scurlock recommended a formal education
program be formulated and we put a package together in order
to get public approval. He stressed that the most difficult
task ahead would be that of educating the public as to what
we are faced with in meeting State mandates.
Acceptance of Report
Considerable discussion ensued as to a Motion regarding
formal acceptance of the report today and then giving
overall approval at the June lst meeting. The possibility
of conceptual approval was suggested; and it was noted that
it is important to convey to the state our intention to
approve this document and move forward with the jail.
Commissioner Wodtke emphasized that while he was
willing to accept the report today, in no way did he wish to
endorse it or say that he agreed with either the design or
the number of dollars.
Discussion continued as to the timetable and acceptance
of the report with minor modifications, and Commissioners
Scurlock and Lyons emphasized that they certainly did not
anticipate any radical change in the study presented at this
point. The importance of transmitting the report to the
D.O.C. was.again stressed.
Mr. Pinkerton noted that it will require approximately
8 months for completion of the documentation once authorized
and approximately 1h years to build the facility, which is
why they are recommending the Board identify the site as
soon as possible and authorize them to start schematic
design. He felt 30-60 days is a reasonable timeframe for
selection of a site, and believed if this is presented to
the public, they can give feedback.
22
177
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the
Board unanimously -authorized the Finance
Advisory Committee not to exceed 60 days in
working with the architect and Public Works
Director Davis to come up with a number of
figures to base a decision on for moving ahead
with the jail facility.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to authorize
Director Jim Davis to be the focal point for
receiving any and all proposed sites, these
sites to be channeled from him to the architect
and then to the Commission, with an analysis of
the pros and cons, including the cost figures.
Under discussion Commissioner Wodtke suggested that if
a piece of property did not include utilities, that Mr.
Davis generate some figures to adequately provide those
services.
Administrator Wright asked if we would be doing a
feasibility check in the selection of proposed sites in
regard to whether the site would meet a sewage treatment
plant, etc. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they would be looking
at that and they have a check list that would be applied to
proposed sites.
Mr. Pinkerton felt that it would be far better to
narrow the proposed sites down to some specific number such
as three and give them the opportunity first to work out all
details with Mr. Davis to be sure they tally up to the
objective before presenting them to the Commission.
23
acox 53
r MAY 18 1983 DInx
Commissioner Lyons -requested that the Facility
Committee be given an opportunity to comment on site
locations when the recommendation is made to the Commission.
Director Davis asked if he was authorized for some
minor expenses involved in analysis of sites if a soil test
or other tests are needed. The Board had no objections.
The Chairman CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was carried unanimously.
Discussion followed on accepting the report itself and
conveying it to the D.O.C.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the
Board unanimously accepted the report
as presented today by Frizzell Architects
subject to future Commission comment and
authorized transmitting a copy to the
D.O.C. for their comment.
(Said report is on file in the County Commission
Of f ice)
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that it might be a good
idea for the Chairman to write some kind of cover letter to
the D.O.C., in regard to our action re land selection.
Commissioner Scurlock brought up the need to put a team
together for a public education program. He hoped that
perhaps at the next meeting we could authorize some
representatives from Finance, from the Commission, and from
the Facility Committee to begin that program.
Phil Long, reporter from the Miami Herald, asked what
would be the last day that someone could walk in with a
24
I
J
piece of land to be considered for the jail site and
Administrator Wright said ten days would be sufficient time.
A deadline of May 27, 1983,'was agreed upon.
Chairman Bird asked about our timeframe for putting
this on a ballot. It was agreed that the need for a special
election should be investigated and the Board asked the
County Attorney to look into it.
PUBLIC HEARING - RIGHT -OF WAY ABANDONMENT- ROBERT PEGG
The hour of 10:30 A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -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
Irl
in the matter ofi�ic�'P� % !:;
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
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 subscribed befo me t l day of A.D. 19 .7 3
A
r ' j �; ( usiness Manager)
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, In an River County, Florida)
25
MAY 18 1983
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER A PETI-
TION FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT AND
VACATION OF THAT PORTION OF 17TH
STREET LYING BETWEEN 43RD AVENUE &
44TH AVENUE.
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 Com-
missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of the County Ad-
ministration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida, on . Wednesday, May 18,
1983, at 10:30 a.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 purposes, hw
may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which includes testimony,
and evidence upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Apr. 29.1983. . .
G
to
4
BOOK.eJ PAGE
MAY 18 1983 60K3
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/4/83:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 4, 1983 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Patrick Bruce King,,'AP
THROUGH: Robert M. Keating, AICP
Planning & Zoning Mgr.
RIGHT-OF-WAY ABANDONMENT
REQUEST SUBMITTED BY
ROBERT PEGG
FROM: Mary Jane V.Goetzfried REFERENCES:
�IA► Staff Planner
Itis recommended that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on May 18, 1983.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
On January 17, 1983, -Attorney Robert Pegg submitted a
right -of -way -abandonment petition on behalf of tenants in
common Dena Lysne Rockey, Lynn Ann Lysne, William E..Orth, Jr.,
and James Orth. (See Attachment #1.) The application requests
the County to abandon its rights to that portion of 17th Street
lying between 43rd and 44th Avenues. (See Attachment #2.)
In accordance with the administrative guidelines approved by the
Board of County Commissioners for the processing of right-of-way
abandonment applications, the request was reviewed by all County
departments and utility providers having jurisdiction within the
roadway.
,The 50' right-of-way is not through street and has never been
maintained by the County; however, it is the location of a major
feeder line providing electrical service from the City of Vero
Beach.
The right-of-way lies within an 8 acre parcel owned by the
aforementioned tenants-in-common, who intend to subdivide the
property into four (4) equal sections with individual ownership.
In accordance with Ordinance 75-3 this action will require the
submittal of a subdivision application and final plat approval
prior to the conveyance of title.
The Comprehensive Plan designates 43rd Avenue as a primary
collector, where access should be well controlled and limited to
secondary and major generators. The elimination of this
potential access point would be in keeping with the intent of
the Plan. Additionally, one.of the items that will be taken
into consideration at the subdivision level is the principal
means of access for the individual lots. The applicant will be
encouraged to create a non -access easement along 43rd Avenue,
thereby designating 44th Avenue as the only means of access for
any new construction.
26
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
As previously mentioned, the right-of-way is occupied by
utility lines; therefore, complete abandonment of County rights
is not feasible. Due to the type and location of the lines
within the right-of-way (see Attachment #3), it would be
practical for the County to abandon its right to the road while
reserving a drainage and utility easement within the same 50'.
This action would allow the owners to utilize the subject area
for setback purposes.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends.the County abandon its road rights to that
portion of 17th Street lying between 43rd and 44th Avenues
with the following conditions:
1) The document reserving the drainage and utility easement
within the same 50' area be executed and recorded.
2) A declaration of restriction shall be placed upon the
property stipulating that access shall not be established
onto 43rd Avenue with the exception of the existing single-
family residence facing 43rd Ave.
Staff Planner, Mary Jane Goetzfried, explained that in
January, 1983 Mr. Pegg, acting on behalf of four tenants in
common of an 8 -acre parcel of property, submitted a
right-of-way abandonment application. This particular piece
of property is actually an extension of 17th Street which
lies between 43rd and 44th Avenues, and it is that portion
of the right-of-way that they are asking to be abandoned.
Through the normal course of events, the application
was reviewed by all proper parties. However, a number of
the reviewing agencies had a problem with the fact that this
was going to be abandoned and disapproved the request. The
staff then sent it back to them stating that it was a
road right-of-way as opposed to an easement and if some
easement rights were retained that they would be able to
retain their rights to that piece of property as far as
keeping their utility lines within the area.
Mrs. Goetzfried stated there is a single family
resident located on this particular piece of property which
does not appear to be inhabited and there is an access to
43rd Avenue via a driveway.
27
BOOK 53 rAGE;119%
MAY 18 1983
At the time this portion of property is subdivided into
4 individual pieces of property, which will require
submittal of a subdivision application, the County would
like to see a non -access easement and would like to see
access gained through 44th Avenue so there would be no
driveways at all onto 43rd Ave. That is the condition
staff recommends for approval of the request.
Commissioner Wodtke asked Attorney Brandenburg if we
have the legal authority to require this and Attorney
Brandenburg stated that we have the legal ability to acquire
non -access easements when approving a subdivision; and legal
authority to disapprove the abandonment or make an
abandonment subject to retaining any reservations desired.
Discussion followed regarding compensation on R/W
abandonments, and the Attorney explained that when a
right-of-way is abandoned, that land reverts to the abutting
property owners from the center line of the former
right-of-way; the exception to that is when the original
road dedication itself contains a reverter in the case of
abandonment by County. Those type of reverters are no
longer permissible under our new subdivision ordinance and
would only occur in real old platted roads. He did not know
whether the County has established a firm policy in this
regard; this would be something the Commission would have to
decide.
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard.
Mr. Sid Lysne, father of tenants in common Dena Lysne
Rockey and Lynn Ann Lysne, addressed the Board and explained
that separation of ownership should have been done ten years
ago. He urged the County to release this abandonment and
requested that the Board approve the request today.
Commissioner Wodtke asked Mr. Lysne if he had any
problem with a deed restriction re access and Mr. Lysne
28
replied at this point in time he didn't think that would be
a hardship, but noted that the original right of way really
didn't divide the property exactly in half.
Considerable discussion took place regarding the exact
location of the 50 foot easement, whether 50" was really
needed or whether a 20 ft. or 30 ft. easement could be
specified, depending on the easement needed by the
utilities.
Chairman Bird stressed that all we are attempting to do
is change it from a 50 ft. right-of-way to a 50 ft.
easement, and cutting off access to 43rd Ave.
It was pointed out that this involves a major electric
line of the City and will have to be coordinated with the
City.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the
Board unanimously closed the Public
Hearing.
Further discussion ensued and it was agreed that more
information was needed and that a survey be done on the
exact location of the right-of-way.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the
Board unanimously deferred this matter
until 10:30 a.m. on June 1, 1983, when
information can be presented as to whether
or not a 50' easement is required.
HU14ANE SOCIETY - AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF COUNTY PROPERTY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/12/83:
29
MAY i983 ern3"c 419
18
rMY 18 1993 1
pox53 w goo
TO: Members of the Board DATE: FILE:
May 12, 1983
of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Humane Society -- Agreement
For Sale of County Property
FROM: Gary M. Brandenburg REFERENCES:
County Attorney
Attached to this memorandum you will find a letter from Wayne R.
McDonough together with a standard form contract for the sale and
purchase of County property for use by the Humane'Society received
by our office on Wednesday afternoon, May 11, 1983. The agreement
calls for the sale of 5 acres along South Gifford Road for
$10,000.00, the purchase price to be paid in cash at closing. The
contract requires the County to obtain and pay the cost of title
insurance for the site. The closing date is set for 45 days after
all contingencies are satisfied. Curiously, the contract is
written to allow the buyer the ability to assign the contract. The
contract is contingent upon four items. That being:
1. Buyer obtaining site plan approval satisfactory to buyer.
2. Seller furnishing -sufficient water supply to the site.
3.. The successful testing and approval of the site by the
applicable governmental agencies.
4. Provision that in the event the Society desires to sell the
realty the County shall have the right of first refusal to
purchase the property for the sum of $10,000.00 plus the
• appraised value for all improvements situated on the property.
The following aspects with respect to the -contract should be
reviewed.
1. The contract does not limit the time in which the buyer must
satisfy the contingencies.
2. No provisions have been arranged for the County to pay the cost
of supplying the water to the site.
3. No arrangements have been made to date for the County to
release an easement for parking cars on the strip adjoining the
property.
4.
The original letter to the County indicated "if the Humane
Society at a future time is dissolved, the land and buildings
will revert to people of Indian River County to be used for the
care of homeless animals." No provisions are mentioned in the
sales agreement to accomplish this commitment.
Resp ully ban'
y . randenbur
30
Attorney Brandenburg asked if the attorney representing
the Humane Society was prepared to answer the questions
raised in the above memo.
Attorney Wayne R. McDonough, representing the Humane
Society, addressed the Board and did not understand that
specific answers would be required this morning. He had
assumed his main purpose in coming today was to answer any
legal questions raised in regard to the Humane Society. The
Board requested he address the four aspects Attorney
Brandenburg felt should be reviewed.
Attorney McDonough explained that the reason they did
not include a specific time was because they are not sure
how long it will take to have their site plan approved. He
asked if the Board could give them an idea how long that
process might take.
Attorney Brandenburg commented that the contract is
written to close 45 days after the last contingency is met,
but there is no limitation on how long a time is allowed to
meet the contingencies. He suggested a reasonable period of
time - possibly four to six months to obtain site plan
approval. The Board felt it should be six months.
Discussion was held on the availability of water and
the cost, and it was determined that the County is
responsible for bringing the water line only up to the Road
& Bridge complex and the Humane Society is to bore and jack
the road and do whatever else is necessary to render
services to their property. Administrator Wright
recommended that the County do the line work, but noted the
Society will have to pay normal tap in and impact fees.
Under the bond convenants we cannot give away free water.
Joan Carlson, Executive Director of the Humane Society,
explained that the Department of Environmental Regulation
had done some gas meter readings on the site and will be
submitting recommendations on the site.
Also, they will be having the Health Department do pert
tests. There were perc tests and engineering tests c�
MAY 18 1983 31 BOOKcJ
AY 18 1983
done back in 1980 when this site was first considered. The
D.E.R. has recommended that they consult with.a private
engineering firm that has expertise in this type of con-
struction on or adjacent to landfills. That would be the
next step if the contract is approved, and they are in a
search procedure on that now.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that in the matter of
release of easement, we need to identify what needs to be
released and provision made for it in the sales and
agreement policy. Attorney McDonough said that would be one
way to approach it. He also would like to address it in the
deed, but would be more than glad to add that to the
contract. Attorney Brandenburg noted that we need the
Humane Society to tell us what is needed, and Attorney
McDonough stated he was intending to address that in the.
manner of the deed transfer.
Commissioner Lyons stated that the Board didn't want
any future problems regarding ingress and egress and
Administrator Wright felt that staff can work these things
out.
The Commissioners requested a clause be inserted in the
contract that if the Humane Society is dissolved, the
property reverts back to the County free and clear without
the provision that it must be used for the shelter of
homeless animals. -
Considerable discussion took place regarding
Commissioner Lyon's concern about the possibility that the
Humane Society, which is a non-profit and tax-exempt
organization, and also partially subsidized by the County
might become an agency that would provide free or cut-rate
1.
services and thereby compete with free enterprise, such as
licensed veterinarians. It was thought that the Humane
Society's charter as a non-profit organization would
32
preclude the agency from being in direct competition to
private business.
Commissioner Lyons requested that Attorney Brandenburg
and Attorney McDonough get together and reference that part
of the Humane Society charter to ascertain the prohibition
of competitive services and incorporate that into the sales
agreement.
Chairman Bird questioned the right to -assign the
contract and wanted that deleted from the contract.
Attorney McDonough said that he just automatically checked
that box on the standard contract and will see that it is
changed to non -assignable.
Chairman Bird and Commissioner Wodtke questioned the
clause giving the County the right of refusal if the Society
wanted to sell the property and asked how a fair value price
would be determined. Attorney McDonough suggested agreeing
on one of various formulas that could be applied.
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he would
take their comments and draft a sales agreement and submit
it through Attorney McDonough to the Humane Society and
prepare a resolution to approve it. He advised that a
resolution setting forth certain things is required by
Florida Statute 125.38 prior to approval of these types of
agreements. He would then put it on the next Agenda.
Commissioner Lyons felt that they all agreed that we
have the basis for a rewrite and a Resolution and that
everything would work out.
Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Joan Carlson presented some site plan sketches, and the
Board felt it looked very good but noted that it has to go
to the Planning Department for formal processing.
MAY 8 1983
33
ao�K c,3. AcC50
MAY 18 1993
b"OK.tiLt 59-4
REQUEST FOR REDUCTION OF LETTER OF CREDIT - SEAGROVE
SUBDIVISION
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 4/11/83:
May 11,1983
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
1840 25th Street -- -
Vero Beach. Florida 32960
Attention:. Mrs. E. Forlani
Secretary
Subject: Haven Federal. Savings and Loan Association
Irrevocable Letter of Credit Number 1
Seagrove South Subdivision, Unit 1
Dear Mrs. Forlani:
Corporate Investment Company respectfully requestsklt6.•
be on the agenda of the next scheduled County Commission
• meeting on May 18, 1983, for the purpose of having
additional sums released from the above described letter
of credit.
Our contractor, Dickerson, Inc., has as of April 25, 1983,
completed 820 of the work on the improvements for Seagrove
South. The sum of $117,000.00 or 39% of the letter of
credit was released to us previously on March 28, 1983
and we would like the difference, or 43% more released to
us at this time.(for a total of 82%).
I have enclosed certified copies of our contractors request
for payment for your reference.
If_ you require anything further, please contact me.
Sin erely,
Patricia A. Murray
Corporate Investment Company
pain
enc.
cc: Por. G. Brandenburg/w/att.
One $eagroae Drive C'cro Reach, FL 32960
34
(305) 231-5885
k
Attorney Brandenburg explained that Public Works
Director Davis had inspected the site and found the
following items of concern:"
... These are some trees within the 5 feet of the
right-of-way that will either have to be
removed, or the developer will have to come in and
show why they should be allowed to stay.
... There are no beach accesses or dune crossovers
built to date.
... A copy of the as-builts must be submitted showing
the road certified to be within the boundaries of
the right-of-way as established in the plat.
... There is some deficient swale work.
... There are no pavement markings.
... The grassing is not done.
... There appears to be a lot of sewer and water work
still underway, and there are a lot of major
excavations for that work.
However, all basic structures are in and Director
Davis feels that retaining 20% of the amount of the initial
Letter of Credit will cover the items remaining to be
accomplished; he recommends the release of the remaining
80%.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
unanimously authorized the release of 80%
and retainage of 20% of the funds in the
Letter of Credit to Seagrove Subdivision.
MISSING VERO ISLES DAYBEACON
� MAY 18 1983
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/10/83:
35
06K 53 PAGE 505
.y_
MAY 18 198
0
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 10, 1983 FILE:
Board of County C nnissioners
THRU: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECT: missing Vero Isles Daybeacon
VIA: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Directo
FROM: Donald G. Finnei4-r�A- REFERENCES:
Engineering Technician
DESCRIPTION AMID CONDITIONS
The U.S. Coast Guard informed Indian River County that the green # 1 Daybeacon
on the Vero Isles Private Channel is missing. An unsuccessful attempt was made
to locate this piling by County Staff. It appears a large vessel might have
hit this piling and sheared it off.
Florida Marine Contractors will replace and install a new 10" x 10" prestressed
concrete piling and install the reflective signs at a cost of $700.
Florida Marine would attempt to locate the missing piling and use the old signs
or replace with new signs keeping the sheared off old piling if found.
RECOMMEIDATIONS AND FUNDING
1. Authorize County staff to issue a notice -to -proceed to Florida Marine
Contractors in the amount of $700 to replace the piling.
2. Funding to be transfered from Board of County Commission Contingency Acct
# 001-199-513-99.91 (balance as of April 30, 1983 $233,546.00) to Other Re-
creation Account #001-110-579-33.19.
Public Works Director Davis.reported that he had a boat
out searching for the lost piling but could not find it. It
was not an exhaustive search, however.
The Commissioners felt that it had to be replaced, and
Mr. Davis noted that the contractor did indicate in his
proposal that he would do an exhaustive search to recover
the broken off signal.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why this was coming out of
the General Fund and Jim Davis replied that he did not make
the funding recommendation.
Administrator Wright suggested that the Board allow
staff to handle this much like we do a routine maintenance
matter such as a torn down stop sign, but not take the money
36
from the General Fund. He was not sure this should have
come before the Board, except for the budget transfer.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that the money must be
found to replace the daybeacon, preferably from the Boating
Improvement Fund, and this requires Board action.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if we can go ahead and
replace the daybeacon, subject to approval, because it is an
emergency situation out there without a signaal.
Director Davis hoped we could replace it soon as they
are getting ready to install the daybeacons at the Oslo
ramp.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the
Board authorize the replacement
of the Vero Isles Daybeacon at a cost not
to exceed $700, with the funds to come from
the Florida Boating Improvement Trust Fund.
Commissioner Lyons asked if this should have been bid
and Director Davis said only one contractor ever bids on
this type of thing and he bids not above $1,000, and
Administrator Wright said it was not required to be bid.
Director Davis believed that the agreement with the
Florida Boating Improvement Trust Fund is such that these
daybeacons are to be maintained by the County.
Administrator Wright was concerned that we may be
prohibited from using that money for what they may classify
as a maintenance or replacement item, and asked that they be
given the flexibility to fund it from any normal channel,
should we be denied the ease of the Boating Improvement
Funds.
Debate occurred regarding the location of the beacon
and whether the channel isn't used by the general public.
37
MAY 18 1983 a K 3 P c 07
r MAY 1 �
19833_
Commissioner Scurlock read from the memo which states
"private channel of Vero Isles."
The Board continued to debate whether the County could
take money from the General Fund to maintain the daybeacons,
the same as we do to maintain the County parks, etc.
It was suggested that the words "if possible" be added
to the Motion, but after some discussion, the Chairman
announced that the Motion stands as made with the funds
limited to coming from the Boating Improvement Fund.
The Chairman CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried
4-1, with Commissioner Lyons voting
in opposition.
APPROVAL TO PURCHASE TWO BACKHOES FOR ROAD & BRIDGE DEPT.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/9/83:
rO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: May 9, 1983 FILE:
County Commission
THRU: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
SUBJECT: west to Purchase Two Backnoes for the
Road and Bridge Depaazt�.nt
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., -
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
REFERENCES:
During the FY -82/83 Budget Hearings,.the Board of County Commission approved
funding in the amount of $653,737 for Road and Bridge Department Capital
Equipment. Bids have been awarded in the amount of $482,614.67 for all
equipment approved by the Board for purchase. As a result, an account balance
of $171,122.33 is uncommitted.
At this time, the Road and Bridge Department requests permission to purchase
a full size backhoe and a mini backhoe. .The justification for the purchase
Of this equipment is as follows:
Full Size Backhoe
1) The Water and Sewer Department is in need of a backhoe. The Road
and Bridge Department would like to transfer a 1976 International
Backhoe to Utilities for their use. Road and Bridge is also transfering
a truck and mawing tractor to Water and Sewer.
M
2) New equipment costs are depressed as evidenced by recent bids received.
The Road and.Bridge Department is in.need of a new backhoe for installing
drainage culverts. The currently used backhoe is more functional
for utility line work than drainage ditch work.
3) The Road and Bridge Department backhoe is in need of replacing.
Mini Backhoe
1) The Road and Bridge Department needs a small backhoe to work in
narrow backlot drainage swales. Currently, this work is done by
hand labor using wheelbarrows. This type work can be performed in
a more cost efficient way by purchasing a small mini -backhoe.
Productivity can be greatly increased.
2) occasionally, the Road and Bridge Department.- rents a mini backhoe
from Taylor Rental for $60.00 per day. This rental cost will be
eliminated.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternatives -are presented
Alternative No. 1
Approve the expenditure of $18,000 for the purchase of a mini backhoe and $45,000
for the purchase of a full size backhoe. After funds are committed for this
equipment, the Capital Equipment Account will continue to have uncommitted funds
in the amount of $108,122.33. The 1976 International Backhoe will be transferred
to the Utilities Department for Water and Sewer work at an agreed upon cost.
Alternative No. 2
Approve the expenditure of $18,000 for the purchase of a mini backhoe or $45,000
for a full size backhoe, but not both.
Alternative No. 3
Approve no further expenditures of Capital Equipment.
RECONMENIDATIONS AND FUNDING
Since new equipment costs are still somewhat depressed, the Utilities Department
has need of a used backhoe, and the efficiency of backlot drainage ditch maintenancE
can be drastically improved, staff recommends approving expenditures in the
amount of $63,000 for one full size backhoe and one mini -backhoe from Account
004-214-519-66.43, uncommitted funds total $171,122.33. Request approval for
staff to advertise for bids..
Director Davis explained that his department has some
uncommitted funds because some equipment came in below
estimates, and Road & Bridge would like to purchase a full
size backhoe and a mini backhoe out of these funds.
Discussion followed in regard to Road & Bridge
equipment that is being transferred to the Utility Dept. and
the Sanitary Landfill, and Commissioner Scurlock emphasized
that he wants to see this equipment properly allocated to
where it is moved and paid for by the specific department.
39
u U3 rw5ffl
MAY 18 1983
Commissioner Wodtke noted that although we seem to have
some extra money here, we have a severe problem with money
the rest of the year and he didn't want them to come back
later and say they now have a shortage.
Administrator Wright pointed out that they just would
like authorization to go to bid and see how this goes and
then come back to the Board.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner
the Board unanimously authorized
the backhoes be put out for bid.
AWARD OF BIDS - TRACKING STATION RECREATIONAL AREA
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 5/11/83:
40
rO: The Honorable Members of the
Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright,
County Administra r
�J
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
DATE: May 11, 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT: Indian River County Tracking Station
Recreational Area, Award of Bids -
Division I - Buildings and Site Work
Division III - Landscaping
REFERENCES: w
Bids were readvertised and received May 9, 1983, for Division I, Building and Site Work,
and Division III, Landscaping, for the Tracking Station Park. The Bid tabulation sheets
are attached. One bid was received for each division.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The only bid received for Division I - Buildings and Site Work, was submitted by J.B.
Walker Construction, Inc. -in the amount of $106,533.00. The bid submitted is above
the Engineering Departments' estimate of $95,580.00. The bid bond was submitted. The
questionaire and financial statement was not submitted. The bidder constructed the
facilities at South Beach Park and has done work in Indian River County, Florida.
The only Bid received for Division III, Landscaping, was submitted by Maddux Nursery
and Landscaping, Inc., Palm City, Florida. in the amount of $41,281.72. This bid
exceeded the Engineering Departments estimate of $25,000.00. No bid bond or financial
statement was received. The bidder claims no work performedin Indian River County.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the low bidder for Division.I,,J. B. Walker Construction, Inc.
be awarded the bid in the amount of $106,533. It is not recommended that the Land-
scaping bid be awarded. This landscaping work can be performed by local landscape
companies on a negotiated basis. Also, County Parks personnel can participate.
Funding for the project will total $231,939.49. Since $277,500 has been allocated
for the Park, a fund balance of $45,560.51 will remain uncommitted for landscaping
and possibly further parking.improvements to the County Park land to the north.
Funding shall be from account #102-210-572-66.39.
Award is subject to DNR approval.
Mr. Davis explained that they had received bids on
Divisions II, IV, and V at the last meeting, and had sent
out Division I and III for rebidding. He then went over
his memo in detail.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that one of the problems
that we are running into on these smaller bid projects is
that the local bidders are reluctant to fill out all the
41
MAY 18 1983 x 53 rxtbll
4
MAY 18 1983
required material, pay the fee for documents, and pay for a
bond.
Attorney Brandenburg advised the Board that on jobs of
$25,000 or less, they have the authority to waive a
performance bond.
Mr. Davis reported that they advertised several times
and mailed out 60 letters notifying firms. He felt perhaps
they did not receive more bids because of the necessity of
complying with DNR requirements.
In further discussion the importance of starting
construction as required by the DNR was stressed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously accepted the bid from
Walker Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$106,533 for Division I - Buildings &,Bite
Work for Tracking Station Recreational Area,
as recommended.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board
authorized the rebidding Division III -
Landscaping - for Tracking Station Recreational
Area and agreed to waive bond requirements.
42
F -
Div. III - Landscaping
o�
Q.
ci
� y
�v
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT'
PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT
)6 53 .00ar Cbl inn
®-■-■off
fl
�I
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2145 -14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
c
LO
co
BID TABULATION
BID NO. ���DAT�E
OF OPENING
-83
BID TITLE
Tracking Station - Recreation Area
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
Div. I - Restroom Bldgs. & Site Works
Div. III - Landscaping
o�
Q.
ci
� y
�v
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT'
PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT
)6 53 .00ar Cbl inn
®-■-■off
fl
�I
mAy 18 1983 x 5_3 pAo�Mt
The Board recessed at 12:05 Noon for lunch and
reconvened at 1:45 with the same members presents.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING TIMBER RIDGE TO R -2D
The hour of 1:30 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
Attorney Gordon Johnston appeared representing Timber
Ridge and gave a history of the project, noting that
rezoning was previously applied for, but at the
recommendation of the Planning & Zoning staff, it was
withdrawn and resubmitted so that it would be in conformance
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the following pro-
posal to rezone land from: - .
R-11 "Single -Family Residential to:
R -2D, "Multlpfe-Family. Fhii derrtial "The
subject property Rresently owned by Timber
\/ERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Inc., is located on the ,at side of the Let-
"J"
oral
eral Canal, approkimately 660 feet north of
Oslo Road.
Daily
The suectPublished
ARCEL ONE P rt of SectionIs descri2424, Township 33
South, Range 39 East, being the South 390 feet of
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
the North 805 feet of the West 'A of the Southeast
% of said Section, being in Indian River County,
Florida, except that part platted in DIXIE GAR-
DENS SUBDIVISION UNIT 3, SECTION 3, as re -
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
corded in Plat Book 6, Page 71, of the Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
Before the undersigned authority personal) appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
Y PP
PARCEL TWO: Part of Section 24, Township 33
South, Range 39 East, being the West /n of the
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
Southeast '/ of said Section, lessthat portion
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
previously deeded to Gerard being the North 415
feet less 1/4
and that portion of the Southwest of
the Southeast 1/4 lying West of'Lateral "J", and
f
less that portion of the South 390 feet of the North
a
805 feet of said description, lying and being in In-
dian River County, Florida, and less the South-
outh-
west 'A
west'A of the Southeast'/. of the Southwest 'A of
in the matter of //�%%1J1�� / �A Gl i0
the Southeast % of said described land, also less
and excepting the south 660 feet of the West % of
the Southeast %.
PARCEL THREE: Part of Section 24, Township
33 South, Range 39 East, lying In the Northeast 1/4
,of the Southwest 1/4 of said Section, lying East of
Lateral "J", less that portion of said Section in
in the Court, was pub-
DIXIE GARDENS SUBDIVISION UNIT 3, as re-
corded in Plat Book 6, Page 71, of the Public
�/ �! �7�-3
Records of Indian River County, being and lying
in Indian River County, Florida.
lished in said newspaper in the issues of //iGf 1/
PARCEL FOUR: Including the park site as
shown on the Plat of DIXIE GARDENS SUBDIVI-
SION UNIT 3, Section 3 as recorded in Plat Book
6, Page 71, Public Records of Indian River Coun-
ty.
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Subject to easements of record. The above
contains 48.44 acres.
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
A public hearing at which parties in interest
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, be held by the Board of County Com -
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach in said Indian River Coun-
P
e
missionrs of Indian River County, Florida, In the
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
County Commission Chambers of the County Ad -
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
Building; located at 1840 25th Street,
m983,
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
ero Beach, Florida. on Wednesday, May 18,
et 1:30 P.M.
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
; If any person decides to appeal any decision
J3
made on the above matter, he will need a record
purposes, he
may ensure
Sworn to and subscrib bele me day of A.D. 19
n� t that afverbatim record the
proceedings is made, which includes testimony
and evidence upon which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
�f*iusin,@$ Manager)
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Apr. 29, May 11, 1983.
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian ' er County, Florida)
(SEAL)
Attorney Gordon Johnston appeared representing Timber
Ridge and gave a history of the project, noting that
rezoning was previously applied for, but at the
recommendation of the Planning & Zoning staff, it was
withdrawn and resubmitted so that it would be in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan. He then discussed the
conceptual plan for this tennis -oriented subdivision, noting
that the tennis club complex is already constructed and
about 50 members of the club have indicated an interest in
buying these units when they are completed. He continued
that there will be a jogging trail all around the perimeter
of the property which will act as a buffer, and there is
provision for a sewage treatment facility on the commercial
property located to the southwest.
Discussion ensued regarding the fact that this
subdivision would be a prime customer for the County sewer
facility when the Treasure Coast problem is resolved.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the applicant would have any
problem with eliminating the proposed package plant and
using the County facility, and Engineer Beindorf assured him
that would be his recommendation and he believed the owner
would be most happy to deal with the County utilities.
Environmental Planner Challacombe reviewed staff memo
as follows:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 19,` 1983
the Board of County
Conmissioners
FILE:
TIMBER RIDGE, INC. REQUEST
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: TO REZONE APPROXDMMY
SUBJECT: "-"ACRES
OF IAND LOCATED
NORTH OF THE TIMBER RIDGE
Patrick Bruce King, AICP COMMERCIAL CENTER & EAST OF
THE Lpayl.RAr. "ill CANAL FRS
THROUGH: Bob Keating, AICD -453'� R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDEN-
Planning & Zoning Dept. Manager TIAL TO R -2D, MULTIPLE -FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
FROM: ZrA—e—A REFERENCES:
Art Challacombe,
Environmeiltal Planner
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Cannissioners at their regular meeting on May 18,
1983.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The applicant, Timber, Ridge; Inc., is requesting to rezone approximately
48.44 acres located directly north of the Timber Ridge Tennis Ranch and east
Of the Lateral "J" Canal from R-1, Single -Family Residential (6.2
units/acre) to R -2D, Multiple -Family District: (6 units/acre)..
MAY 18 1993 4s 53 PAct
B n C
�c� FAGS
On May 13, 1980, the applicant submitted a rezoning request to R -2B, Multi-
ple -Family District (8.1 units/acre). At the time of submittal, the County
did not have a R -2D zoning district or an adopted Comprehensive Plan. After
extensive discussion with the Planning and Zoning Department regarding the
future recom anded densities for the area, the applicant withdrew his
application until the implementation of a six unit/acre multiple -family
zoning district and final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan could be
accomplished.
During this period (June 25, 1981) the applicant obtained site plan approval
of the Timber Ridge Center on 14.1 acres zoned C-1, Commercial, directly to
the south. The center is designed to provide the future residents of
Timber Ridge and near area residents with a commercial and recreational
facility.
It is the intent of the applicant to incorporate the commercial property,
the subject property, and properties owned by the applicant to the north
into a recreational -residential community.
On April 14, 1983, at their regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Land Use Analysis: In this section, an analysis of the existing land use
pattern will be presented as well as a discussion of the future land use as
established in the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Existing Land Use Pattern: The site is presently vacant. The surrounding
land uses include:
North (1) Dixie Gardens Subdivision, Units 3 & 4
(approximately 4.41 units/acre);
(2) Mii.spering Palms Subdivision
(approximately 4.66 units/acre);
(3) Caribbean Circle Subdivision
(4.09 units/acre)
South - (1) Timber Ridge -
Center (Commercial & Recreational);
(2) Oslo Road;
Timber Ridge, Inc. Rezoning Request
April 19, 1983
Page 2
West - Lateral "J" Canal
East - (1) Scattered single-family residences
(2) Dixie Gardens Unit 2 (approximately 4.24
units/acre)
Future Land Use Pattern: -The Comprehensive Plan designates the area as LD -2
(maximum of six units/acre). While the gross density of this rezoning
request is slightly higher than that of the single-family developments to
the north and east (average of 1.61 units/acre), mitigation can be obtained
by requiring appropriate buffer techniques during the site plan review
process. To the west, the Lateral "J" Canal provides a buffer to future
development. The request is compatible with the commercial area to the
south in that the proposed zoning designation would provide an intermediate
zoning district between the commercial district and the single-family
district.
Roads/Traffic: The subject property is currently provided with a potential
primary access through the Timber Ridge Center to Oslo Road. Subsequent
phasing shown on the approved plan for the Timber Ridge Center depicts a
divided road connection between the two parcels.
Currently, the main entrance into the project is via a 25 foot road.
Upon completion of Phase One of the Timber Ridge Center site plan, this road
will contain a 50 foot right-of-way with a minimum of a 10 foot median
strip. Design coordination of this road system into the project will be
required prior to site plan approval of the residential area.
- M M
The northern end of the property abuts 5th Lane, S.W. which goes through
Dixie Gardens, Unit 3. Proper planning principles dictate that the tra.ific
generated by this project should not be allowed to traverse along 5th Lane,
S.W. into the Dixie Gardens Subdivision. The same objections also apply to
using 7th Lane, S.W. through Dixie Gardens, Unit 2.
Currently, 5th Street, S.W. is designated as a secondary collector to Old
Dixie Highway. Upon phased development by the applicant, access to 5th
Street, S.W. should be established by the developer while closing off 5th
Lane, S.W. to through traffic.
The maximum density established by the proposed rezoning would generate 1480
average daily trips and 175 peak hour trips. This level of traffic is not
expected to have an adverse impact on the surrounding area provided that the
primary access is through the existing access road to Oslo Road and that
secondary access be provided to 5th Street, S.W.
Environment: The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive in the Comprehensive Plan,`nor is it designated as flood prone on
the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map.
Utilities: County water services are available to the property. Upon site
plan approval, the developer would be required to hook up to the County
system. County sewer services -are not available.
The site plan for the Timber Ridge Center depicts a 2.39 acre site reserved
for a wastewater treatment plant; however, future wastewater facilities for
the overall project shall be reviewed upon submittal of a site plan for the
residential portion of the project. Prior to further site plan approvals of
the project, the applicant will be required to obtain a wastewater utilities
franchise from the County and plans approved by the County Utilities
Division.
RECOMMENDATION:
F
Based upon the above analysis, staff recommends approval. APPROVED AGaMA ITEM:
ATTARS: FOR:
1) Application BY:
2) Location Map
3) Site plan for Timber Ridge Center, approved 6/25/81.
4) P&Z minutes of 4/14/83.
Mr. Challacombe stated that in analyzing densities,
staff came up with an average of 4.5 units per acre for the
existing residential in the area which is all built on 70' x
100' lots. The requested density is slightly higher, a
little over 5, but staff felt that through the site plan
process and use of the heavily wooded area, there would be
adequate buffering. There was a concern about access, and
staff opposed strongly any connection to the single family
area to the north; primary access is planned through Timber
Ridge to Oslo Road. Mr. Challacombe stated that staff
further felt that Timber Ridge would serve as a transition
and buffer area between the existing residences and the
commercial area and believed it will be an upgrading of the
area.
47
MAY 1 i9�3 -K U3 ��c `1 7
MAY 18 193 ��� . ��
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Bert Newton, of 654 S.W. 5th Place, raised questions
about the park area set aside for Dixie Gardens, the sewage
lines through his property and how the proposed subdivision
will impact his sewage disposal, and also expressed concern
about additional traffic on Oslo Road.
Mr. Challacombe reported that the plat of Dixie Gardens
does show a designated park area of about two acres, but
apparently this has never been deeded or dedicated to the
county. He further stated that, according to staff
analysis, Oslo Road does have sufficient carrying capacity
to accommodate the anticipated increase in traffic, and if
there should be a problem, they would then consider
signalization but feel it is premature at this time.
Administrator Wright assured Mr. Newton that his sewage
service would not be disrupted and he would not have to put
in a septic tank. It was noted that all these concerns will
be addressed at the time of site plan approval.
Discussion continued regarding the park site, and
Attorney Johnston stated that this park was never dedicated
to the county and it is a fee simple ownership of his client
at this time.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed that there has to be
both a dedication and an acceptance of the park site by the
county, which apparently never has been done.
Dean Donovan, of 713 5th St. S.W., claimed that the
park in question was promised to the people of Beachwood
Estates when they purchased their property. He believed
that Beachwood Estates, formerly known as Dixie Gardens, was
purchased from Dixie Gardens, and now has reverted back to
Dixie Gardens. Mr. Donovan stated that the park is within
the area of the proposed rezoning.
Chairman Bird noted that the rezoning as such will not
affect the park one way or the other, and all this will have
to be addressed at the site plan level.
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that he has
learned that the park was never specifically dedicated to
the public and it is on the tax rolls in the name of Timber
Ridge, Inc.
No one further wished to be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 83-20 rezoning the advertised
48.44 acres to R -2D as requested by Timber
Ridge, Inc.
MAY 18 199349 B®on 53 Pau"519
MAY 18 1993
ORDINANCE NO. 83-20
WHEREAS, the Board of County Conmissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the
hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto held a public
hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens
were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Camnissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County,
Florida, and the accon panying Zoning Map, be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that the following
described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
PARCEL, ONE: Part of Section 24, Township 33 South, Range 39
East, being the South 390 feet of the North 805 feet of the
West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section, being in
Indian River County, Florida, except that part platted in
DIXIE GARDENS SUBDIVISION UNIT 3 SECTION 3, as recorded in
Plat Book 6, Page 71, of the Public Records of Indian River
County, Florida.
PARCEL TWO: part of Section 24, Township 33 South, Range 39
East, being the West 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section,
less that portion previously deeded to Gerard being the North
415 feet and less that portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Southeast 1/4 lying West of Lateral "J", and less that
portion of the South 390 feet of the North 805 feet of said
description, lying and being in Indian River County, Florida,
and less the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of said described land,
also less and excepting the south 660 feet of the West 1/2 of
the Southeast 1/4.
PARCEL THREE: Part of Section 24, Township 33 South, Range
39 East, lying in the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
said Section, lying East of Lateral "J", less that portion
of said Section in DIXIE GARDENS SUBDIVISION UNIT 3, as
recorded in Plat Book 6, a Page 71, of the Public Records
of Indian River County, being and lying in Indian River
County, Florida.
PARCEL FOUR: Including the park site as shown on the Plat of
"DIXIE GARDENS SUBDIVISION UNIT 3, Section 3 as recorded in
Plat Book 6, Page 71, Public Records of Indian River County.
Subject to easements of record. The above contains 48.44
acres.
Be changed from R-1, Single -Family Residential District to
R -2D, Multiple -Family District.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described
in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida on this 18 day of May , 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY CCMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By:
_Ri-chard N. Bird, Chairman
50
DISCUSSION HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE PLANNING & MANAGEMENT
PLAN
The Board reviewed staff memo dated May 13, 1983, and
Community Development Director King passed out an additional
memo dated May 18th, both of which are as follows:
MAY 18 1983 S1 53 PAVE
rMAY 18 1983
TO: The Honorable Members
of the Board of
County Commissioners
DATE: May 13, 1983 FILE:'
SUBJECT: HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE
PLANNING & MANAGEMENT PLAN
FROM: Bruce King, AIC4
Director REFERENCES.
Community Development Division
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 18, 1983.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Management Commit-
tee was appointed by Governor Bob Graham on November 9, 1981,
to study the resources of the barrier island from Sebastian
Inlet south ',to the St. Lucie Inlet. The objective.of the
committee-is'to formulate -a growth management plan which will
properly manage.the resources -of -the barrier island in relation
to future development. This coastal barrier island is made lip
of various sensitive environmental resources which include the
adjacent waters, beaches and dunes, and deepwater habitats.
All of these resources perform important ecological and/or
hazard -protection services. The growth management plan h%s
ben codified into four (4) major subject areas:
1. Environmentally sensitive resources
2. Potable water/wastewater
3. Capital improvements programming
4. Transportation
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and Manage)aent Commit. -
tee shall meet on June 2, 1983, in the Martin Rocrm at India::
River College 9n Ft. Pierce to discuss the attached propose'•.
growth management plan and vote upon possible amendments to
said plan. Therefore, it is necessary for Indian River County
to establish their position on the attached plan and formulate
any proposed amendments which may be submitted during the June
2nd meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
In order to accomplish the above described effort, it is my
request that the Board of County Commissioners review the
attached growth management plan and call a special meeting to
discuss the implications and ramifications of said plan so that
the County may establish their position for any proposed
amendments. The Planning and Zoning Commission requests that
the special meeting be a joint board meeting in order that
their input may be provided directly to the Board of County
Commissioners.
PBK/tw
Attachment: As stated
DW:TUESDA
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM
FOR
BY
Farm 100-101.-1 . _..
� � r
I
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: May 18, 1983 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
HUTCHINSON ISLAND
SUBJECT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN
:Bruce King, AICP J
FROMDirector REFERENCES:
Community Development Division
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of May 18, 1983.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
It has been requested by the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners that the Community Development Division staff
prepare an analysis of the new policies proposed for Indian
River County through the subject plan in order to facilitate
discussion during today's Board meeting. Within the alterna-
tives and analysis section, each new policy will be presented
and a brief description of its possible implications
and ramifications.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Basically, there are fifteen new policies contained in the
Growth Management Plan for Hutchinson Island which would require
implementation in Indian River County within the first 6' months
upon approval by the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning and
Management Committee. These proposed policies will be presented
by the following categories: environment, potable wa-
ter/wastewater, capital improvements programing, and
transportation.
ENVIRONMENT
The first new environmental policy proposed for implementation
by Indian River County pertains to the use of the shore line.
This policy establishes a priority list for the utilization of
the shore line of the barrier island. It is the staff's opinion
that the adoption of this policy would create little, if any,
changes in the operations of the County.
The second new environmental policy concerns the establishment
of a dune preservation zone landward of the coastal construction
control line. This policy would restrict development and access
along the beach/dune system to prevent damage to the system's
vegetation and promote natural rebuilding of the dune through
wind forces. This policy would prohibit all activities, other
than shore protection, within the dune preservation zone. The
implementation of this policy would require the Board of County
Commissioners to adopt an ordinance establishing an additional
building setback zone westward of the current coastal con-
struction control line.
The third environmental policy needing to be discussed would
require those who benefit from shore line stabilization efforts
to provide the necessary funding. Based upon the County's
recent actions involving the beach erosion project and its
53 Fox 53
MAY 18 1983
MAY 18 1983 ' 53: rw5?4
proposed funding mechanism, it is the staff's opinion that this
policy would not demand significant modifications in the
County's operations or current policies.
The fifth new policy being proposed concerns the provision of a
balance in the inflow of fresh water into the Indian River to
protect, maintain and, where appropriate, enchance the ecologi-
cal health of living marine resources. This policy strives to
maintain an optimum balance between the amount of fresh water
and saline water within the Indian River estuary. This policy
maybe implemented through the final draft of the master drainage
plan as prepared by Reynolds, Smith & Hill.
Lastly, the Hutchinson Island Growth Management Plan proposes
that areas designated as environmentally sensitive, e.g.,
wetlands, shall not receive any residential density credits.
The implementation of this policy would require an amendment to
the currently adopted land use element of the County's Compre-
hensive Plan. At the present time there are approximately 1,742
acres of environmentally sensitive land upon the north section
and 280 acres upon the southern section of the barrier island in
Indian River County. Therefore, the implementation of this
policy would have the effect of reducing the building density of
the unincorporated area of the barrier island in Indian River
County by 2,022 dwelling units.
POTABLE WATER/WASTEWATER
The Hutchinson Island Growth Management Plan proposes a policy,
to improve the permitting and inspection process for wastewater
management so that estuarine and potable water systems are
protected from pollution. The specific minimum on-site require-
ments would include the following:
1. Prohibit all aerobic wastewater treatment plants whose
capacity is less than 10,000 per day.
2. Increase monitoring frequency.
3. Require emergency power for the wastewater treatment
plant where the water supply has emergency power.
4. Require surge tanks on all contact stabilization
units.
5. On extended aeration units without surge tanks,
require oversized clarifiers.
6. Flow meters shall be required.on all water/wastewater
treatment facilities. (Proposed amendment)
All of the above minimum requirements would establish new
regulations for Indian River County. However, the County's
Utility Division Director was contacted in regards to the
acceptability of these standards for new development within the
County, and it was his opinion that these standards were reason-
able minimum requirements.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMING
The proposed Growth Management Plan contains a policy that each
local government shall develop a Capital Improvement Program for
its portion of the barrier island. It is the intent of the
committee that the local government Capital Improvement Program
be intergrated into one overall capital improvement program that
will become part of the committee's management plan.
Furthermore, each local government's Capital Improvement Program
must be reviewed annually and.be intergrated into the local
budgetary process.
The implementation of this section of
Growth Management Plan would require
Capital Improvement Program covering
the Hutchinson Island
the County to prepare a
a six year period of which
the first year would be the Capital Improvement Budget for the
next fiscal year. In addition, the CIP would have to be revised
annually upon adoption of the Capital Improvement Budget during
the regular budgetary process. At a minimum, the CIP would have
to cover all capital expenditures relating to the unincorporated
area of the barrier island within the County.
TRANSPORTATION
The transportation section contains a policy to establish a
uniform and coordinated land use and transportation policy that
will assure that the distribution, location and intensity of
future development on the barrier island shall not exceed the
efficient use of the principal transportation system or facil-
ities on the island as well as the bridges, causeways and
related roadway system that links the island to the mainland.
In order to effectuate this policy the Growth Management Plan
establishes several specific standards to be implemented at the
local level.
The first standard relates to the level of service that must be
maintained on the principal transportation network on the
barrier island and its related facilities. The plan proposes
that all future development shall not create a traffic demand
that exceeds a level of service "C" on an annual average basis
and level of service "D" for peak season traffic upon the
principal system.
The implementation of this standard would require an amendment
to the Transportation and Land Use elements of the currently
adopted Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County. Currently,
the County's Comprehensive Plan establishes a minimum acceptable
level of service as level "D". This amendment may require the
County to reevaluate quantity and the distribution of densities
on both the northern and southern sections of the barrier
island.
Lastly, the transportation section tries to standardize the
manuals utilized in computing level of service analyses for all
jurisdictions within the region. This policy would require the
County to utilize different manuals than those presently used.
However, the standards and methodologies within the manuals do
not significantly differ from those within the County's present
resources.
RECOMMENDATION
It is requested that the Board of County Commissioners review
the above proposed policies and their possible implementation
requirements, and establish the County's position in relation to
each of the above policies so that the County's representatives
on the Hutchinson Island Planning and Resource Management
Committee may effectively represent the County's views during
the June 2nd meeting of the Committee at which time the Growth
Management Plan and all proposed amendments will be voted upon.
cc: Michael Wright, County Administrator
Gary Brandenburg, County Attorney
55
oox
MAY 18 193�Ac
� MAY
181983 ACK .
5,26
Board members commented on the fact that it is very
difficult to assimilate material handed out at the last
moment, and Commissioner Lyons stated that he would prefer
to meet every Wednesday and have a chance to study the
agenda material prior to the meeting rather than operate on
an emergency basis every two weeks.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that this is a very
important matter and he does not like what seems to be
happening with the State interfering in our local affairs.
He felt that we have done a good job locally and believed it
is an insult to be stepped on this way.
Commissioner Bowman disagreed entirely. She did agree
that we have our own county planning and development in
order, but St. Lucie County has not and we are being
severely impacted by their development.
Chairman Bird asked if Mr. King was going to ask for
any action today, and Mr. King stated that if the Commission
felt uncomfortable with making a decision today, he would
recommend having an additional meeting. He understood the
Board's concerns about getting information at the last
minute, but noted that they really did work hard to get this
information -together and assumed this would be better than
having to call a Special Meeting.
The Board continued to express concern about the State
taking over decisions that should be made locally, and
Chairman Bird suggested that the Commission listen to the
presentation and then decide if they wish to call a Special
Meeting.
Community Development Director King informed the Board
that Sam Shannon and Lincoln Walther of the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council were present, as well as Rob Magee
of the State Department of Community Affairs.
Mr. King then reviewed the purpose of the Hutchinson
Island Resource Planning & Management Committee, noting that
the plan is at a draft stage and has not yet been reviewed
by the full committee. Any proposed amendments would be
voted on at the Committee's June 2nd meeting at Indian River
Community College. Mr. King next reviewed the material in
his May 18th memo discussing policies that might require
some amendment or modification of the County's Comprehensive
Plan.
Administrator Wright wished to know why'we would be
required to amend our plan.
Sam Shannon of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council explained the process whereby the committee is
established and then develops a report which contains a
management plan requiring certain kinds of implementation.
This report is sent to the Governor and Cabinet, and if they
concur with the management plan, then it will be the
responsibility of the local governments to amend their plans
to be in conformance or the state basically will take over
the implementation.
Discussion ensued regarding the fact that this would
not apply unless an area were actually designated an area of
critical concern, and Mr. Shannon noted that the Governor
and Cabinet can designate areas of critical concern but that
designation does not go into effect until the Legislature
has an opportunity to review their action. It will go into
effect, however, unless the Legislature takes action to deny
it.
Mr. King believed local governments would have about
six months to implement any requirements locally. At the
end of six months, their progress would be reviewed and
evaluated by the Department of Community Affairs, and if
significant progress had been made, that particular area
would not be recommended to the Governor as an area of
critical concern.
57
4• I
MAY 18 1983 53:'F�At�'`
Chairman Bird asked if the development of this
management plan is the brainchild of the committee or the
Department of Community Affairs.
Rob Magee of the State Department of Community Affairs
informed the Board that the Governor established this
committee, and this action was requested by the Regional
Planning Council.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he sees no way for
the Commission to take any action today since this plan
addresses many elements including funding, and staff has not
had an opportunity to address all the concerns. He further
noted that this plan will reduce dwelling units on the
Barrier Island by over 2,000 units, and we do not know what
impact that would have on our planned South Beach utility
system.
Mr. Magee emphasized that the State does not wish the
County to take any action today. If the Commission has any
problems with this initial report, he urged that they
present their feelings as to any possible impacts and submit
proposed amendments at the June 2nd committee meeting.
Mr. Magee stressed that this is a committee process, and
although this committee was organized by the State, it is
made up of all local representatives with equal represen-
tation from the three counties involved. This is the
committee that will -develop the resource management plan,
and he hoped all the counties will provide input and use
their representation to mold a plan that will be signifi-
cant for all the counties. Basically, what the plan should
contain is principles for guiding future development.
Mr. Magee then referred to his work on the Charlotte
Harbour Planning Management Program in which Sanibel Island,
probably one of the best planned areas in the state,
participated. He explained that the main reason Sanibel
Island was a member of that committee was because the
58
development of Fort Myers Beach was impacting them, and they
used the committee as a tool to establish controls that Fort
Myers would have to abide by.
Commissioner Scurlock questioned the advisability of
Indian River County being utilized as a role model; he felt
if the State has a problem with St. Lucie County, they
should take it up with them directly and not use us as a
club.
Mr. Magee understood the Commissioner's position, but
pointed out that the impacts of uncontrolled growth do not
know jurisdictional lines. He continued that when the plan
is presented to the Department of Community Affairs, they
have the option to present it to the Governor for any
particular area and everyone is judged on their merits. If
you are doing a good job, you have nothing to fear. Mr.
Magee then went on to review the process whereby the plan
goes to the Governor but before any tough application of the
rules goes into effect, it must be approved by the
Legislature.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that the Legislature
actually does not have to approve the plan - if they don't
take any action, it is automatically approved.
Discussion then followed as -to the minimum size of an
area that could be designated as an area of critical
concern, and it was noted the Statutes do not address that.
Mr. Magee felt the worst that could happen in this area
would be that the entire barrier island area could be
designated as an area of critical concern. He noted that
the Florida Keys are designated an area of critical concern,
as well as the Suwanee River area, which includes 11
counties, and the Panhandle region of Walton, Oscaloosa and
Bay Counties.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why the State did not take
a look at our Comprehensive Plans when they were submitted
59
MAY 18 1983 ua 53 ma ?9
� - 1
MAY 18 1983... t5
and indicate approval or disapproval at that time, and Mr.
Magee felt it was because in this instance we are dealing
with impacts that go across county and city jurisdictional
lines.
Considerable discussion followed regarding the steps
that should be taken between now and the June 2nd meeting of
the committee. Both Mr. Shannon and Mr. Magee concurred
that the next most important step is the amendatory process
that will occur at the June 2nd committee meeting. Mr.
Magee reported that five pages of amendments already have
been received from Martin County to be presented at that
meeting.
Community Development Director King felt he mainly
could be of service in trying .to identify what policies are
not presently contained in our Comprehensive Plan and any
ramification those policies might have. He believed the
Commission then must come to some decision and give their
representation on the committee definite direction.
It was generally agreed a Special Meeting should be
called and advertised to obtain public input, letting it be
known that copies of the proposed plan are available in the
Planning Department.
The Board then discussed the Committee's procedure
policy, and Mr. Shannon reported that they will have three
readings of the plan - the second reading is to amend and
then there will be a final meeting.
Commissioner Scurlock objected to the proposed
procedure., and Mr. Magee pointed out that the County could
express such an objection and state that more time is
needed. Then, if the committee votes that more time is
needed, the committee rules. He emphasized that the
counties have control of the committee.
In further discussion, Commissioner Wodtke felt
possibly we are reacting too fast as the Committee may
60
decide they do not like the entire plan. Commissioner
Bowman believed there is not too much in the plan we do not
already provide for in our Comprehensive Plan, but
Commissioner Lyons stressed that the most important thing is
to make the most of our opportunity to be heard because
nothing is changed until it is voted on.
Discussion continued regarding a Special Meeting, and
it was suggested that in addition to advertising, entities
such as the civic associations, the Board.of Realtors, the
Audubon Society, Fish & Game Commission, City of Vero Beach,
Town of Indian River Shores, Town of Orchid, etc., should be
notified and asked to attend. Chairman Bird requested that
Community Development Director King see that all the
entities involved receive a copy of the proposed management
plan.
Carolyn Eggert, Chairman of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, asked if it was agreeable to the Board for Ruth
Stanbridge to attend the Special Meeting as a representative
of the Planning & Zoning Commission, and Chairman Bird
stated that we would welcome her.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
authorized the Chairman to'call a,Special
Meeting of the Board for Wednesday, May 25,
1983, at 8:30 A.M., for the purpose of re-
viewing the proposed Hutchinson Island
Resource Management Plan as discussed above.
CHANGE ORDERS SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM IMP. - PHASE I
Utility Services Director Pinto reviewed the following
memo and asked that Change Order #2 be discussed first:
61
MAY 18 1983 ®o U3 mcf 5,31
r MAY 18 183
TO: The Honorable Members of the LATE: May 12, 1983
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
doac PA4 1
FILE:
County Administrator
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDERS FOR SOUTH BEACH
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS—PHASE I
X
FRC�60fi: affel ! into REFERENCES:
Utility Services Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Change Order No. 1
(1) The original plans and specifications called for the installation of electrical
service to the water booster station and elevated tank to be overhead.
We have been informed by Mr. John Robbins, P. E., of Sverdrup & Parcel that it is re-
quired by the City of Vero Beach Utilities Department that the service be installed under-
ground which necessitates a change in our contract and an increase in cost of $17,728.00
(seventeen hundred twenty-eight dollars and no cents).
(2) The deletion of chlorination system is due to the Department of Environmental Regulation
informing us that the addition of chlorine at this point in the system is not desired so
therefore we ask that it be removed from the contract. This will decrease contract
$2,750.00 (twenty-seven hundred°fifty dollars and no cents).
(3) Deletion of painting the interior of ground storage tank will decrease contract
$4,750.00 (forty-seven hundred and fifty dollars and no cents). We feel it is an un-
necessary expense and ask that it be deleted from the contract.
(4) The original contract provides for -the installation of hydraulically actuated check
valves which we feel are not necessary and that a, silent check valve would be more practi-
cable for this application. This will result in a decrease of $8,000 (eight thousand
dollars and no cents) in our contract.
With the addition of item #1 and the deletion of items #2, 3 and 4, this will represent
an increase in the contract of $2,228.00 (two thousand twenty-eight dollars and no cents)
for Change Order No. 1.
Change Order No. 2
This change order -is for the extension of water service the -full length of St. Christopher
Lane and Sea Turtle Lane for a total cost of $10,800.00 (ten thousand eight hundred
dollars and no cents). This amount of money will be paid for in full by those residing
on the lanes who have previously paid impact fees. There will also be an agreement entered
into between the County and those connecting now that if and when others are permitted
to connect to those lines some proportional reimbursement will be made to the customers
who originally connected.
RECOMMENDATION•
We recommend approval. of the two change orders and recommend the Chairman be authorized
to sign same.
FUNDING•
Escrowed impact fees, South Beach.
ATTACHMENTS;
(1) Change Order No. 1
(2) Change Order No. 2
Form 100-101-1
— 62
APPROVED AGENDA ITEM:
FOR: S ��
BY:.
/jh
6
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he is going to
suggest that at next Wednesday's meeting, unless all
material is in and complete and goes out on Friday, that the
Commission does not consider that item. He noted that on
today's agenda there are six items with no back-up material
and it makes it very difficult to follow.
Mr. Pinto noted that he did not want the Commission to
receive the Change Orders until they were actually signed by
the contractor, and the Administrator explained how these
items developed and they were emergency items.
Change Order No. 2
Utility Director Pinto reported that he has met with
people on Sea Turtle Lane and St. Christopher Lane and they
have agreed to the price; the residents who are able to
connect are going to pay for this construction, and we will
be entering into a specific agreement with those residents.
Administrator Wright confirmed that we want to have a
contractual relationship with these people prior to
construction, and he asked that the Board approve the Change
Order subject to that relationship with the homeowner.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani-
mously approved Change Order No. 2, in the
amount of $10,800 with Ortega Industrial
Contractors for South Beach Water System
Improvements - Phase I, subject to a satis-
factory contractual relationship with the
property owners.
63
BOOK P3 PACt-33
r MAY 18 1983
CONTRACT CHANCE ORDER FORM
Contract No. Date r
Change Order No. 2 Location _Indian Ri ver County, Florida
To: (Contractor) Ortega Industrial Contractors
--1
You are hereby requested to comply bvith the fallowing changes from the contract drawings & specifications:
Item
No.
1
Description of Changes -- Quantities, Units, Unit Prices,
Change in Completion Schedule, Etc.
Decrease in
Contract Price
Increase in
Contract Price
is
hereby
3
4
the
total
adjusted
contract price
(1)
Line extension from AlA to end of Christopher Road
is S
$ 5,800.00
(2)
Line extension from A1A to end of Sea Turtle Lane
$ 51000.00
Change in contract price due to this Change Order:
Total Decrease
Total Increase
Difference between Col. (3) and (4):
Net (increase) ( *gm contract price
'
xxxxxxxxxxx
$10,800.00
S
S
xxxxxxxxxxx
S 1$10,800.00
The
sum
of S
10,800.00
is
hereby
added
to, HS899MUSK the total contract price, and
the
total
adjusted
contract price
to date
thereby
is S
673,466.00
The time provided for completion in the contract is unchanged, lih d?t d by t -0—
calendar days. This document shall become an amendment to the contract and all provisions of the
contract will apply hereto.
Accepted by:
-- ��tafltaCtot Dale
Recommended by:
�Br�ittett Date
Requested by:
NOTE: Work .performed under this change order prior to Owner's concurrence is at the Contractor's
rnak.
Change Order No.1
Engineer Guy Wills of Sverdrup & Parcel, explained Item
1 of Change Order 1, noting that the original plans called
for overhead electrical service to the water booster station
and elevated tank. These plans were submitted to the City
of Vero Beach, and only two days before bid, they received
word of required modifications that had to be incorporated
in the plans. They sent the necessary modifications to the
contractor for his review and his estimate of cost.
Commissioner Scurlock felt this is basically an
unanticipated expenditure because the engineers' oversight
in not checking with the City's electrical department and,
• therefore, not anticipating underground service.
Mr. Wills stated that when the plans were submitted to
the City of Vero Beach, they believed the City would
evaluate them in all aspects, and Engineer Robbins explained
that their normal procedure is to submit such plans to the
City Utility Department and request that all changes and
comments necessary be given back to them in writing. They
received an indication that the plans were approved, and
then two days before bid, they got the notice from the City
that they wanted the power to go subgrade.
Administrator Wright wished to know why it is necessary
to go underground, and it was.explained that all utilities
are done that way in this South Beach area and they want
this to be consistent and compatible with adjacent areas.
Administrator Wright asked how far we are going to run
underground, and Mr. Wills stated that it varies, possibly
500' at the fire station, and 300' or so at the elevated
tank. The Administrator next inquired whether the fire
station will benefit from any of this Change Order, and the
engineers were not aware of any benefit accruing to the fire
station.
Mr. Wills then reviewed the reasons for deleting the
chlorination system (Item 2) and informed the Board that the
City is under scrutiny by the DER now for problems relating
to their chlorination process.
Engineer Robbins explained in detail the City's problem
with the DER trihalomethane requirements, which relate to
the organic content of the water and are the reason the DER
MAY 1 19� 6 s 1X1 , 53 wi'5 5
3
r MAY 18 1983 �i
6(vLJx3 °ACE 536
wishes a different disinfection system. He noted that our
South County water system has a totally different -water
resource, and we won't create THMs because the water from
the shallow aquifer has a different content.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we are delaying some
expenditure we are going to have to make at some future
date, and the Administrator stated that there will be no
need for additional disinfection later at this site.
Mr. Pinto pointed out that in any event, the DER would
not give a permit with the chlorination system.
Discussion then ensued regarding item 3 - deleting
interior painting of the ground storage tank, and
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the cost benefit
relationship and whether we are foolish to eliminate this.
Engineer Robbins reported that there appears to be no
disadvantage in not painting the interior, but there is an
advantage in economics.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired about long range
maintenance, and Mr. Robbins did not feel it will be a
problem.
Re item 4 - silent check valves in lieu of
hydraulically actuated and lever and weight check valves -
Mr. Wills noted that an alternate bid item was included in
the -bid, and they have elected to use that item.
Question arose -as to cost justification, and Mr. Pinto
stated that the cost of hydraulic valves cannot be
justified.
Administrator Wright again brought up item 1 and wished
to have more justification of the cost of the underground
electric because he could not see why it would cost $17,728
to run underground 1,0001. He asked whether we need the
electrical approved between now and next Wednesday, and if
not, suggested that the Hoard withhold action on item 1.
Mr. Robbins felt that painting is the main problem.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani-
mously approved items 2, 3 and 4 of Change
Order No. 1 with Ortega Industrial Contrac-
tors for South Beach Water System Improve-
ments - Phase I, and agreed to carry
consideration of item 1 over to the Special
Meeting of Wednesday, May .25, 1983. _ 7 ---
CONTRACT
Contract No. Date
Change Order No. 1 Location Indian River County, Florida
To: (Contractor) Ortega Industrial Contractors
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract drawinga & specifications:
Item
No.
Description of Changes — Quantities, Units, Unit prices,
Change in Completion Schedule, Etc.
Decrease in
Contract Price
Increase in
Contract Price
1
2
3
4
{1)
Provide and install underground electrical service
to the Potable Water Booster Station, the Fire
Booster Station -and the existing Elevated Tank
$17,728.00
(2)
Delete the chlorination system
$ 2,750.00
(3)
Delete interior painting of ground storage tank
4,750.00
(4)
Provide and install silent check valves in lieu of
all hydraulically actuated and lever & weight check
valves
8,000.00
Change in contract price due to this Change Order.
Total Decrease
Total Increase
Difference between Col. (3) and (4):
Net (increase) (xl=xm) contract price
xxxxxxxxxxx
S17,728.00
S 2,228.00
S 2,228.00
5 15,500-00
xxxxxxxxxxx
S
The tum of S 2,228.00 is hereby added to, MMM fWm, the total contract price, and
the total adjusted contract price to date thereby is $ 662,666.00
The time provided for completion in the contract is unchanged, kwrt d, AeoaavAj by , -0- •
calendar days. This document shall become an amendment to the contract and all provisions of the
contract will apply hereto.
Accepted by:
Contractor
Recommended by:
ss►nc:r t?atc
Requested by: s
®ernes etc
NOTE: York performed under this change order prior to Owner's concurrence is at the Contractor's
risk.
MAY 18 1983 67 600K .93 �Ac
MAY 18 1993 �ar�
Status Report on South County Water System Improvements
Engineer Robbins gave the following report:
Part I - The Distribution System has been completed for.some
time; the FHA has given final inspection and signed off with
the exception of one intersection with a repair, and he will
submit a final pay request when that is done. Basically
Part I is finished.
Part II - Reverse Osmosis Equipment. Basically all the
items under that contract have been constructed and the
system is operational. It has been checked out and the 7
days test performed.
Part III - Reverse Osmosis Equipment, Support
Facilities - They began pickling the membranes on Monday of
this week - which is for the purpose of keeping biological
material from growing in the membrane. Engineer Robbins
then reported on two technical problems in the plant. The
first _problem related to the hydraulic valves which did not
produce the flow rate for which the pumps were designed. The
valve supplier has come up with alternatives and they are
anticipating shipment of new valves the first week of June.
Engineer Robbins continued that the second problem related
to the performance of the degasification unit which was not
getting the hydrogen sulphide content in the water down to
0.5%. He reported that they have been working on this since
the 1st of March and have finally determined that the
problem was caused by adding chlorine just after the
degasification process. The chlorine injection point has
been changed, with the result that they are now getting 0
hydrogen sulphide concentration.
Administrator Wright asked if this change requires the
use of more chlorine, and Engineer Robbins said it does not..
Commissioner Scurlock commented that it appears the
utility costs are running significantly over what we
anticipated, and Mr. Robbins noted that the budget was based
68
on demand when the system starts and they have been
operating the system almost two times anticipated demand.
Also, for test purposes, they have been starting and
stopping the system, and it is not as efficient when it is
not run continuously. He noted that we have a contract that
requires a certain power consumption and have a performance
bond on it.
RECONSIDERATION OF JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
Dr. Hardin, Asst. County Admin., reviewed the following
memo:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: -May 13, 1983 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: JOB TRAINING PARTNERSHIP ACT
County Administrator Follow-up of March 16, 1983
Board of County Commissioners
Meeting
FROM ;.
C. B. qHardin.,r. A. D. REFERENCES:
Asst. to County Administrator/
Personnel Director
On Thursday, May S, 1983, at the direction of the
County Administrator, I attended a meeting in Fort Pierce,
called by The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
Subject of this meeting was discussion leading to a process
that would set a procedure to establish the Treasure Coast
Job Training Consortium.-(TCJTC) and the Treasure Coast
Private Indust-ry..Council (TCPIC). The conclusions -reached
at this meeting are as fo,llows.:
1) A letter would be drafted by the Planning
Council to Governor Graham asking for a
thirty (30) day extension of the May 20, 1983
deadline imposed by the Governor for formation
of the Consortium and appointment of the PIC
council -by the Consortium.`
2) A review was made of an Interlocal Agreement
creating the Treasure Coast Job Training Con-
sortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council. This agreement is to be reviewed by
.the appropriate County attorneys.
3)_ Draft letters were to be drawn up by the.Regional
Planning Council and submitted for approval of
the different Commissions involved.
69 gppK t0 PAGE 539
r MAY
18 1993
Attached as backup.material you will find a copy of the
suggested agreement, 'a copy of a draft letter to be addressed
to the local Chamber of Commerce in Vero Beach and Sebastian,
a copy of letter to the Governor requesting extension of time
to act, and a copy of draft letter to be sent if the Consor-
tium is formed, to other agencies requesting nominations for
members of the to -be -created PIN Council.
Staff recommends favorable consideration of the Inter-
local Agreement creating the Treasure Coast Job Training Con-
sortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry Council.
CBH/mg
` Dr. Hardin reviewed previous information, noting that
the State money for the program was to be 110 million.
Brevard County is no longer in our consortium; they have one
of their own. The Indian River County, Martin, St. Lucie
County consortium, is slated to have $875,000 if the
consortium is approved.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he previously had
asked whether the Service Delivery Areas (SDA) would be
designated with or without our consent and was told they
would not,be, but this was not so and they were designated.
Dr. Hardin reported that he attended the meeting held
in Fort Pierce, and the Regional Planning Council is simply
coordinating the activities of forming the consortium. He
stated that conclusions were reached as set out in his memo
and staff recommends favorable consideration of the
Interlocal Agreement creating the Consortium and Private
Industrial Council, but he had one major question which is
regarding the liability portion. Dr. Hardin felt the State
representative had indicated it goes with the money.
David Smith, Planner with the Department of Labor &
Employment Security, Tallahassee, informed the Board that he
is present for the purpose of answering any questions and he
encouraged the county to participate in this program.
Chairman Bird asked Dr. Hardin what he is asking the
Board to do, and Dr.'Hardin stated that he would like the
Board to consider the agreement which just provides an
opportunity not to be left out of the decision making.
® � r
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve
the Interlocal Agreement creating the
Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium and
Treasure Coast Private Industry Council and
authorize the signature of the Chairman.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that he voted against this
the first time around and he still disagrees with the
program because he feels that additional productivity and
additional jobs are the key to the solution, not just
additional skills; we have trained people walking the
streets now. Commissioner Scurlock did see some merit in
retraining, however, and stated that he would not object to
making the program available for others to use just so long
as we do not initiate such a program within our own ranks.
He noted that the School system hired people under the CETA
program, who were subsequently laid off.
Commissioner Lyons announced that he will vote against
this program once again because he believed it is an
ephemeral thing, which only gives people false hopes. He
further believed it is greatly subject to fraud and can be
used to get people to work for less than the normal rate.
Commissioner Wodtke supported participation in the
consortium since he believed this is entirely different from
the old CETA Program and it offers an opportunity to help
our youth acquire some job training.
Commissioner Bowman felt this will create an awful
hassle within the Private Industry Council because she did
not know where these people in small business are going to
come from. Nevertheless, she felt we need this program as
I we have a great many people out of work who need retraining.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed the fear that some
firms will let existing workers go to be replaced by low
AT 18 1993 71 53 PAGE Ml
i
r �
mAy is 1983 Q ,gar
d
wage people, and he believed this will require a lot of
monitoring.
Chairman Bird stated that he plans to vote in favor of
the program. Although the CETA program had it faults, he
believed it is unfair to condemn this program even before it
is started. Right now we have 275 workers out of work who
were trained to build airplanes, and hopefully this program
might help some of them.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Lyons voting in opposition.
The Interlocal Agreement creating the Treasure Coast
Job Training Consortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council will be made a part of the official record.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CREATING THE
TREASURE COAST JOB TRAINING CONSORTIUM
AND
TREASURE COAST PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into pursuant to the author-
ity of Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, by and between the following
three (3) counties passing resolutions to that effect, including the
Counties of Martin, St. Lucie, Indian River, of the State of Florida,
WITNESSETH that:
WHEREAS, Public Law 97-300, enacted by the Congress of the
United States effective October 13, 1982, which act is known as the
"Job Training Partnership Act of 1982" (hereinafter called the "JTPA")
establishes a program to prepare youth and unskilled adults for entry
into the labor force and to afford job training to those economically
disadvantaged individuals and other individuals facing serious
barriers to employment, who are in special need of such training to
obtain productive employment; and
WHEREAS, the job training programs conducted under the JTPA
will replace the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), on
October 15 1983, at the end of the current transitional fiscal year;
and
WHEREAS, -the JTPA creates a partnership among the state,
local governments, and the private sector, with primary emphasis being
upon the coordination of job training and job placement; and
WHEREAS, the JTPA requires the Governor to designate Service
Delivery Areas (SDAs) to promote the effective delivery of job train-
ing services and further provides that a consortium of units of
general local government may constitute such an SDA; and
WHEREAS, these job creating activities will be complemented
by the job training programs of the JTPA as a result of the opportuni-
ties presented to assure new and expanding industries of an available,
trained labor force; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of each of the
parties to this Agreement desires that its county be included in a
MAY 18 1983 ..a.94 53 Pic
1
MAY 18 1983 OkKa Fit. r
regional job training program to avail its citizens of the benefits of
the JTPA; and
WHEREAS, the Governor has designated the parties to this
Agreement as a SDA for the purposes of the JTPA; and
WHEREAS, the JTPA requires the establishment of a Private
Industry Council (PIC) to provide policy guidance for, and exercise
oversight with respect to, activities under the job training program
for its SDA in partnership with the units of general local government
within its SDA; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the Board of County
Commissioners of each county in the SDA to appoint members to the PIC
in accordance with the JTPA and an agreement entered into by the Board
of County Commissioners of each county; and
WHEREAS, it is the responsibility of the PIC, in accordance
with an agreement with the Board of County Commissioners of each
county in the SDA, to determine procedures and select an entity to
develop a job training plan, and select a grant recipient and entity
to administer the job training plan; and
WHEREAS, the job training plan must be approved and submit-
ted jointly by the PIC and the Board of County Commissioners of each
county in the SDA.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Establishment of Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium.
There is hereby established a multijurisdictional arrangement
(hereinafter called the "Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium")
among all the parties hereto for the express purpose of collectively
carrying out the individual responsibilities of each party to this
Agreement under the JTPA. The Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium
shall consist of three (3) members. The Chairman of the Board of
County Commissioners of each county shall serve as his/her County's
representative on the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium; however,
provided that any such Chairman of a Board of County Commissioners may
designate another member of his/her County Commission to attend meet-
ings of the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium.on his/her behalf,
and any such designated member of a County Commission shall have full
voting rights and privileges.
2. Identification of Parties to this Agreement.
Each of the parties to this Agreement is a county of the State of
Florida, and as such is a general purpose political subdivision which
has the power to levy taxes and spend funds, as well as general corpo-
rate and police powers. The governing body of each of the parties to
this Agreement is its Board of County Commissioners and each party to
this Agreement is identified as follows: ~�
Name Address
Board of County Commissioners Post Office Box 626
Martin County, Florida Stuart, FL 33495
Board of County Commissioners 2300 Virginia Avenue
St. Lucie County, Florida Fort Pierce, FL 33450
Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th St., Suite N-158
Indian River County, Florida Vero Beach, FL 32960
3. Geographical Area to be Served by this Agreement.
The geographical areas which will be served by this Agreement are
the entire geographical areas of each of the three (3) member
counties, which geographical areas are legally described in Chapter 7,
Florida Statutes.
4. Size of Population to be Served.
The population of the three county area to be served by this Agree-
ment is 244,100 based upon the population projections for April 1,
1983 prepared by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Univer-
sity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.
5. Agreement Not Prohibited by Law. `
This Agreement is not prevented by State or local law from taking
effect in the entire geographical area which it intends to serve.
6. Responsibilities of Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium.
The parties to this Agreement hereby authorize the Treasure Coast
Job Training Consortium to exercise all decision-making powers, provi-
ded to the Board of County Commissioners of each county pursuant to
the JTPA, over all plans, programs, and agreements. More specifi-
cally, the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium is hereby
authorized:
MAY 18 1983 wx 53 ?Acs 545
r MAY 18 1983 1
54(1) to appoint the members of the Treasure Coast Private Indus-
try Council, in accordance with Section 102 of Title I of
the JTPA and Section 8 of this Agreement, which shall serve
the functions described in Section 103 of Title I of the
JTPA; and
(2) to enter into an agreement or agreements with the Treasure
Coast Private Industry Council to determine the selection of
a grant recipient and entity to administer the job training
plan, and to determine the procedures for the development of
the job training plan as described in Section 103 of Title I
of the JTPA; and
(3) to review and approve all job training plans prepared under
Section 104 of Title I of the JTPA and jointly submit, along
with the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council, said plans
to the Governor; and
(4) to perform any other appropriate duties necessary for the
accomplishment of and consistent with the purposes of this
Agreement and the JTPA.
7. Quorum and Voting.
At all meetings of the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium, the
presence in person of a majority of the whole Treasure Coast Job Train-
ing Consortium shall be necessary and sufficient to constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business. At all meetings of the
Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium at which a quorum is present,
all matters shall be decided by the vote of a majority of the members
of the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium.
8. Establishment, Composition, and Appointment of Treasure Coast
Private Industry Council.
There is hereby established a Private Industry Council, which
shall be constituted in accordance with the requirements of Section
102 of Title I of the JTPA and this Section 8 of this Agreement (here-
inafter called the "Treasure Coast -Private Industry Council"). The
initial number of members of the Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council shall be nineteen (19). Thereafter, the number of members of
the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council shall be determined by the
Treasure Coast Private Industry Council.
Members shall be appointed for fixed and staggered terms and may
serve until their successors are appointed. Terms of Treasure Coast
Private Industry Council members shall be three (3) years. However,
of those members first appointed seven (7) shall be appointed for
three (3) year terms, six (6) shall be appointed for two (2) year
terms, and six (6) shall be appointed for one (1) year terms. Any
vacancy in the membership of the Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council shall be filled in the same manner as the original appoint-
ment. Any member of the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council may
be removed for cause in accordance with procedures established by the
Treasure Coast Private Industry Council.
A majority of the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council shall
be representatives of the private sector, who shall be owners of busi-
ness concerns, chief executives or chief operating officers of non-
governmental employers, or other private sector executives who have
substantial management or policy responsibility.
Private sector nomination, and the individuals selected by the
Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium from such nominations, shall
reasonably represent the industrial and demographic composition of the
business community. Whenever possible, at least one-half of such
business and industry representatives shall be representatives of
small business (500 employees or less), including minority business.
The Chairman of the Treasure Coast Private Industry Council shall be
selected from among members of the Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council who are representatives of the private sector.
The private sector representatives on the Treasure Coast Private
Industry Council shall be selected by the Treasure Coast Job Training
Consortium from twenty (20) individuals nominated by the following
general purpose business organizations: Hobe Sound Chamber of
Commerce, Indiantown Chamber of Commerce, Jensen Beach Chamber of Com-
merce, Palm City Chamber of Commerce, Stuart -Martin County Chamber of
Commerce (a total of six (6) nominees); Port St. Lucie Chamber of
Commerce, St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce (a total of eight (8)
MAY 1 5-
1983 53 PAc����
-
r MAY 18
nominees); Sebastian Chamber of Commerce, Vero Beach -Indian River
County Chamber of Commerce (a total of six (6) nominees); after consul-
ting with, and receiving recommendations from other business organiza-
tions in their county. The number of such nominations by these organi-
zations is two hundred (200) percent of the number of individuals to
be appointed by the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium from their
county identified in this Section 8 of this Agreement. In addition,
all general purpose business organizations requested to make nomina-
tions are required to include a minimum of two minority business nomi-
nees in their nominations.
The higher education/vocational education representative on the
Treasure Coast Private Industry Council shall be selected by the
Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium from the two (2) individuals
nominated by Indian River Community College.
The local school district representatives on the Treasure Coast
Private Industry Council shall be selected by the Treasure Coast Job
Training Consortium from the six (6) individuals nominated by the
following local school districts: Martin County School District (two
(2) nominees), St. Lucie.County School District (two (2) nominees) and
Indian River County School District (two (2) nominees).
The labor representative on the Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council shall be selected by the Treasure Coast Job Training Consor-
tium from the two (2) individuals nominated by the Treasure Coast
Central Labor Council.
The rehabilitation agency representative on the Treasure Coast
Private Industry Council shall be selected by the Treasure Coast Job
Training Consortium from the two (2) individuals nominated by the
following rehabilitation agencies: Florida Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, District 9 (one (1) nominee); and Tri -County
Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (one (1) nominee).
The community-based organization representative on the Treasure
Coast Private Industry Council shall be selected by the Treasure Coast
Job Training Consortium from the four (4) individuals nominated by the
following community-based organizations: Economic Opportunities
Council of Indian River County, Inc. (one (1) nominee); Agriculture
and Labor Program, Inc. (one (1) nominee); Florida Farmworkers
Council, Inc., (one (1) nominee; and Gulfstream Areawide Council on
Aging (one (1) nominee).
The economic development agency representative on the Treasure
Coast Private Industry Council shall be selected by the Treasure Coast
Job Training Consortium from the nine (9) individuals nominated by the
following economic development agencies: Hobe Sound Chamber of Com-
merce (one (1) nominee), Indiantown Chamber of Commerce (one (1) nomi-
nee), Jensen Beach Chamber of Commerce (one (1) nominee), Palm City
Chamber of Commerce (one (1) nominee), Stuart -Martin County Chamber of
Commerce (one (1) nominee), Port St. Lucie Chamber of Commerce (one
(1) nominee), St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce (one (1) nominee),
Sebastian Chamber of Commerce (one (1) nominee), and Vero Beach -Indian
River County Chamber of Commerce (one (1) nominee).
The public employment service representative on the Treasure
Coast Private Industry Council shall be selected by the Treasure Coast
Job Training Consortium from the two (2) individuals nominated by the
following Florida State Employment Service offices: Fort Pierce (one
(1) nominee), and Vero Beach (one (1) nominee).
By resolution the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium shall
set the terms of the members of the Treasure Coast Private Industry
Council as follows:
Organization
MAY 18 1983
-7-
Years of
Initial Term
to 51.3 ?Aa 549
r MAY 18 1983
550
9. Service Delivery Area Designation.
Pursuant to the designation by the Governor, the three (3)
counties constituting the Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium shall
be the SDA as provided for in Section 101 of Title I of the JTPA for
the geographical area covered by this Agreement.
10. No Local Funds Required of Counties.
No funds will be provided from the treasuries of any of the
parties to this Agreement for implementation of the JTPA program, it
being the intent hereof that all funding of the JTPA program shall be
accomplished entirely by grants pursuant to the JTPA and any other
available State or Federal grants.
11. Duration of Agreement.
This Agreement shall have the duration equal to the period that
the SDA designation remains in effect for the geographical area
covered by this Agreement. Any party to thi's Agreement may withdraw
from this Agreement by passing a resolution to such effect and provi-
ding thirty (30) days notice to the other parties to this Agreement.
However, the validity, force, and effect of this Agreement shall not
be affected by the withdrawal of one (1) or more parties to this Agree-
ment.
12. Effective Date.
This agreement shall be effective when executed by the parties
hereto and when a copy of this agreement has been filed with the
Clerks of the Circuit Courts of the respective counties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned parties have executed this
agreement.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
MAR COUNTY FLORIDA
d
c1
ounty Cle Date herri King, C airman Date
App oved as to form and legal
su f5 en y
It I A A AJ,
ounty Attb�ey Date
=t' o ��s d3
o my Clerk Date
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ST. LUCIE COUNTY
William B. Palmer, Date
Chairman
Approved as to form and legal
su.ffienc I
Sid
f ounty�Attor y Date
$� MunClerk
b o at
Approved to form and legal
suff i c M // "e ',p
Dye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER C UNTY
ot
Richard N. Bird, Dafe T
Chairman
MAY 18 1983 _ 9 - ®aK 3 Pic€ 551
MAY 18 1983 6owc 3 Fac,
ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN CONVEYANCES TO COUNTY
Attorney Brandenburg reviewed the following memo,
noting that this is just acknowledgment of acceptance of
certain rights-of-way the Board had requested his office to
obtain:
TO: Members of the DATE: May 11, 1983 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Certain
Conveyances to
Indian River County
(E42
FROM: ChristophqTj. Paull REFERENCES:
Assistant County Attorney
The County Attorney's Office hereby requests acknowledgement by the
Board of•the delivery and acceptance of the following conveyances,
together with authorization to record same in the Public Records of
Indian River County:
1. A Quit -Claim Deed from Florence M. Schlitt to Indian River
County, conveying -approximately 400 feet of needed right-of-way
for the 14th Street improvements.
2. A Quit -Claim Deed from Mr.. & Mrs. Gregory Neteler to Indian
River County, conveying approximately 134 feet of needed
right-of-way for the 14th Street improvements.
3. Warranty Deed from the Pioneer Baptist Church of Vero Beach,
Inc. to Indian River County for a pie -shaped parcel to be used
.as right-of-way for the 2nd Street improvements made recently
by the Public Works Department between O1d.Dixie and 8th
Avenue.
4. A 40 foot utility easement from Tropic Villas North, Inc. to
Indian River County to support the water and sewer lines
• transferred previously to the County.
The documents are available for inspection in the Attorney's
Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by -Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
formally accepted for the record the various
deeds and easements listed above.
FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF VS. REYNOLDS, SMITH & HILLS VS.
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
The Board reviewed the -following letter to Attorney
Brandenburg from the Attorney for the City of Jacksonville:
DAWSON A MCQUAIG
GENERAL COUNSEL
THOMAS It WELCH
FOIST ASSISTANT COUNSEL
GERALD A. SCHNEIDER
FIRST ASSISTANT COUNSEL
ROGER J. WAYBRIGHT
or COUNSEL
�aLGr
OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
1300 CRY HALL
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA 32202-3494
904/633.2460
May 5, 1983
Mr. Gary M. Brandenburg
County Attorney of Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Brandenburg:
s
�Z 19
w (C,_C2 CIO%
J,
A#to
OfF�e �eJ"s
WILLIAM LEE ALLEN
CWEF OF LffeATfON
ROBERT G. ALEXANDER
ASSISTANT CHIEF OF LMOATION
PHILLIP & COPE
CNIEF LEOtSLAME COUNSEL
WILLIAM R. MERWIN
CWEF EOITORML COUNSEL
Re: Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al., v.
City of Jacksonville; Case No. 63,187 in
the Supreme Court of Florida
On December 10, 1982, the First District Court of Appeal of Florida handed
down its decision in City of Jacksonville v. Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al.,
424 So.2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), holding that Sections 130.301 et seq. of the
Ordinance Code of the City of Jacksonville were not inconsistent with the
Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act, Section 287.055, Florida Statutes
(1981). A copy of that decision is enclosed.
The losing appellees (Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al.) filed a "motion for
rehearing or for clarification" in the district court, re -arguing their contentions
and asking that, if the district "Court will not grant rehearing, or affirm the trial
court's opinion, appellees respectfully request the Court, on its own motion, certify
the issues herein to the Supreme Court of Florida as a "question of great public
importance". The district court denied that motion.
Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al., then filed a notice of appeal to the
Supreme Court of Florida asserting in the notice of appeal that it was an appeal
from "a final order that has, de facto, declared Florida Statute .5287.055 invalid".
We promptly filed a motion on behalf of the City of Jacksonville to dismiss
the appeal for want of jurisdiction, pointing out in the motion that, while under
Art. V, §3(b)(1), Fla. Const., the supreme court has jurisdiction to "hear appeals ...
from decisions of district courts of appeal declaring invalid a state statute", the
decision of the district court is obviously not such a decision, and saying that to
attempt to confer jurisdiction on the supreme court which it does not have by the
ridiculous device of labeling the district court decision "a final order that has, de
facto, declared Florida Statute §237.055 invalid" is at the least an impertinence
that should not long be tolerated.
MAY 18 1983 74 B90K 53 PAct 553
MAY 18 193arc ;
The appellants Reynolds, Smith & Bills, etc., et al. filed their initial brief 'in the
supreme court, and on March 15, 1983, the last day on which we could do so, having heard
nothing in response to our motion to dismiss the appeal, we served our answer brief on
behalf of the. City of Jacksonville and mailed it to the clerk of the supreme court, raising
as the first point that the supreme court did not have jurisdiction.
On the following day, March 16, 1983, the supreme court entered the order a copy of
which is enclosed, in the caption referring to Reynolds, Smith & Hills et al. as petitioners
rather than appellants and to City of Jacksonville as respondent rather than appellee,
denying the motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and ordering the parties
to file "Jurisdictional briefs directed to this Court's discretionary jurisdiction under
article V, Section 3(b)(3):'
Art. V, Sec. 3(b)(3), Fla. Const., provides that the supreme court "May review any
decision of a district court of appeal that expressly declares valid a state statute, or that
expressly contrues a provision of the state or federal constitution, or that expressly
affects a class of constitutional or state officers, or that expressly and directly conflicts
with a decision of another district court of appeal or of the supreme court on the same
question of law.". Obviously, the decision of the district court in this case does not fit any
of those categories. There was no contention by the attorneys for Reynolds, Smith &
Hills, etc., et al., that the supreme court should take jurisdiction in this manner, but of
course they now contend to that effect.
While all this was going on in the supreme court, motions were filed in the supreme
court pursuant to Rule 9.370 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure by the Florida
Association of the American Institute of Architects, the Florida Engineering Society, the
American Consulting Engineers Council, and the National Society of Professional
Engineers for entry of orders giving each of them leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in
support of the position taken by Reynolds, Smith & Hills, etc., et al.
The clerk of the supreme court has written to each of the attorneys who filed such a
motion a letter saying that the motion "will be submitted to the Court if jurisdiction is
accepted."
On the supposition that the motions filed by those organizations for leave to file an
amicus curiae brief may have an effect on any decision the court makes as to whether the
decision of the district court should be reviewed by the supreme court, the General
Counsel of the City of Jacksonville has suggested that you might wish to file with the
supreme court a motion something like the enclosed for leave to file an amicus curiae
brief if the supreme court accepts jurisdiction of the case.
In the event you should be given leave to file an amicus curiae brief, I will be happy
to send you copies of the briefs already filed by the parties, so that you ,will not need to
do great labor on your amicus curiae brief unless you feel so inclined.
Sincerely,
Roger J. Waybright
Telephone: 1/904/633-2149
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani-
mously authorized the Attorney to file the
amicus curiae brief as requested by the
City of Jacksonville.
RESOLUTION 83-38 - SUPPORTING PROPOSED LEGISLATION RE MENTAL
HEALTH DISTRICT BOARD NO. 9
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to adopt
Resolution 83-38 supporting Senate Bill
141 and House Bill 351 re Mental Health
District Board No. 9.
Commissioner Wodtke reported that Representative
Beverly Burnsed has introduced an amendment to Senate Bill
141 which would completely abolish Mental Health District
Boards. It basically has attached to it a mandatory
continued funding by counties through to 1985, but after
1985 it takes the word mandatory out and inserts the word
voluntary. Commissioner Wodtke believed this will cause
some controversy, and noted that indications he has received
are very favorable that the amendment and Bill will pass at
the House level and about a 50/50 chance with the Senate.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION to
adopt Resolution 83-38. It was voted on
and carried unanimously.
It
MAY 18 1983 76
eeox 53 Put 555
MAY 18 1933
RESOLUTION NO. 83-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA REQUESTING THE
LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND GOVERNOR
GRAHAM TO SUPPORT SENATE BILL 141 AND HOUSE
BILL 351.
WHEREAS, Indian River County was included with Palm
Beach County in Mental Health District Board No. 9 in 1977, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County was assured at the time of
the merger of the previous boards that this County's needs would
be satisfied through a fair funding formula, and
WHEREAS, through a series of allocation actions taken by
the Mental Health District Board, Indian River County has not
received adequate funds for services and the funds that have been
received have been allocated according to a formula which does not
treat Indian River County residents fairly, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County is of the belief that the
same situation exists with respect to St. Lucie County, Martin
County and Okeechobee County, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County has repeatedly voiced its
objections to the Mental Health District Board No. 9 allocation
plan and has repeatedly been assured that a fair policy would be
adopted; to date no such policy exists, and
WHEREAS, because the structure:of Mental Health District
Board No. 9 is so greatly weighted in favor of Palm Beach County,
it is now apparent that the four -county area which includes Indian
River County will not obtain fair treatment as long as it remains
a member of Mental Health District Board No. 9.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS SITTING IN REGULAR SESSION this 18th day of May,
1983, that:
1. Indian River County requests the legislature of the
State of Florida and Governor Graham to support and adopt into law
Senate Bill 141 and its House companion House Bill 351.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is
requested to send a copy of this resolution to the legislature of
the State of Florida, Governor Graham, and all member counties of
Mental Health District Board No. 9.
tea.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Lyons who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was
as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird - Aye
Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. - Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman �= Aye
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons - Aye
Commissioner William C. Vlodtke, Jr. - Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 18th day of May, 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By s/Richard N. Bird
RICHARD N. BIRD
Chairman
Attest: s/ Freda Wright
FREDA WRIGHT, Clerk
DEED TRANSFERRING DOUGLAS SCHOOL TO FLORIDA HEALTH GROUP
Attorney Brandenburg reported that he prepared a
Quit -Claim Deed for the Douglas Elementary School site
conveying the property to the Florida Community Health
Centers, and sent a copy of the draft to Mr. Diaz of the
Health Group, as well as to Mrs. Ingram, President of the
West Wabasso Progressive Civic League. Mr. Diaz has
submitted this to their attorney, who would like to take
some time to discuss the deed with their Board of Directors.
They have several concerns; for instance, if a federal or
state agency funds them to build a new structure on the
site, there are no provisions for a successor organization
that performs the same function to come in and succeed them
should they ever be dissolved. They wish to check and see
if that is a permissible situation with their funding
MAY 18 1983 78 53 PAGE 55 7
MAY 18 1983 ftt-
sources. They have a couple other items they want to
address, and Mr. Diaz has stressed that they are working on
this and are not intentionally delaying the matter.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that he would like to have this
delayed until next month so they can work on this with his
office, and he would appreciate any comments the
Commissioners might have.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the drafted deed is fine,
but he felt that one item relating to a reservation of use
for public purposes of any portion of the premises not being
used needed more explanation. He believed that it basically
was meant to refer to the playground area where we could
conduct a recreation program - something similar to the
program in the Gifford area.
Commissioner Bowman commented that Mrs. Ingram had said
she would be delighted if the county wanted to set up a
recreation program there.
Chairman Bird asked for comments from members of the
Wabasso community.
Lydia Broxton of the West Wabasso Civic League wished
to have more clarification about the reservation of use
clause and whether this means they can use this property if
they want it.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that at this point we
do not have any specific plans, but if the League encouraged
us to develop a recreation program in the area, we want the
ability to use that land rather than have to go out and buy
some property or lease it from the Health Center.
Bruce MacIntosh, Vice President of the West Wabasso
Civic League, felt now that this provision has been
clarified, he believed the League would be agreeable to it.
Commissioner Lyons suggested rewording the provision to
make it more specific, i.e., rather than stating the
a � �
reservation must be for a "public" purpose, we could limit
it to the Wabasso community rather than the general public.
Mr. MacIntosh agreed with this suggestion. He then
discussed the provision that the County could step in and
take over the facility if the Health Group program should
come to an end and receive no further funding. He felt, in
that event, the community should be given a chance to come
up with another program.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that this does not specify
that we necessarily will take over; it just says we have the
right to, and he believed we have the flexibility to
consider what the League has to offer.
Chairman Bird concurred that we certainly would turn to
the League to present their options, but the property.would
come back to the County.
Attorney Brandenburg reported that Mr. Diaz will be
sending us a memo. It seems their Board of Directors is
getting very large, and if, sometime in the future, this
should necessitate a change in their By-laws, they do not
want it to affect their reverter clause.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the deed says the
property shall automatically revert if it is ever sold, but
he felt it is understood they can never sell it.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that this is the same
language the School Board used, and it was simply
reiterated.
Commissioner Wodtke commented on the agreement between
the Health Center and the Wabasso Civic League as it related
to use of the sewer and water facilities. He.wished it
clearly understood that the Wabasso people will have access
to the sewer and water system.
Attorney Brandenburg believed that is the understanding
between the two groups, but noted they are represented by
MAY 18 1983 80 baa 53 r`W 559
MAY 18
198
1
their own
counsel and he did not have any input into
the
agreement between the two agencies.
Commissioner Wodtke further noted that in the personal
and public liability section, Florida Health Centers wants a
disclaimer from the Wabasso group. He wished to know if
this would affect the county in any way.
Attorney Brandenburg felt the only way this could
possibly affect the county would be if the property had
reverted and the county still let the groups use the
facilities and someone were injured. He reiterated that he
left the relationship between the two groups strictly up to
them.
Discussion ensued regarding the importance of keeping
this moving along, and Attorney Brandenburg expressed the
hope that this transfer can be formalized by either the
first or second meeting in June.
REPORT ON TADDIE CONSTRUCTION CASE
Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull explained that
this lawsuit has been underway for the last nine months and
negotiations have been carried on for the last three days;
about ten parties were involved and it is difficult to get
anything agreed upon. Foote Brothers was a sub -contractor
on the Airport West construction job, and they have left the
Landfill holding about $2,500 of unpaid fees. What it boils
down to is that our -facts in this case are not particularly
strong to prevail against the bonding company; secondly, the
other lawsuit is against the general contractor, Taddie, who
claims that Foote was an independent contractor and solely
liable. They have offered .to settle the lawsuit for 50� on
the dollar. Given the facts and given the law, Mr. Paull
believed this would be a fairly good settlement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board authorized
the Attorney to accept the settlement by Taddie
Construction of 50G on the dollar as discussed.
DISCUSSION RE VARIOUS NEGOTIATIONS WITH CITY OF VERO BEACH
The Administrator reviewed the following memo re
various issues and stated that he would like to have some
direction from the Board on how to negotiate some of these
items.
TO: The Honorable Members of ®ATE: May 13, 1983 - FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: VARIOUS NEGOTIATIONS
WITH VERO BEACH
FROM: Michael Wright 0 REFERENCES:
County Administrat r
There are a number of lingering issues that jointly effect
Indian River County and the City of Vero Beach. These include,
land, utility and various joint funding measures.
County Attorney Gary Brandenburg and I met with Finance
Director Tom Nason, City Attorney Charles Vitunac and Councilman
David Gregg to see if a forum existed to settle many of the
issues.
Mr. Nason and I agreed to approach our respective Commissions
for direction on how the negotiations should be handled.
There are a number of issues that need to be addressed.
These include, but are not limited to:
A) Land - lease on County Administration Building
Parking lot; bridgehead property and SO -foot
lots on Eagle and Flamingo Drive
B) Utilities - squaring off of service areas; water and
sewer allocations; South Beach water expansion and
hsopital node sewer service
C) Right -of -Ways - utility pole relocation at 8th �treet;
right of way permitting, electric utility franchise
in unincorporated areas
D) Taxes - proposed distribution of gas taxes
E) Miscellaneous - recreation department funding
Other issues could be added or deleted from the proposed
negotiations. However, before any discussions can proceed, the
structure of the County negotiating team and parameters of the
negotiations need to be addressed by the Commission.
If I can provide additional information, please advise.
"690K 53 ?Act 561
MAY 18 -19 J 82
MAY 18 1983 fe:Fy;n�
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his personal approach
would be to form a committee consisting of staff and one
Commissioner to begin negotiation with the City on these
issues and come back with a recommendation.
Discussion ensued as to handling this stage of
negotiations on just a staff level, and Finance Director
Barton reported that the City of Vero Beach had instructed
their staff to conduct the initial negotiations.
Administrator Wright stated that he would like the
negotiating team to consist of himself, needed staff, and
Attorney Brandenburg.
Chairman Bird concurred with the Administrator's
recommendation.
Commissioner Wodtke felt if we have a problem, we need
to deal with it, and no one is going to convince him to give
them one thing to get another.
Mr. Barton believed the City also felt that each issue
should stand on its own.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
authorized staff to begin negotiations with
representatives of the City of Vero Beach on
the various issues as discussed above and come
back with a recommendation, at which time the
Commission will determine policy.
REQUEST INHOUSE STUDY RE DATA PROCESSING OPERATIONS
Finance Director Barton reviewed his memo, as follows:
MEMORANDUM
T0: Board of County Commissioners
FROM Jeffrey K. Barton, Finance Director
DATE: May 12, 1983
SUBJECT: Request for Joint Workshop Between Board of County
Commissioners and Constitutional Offices as to Long
and Short Range Goals on Data Processing Operations
At this point, all Constitutional offices.in Indian River
County are using the County computer system (IBM - System 38) for
some type of application or another.
I recommend that now is the time for these users to sit down
and discuss some short, intermediate and long-range goals, along
with future applications. A general discussion should include
how its future goals and operations should be governed and
funded.
I recommend that a workshop be set up to include the Board
of County Commissioners and all Constitutional offices in the
County.
Mr. Barton discussed the growth of the data processing
operation and the fact that they have over the years gone to
a new computer system which all the Constitutional Officers
are utilizing in one way or another. He felt strongly that
it is time to have a workshop to consider where data
processing belongs in the organizational chart and work out
some kind of an agreement re funding, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed this is very much needed
especially since he felt that some moves have been made
buying equipment that could have been averted.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, to authorize
staff to set up a workshop re goals on
Data Processing operations and to contact
Constitutional Officers to participate.
Discussion ensued re a convenient date for all, and the
Administrator emphasized that we need to move expeditiously.
MAY 18 1983 84 a�K 53 PAGE 563
MAY 108 1983 BOOK 5
He suggested that we request that all officials attending
bring with them information on their current usage of the
data processing system and their long range plans.
It was agreed that the Administrator and Finance Direc-
tor should compose a letter to be sent to the Constitutional
Officers requesting them to attend a workshop to be held on
Wednesday, May 25, 1983, at 3:00 P.M.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
REAPPOINTMENTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
The Board reviewed the following staff memo:
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
DATE: April 25, 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT: Public Safety Committee
Reappointments
FROM: Alice White REFERENCES:
It is suggested that the following members be reappointed to the
Public Safety Committee:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPOINTMENT
Arthur C.: Scheeren
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SHERIFF APPOINTMENT
Gary C. Wheeler (Confirmed by Sheriff 5/3/83)
JOINT APPOINTMENT (COUNTY COMMISSION AND SHERIFF)
Joe H. Earman (Confirmed by Sheriff 5/3/83)
To have all Indian River County committee appointments made in
January of each year, it is requested that the above-named
nominees be appointed to serve until January, 1985, which will
stagger their appointments with the remaining two members of the
Public Safety Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani-
mously reappointed Arthur C. Scheeren, Gary C.
Wheeler, and Joe H. Earman, to the Public
Safety Committee as listed above.
APPOINTMENTS TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows;
TO: Board of County DATE: May 11, 1983 FILE:
Commissioners
SUBJECT: Appointments and
Reappointments to
Parks and Recreation
Committee
FROM: Alice white REFERENCES:
The following appointments or reappointments need to be made
to the Parks and Recreation Committee. To have all Indian
River County committee appointments made in January of each
year, it is requested that the members of this committee be
appointed to serve until January, 1985.
PRESENT INCUMBENT REPRESENTING NOMINEE
Richard N. Bird
Te-rry Goff
Susan Wilson
Gary Scheidt
Ken Evitt
Alfred MacAdam
George Schum
Valarie Brant
Rene Van de Voorde
County Commission
City of Vero Beach
City of Fellsmere
City Recreation
School Board.,
Indian River Shores
Sebastian
Gifford
North County Recreation
Richard N. Bird
Terry Goff
Susan Wilson
Pat Callahan
Ken Evitt
Alfred MacAdam
George Schum
Valarie Brant
Rene Van de Voorde
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
appointed Richard N. Bird, Terry Goff,
Susan Wilson, Pat Callahan, Ken Evitt,
Alfred MacAdam, George Schum, Valarie
MAY 18 1983 86 dooK 53 PAGt X65
MAY 18 1983
Brant, and Rene Van de Voorde to the
Parks and Recreation Committee as listed
above.
REPORT ON "SAVE OUR COAST" PROGRAM
Chairman Bird informed the Board that the Beach
Acquisition Committee needs some guidance from the
Commission. He reported that after publicizing as widely as
possible our interest in acquiring beachfront property,
about 30 pieces were submitted for consideration. The
committee, after analyzing all these on a comparable basis -
price per front foot, certain characteristics, any unique
features, etc. - and making a physical inspection of all
properties, went into negotiation on about 11 parcels and
are now at the point where they will meet tomorrow with the
final results of negotiations. They now need to know
whether the Commission wishes them to forward information on
all the 9 negotiated parcels or whether they wish the
committee to try to condense this list even further.
Chairman Bird continued that one factor still in the
gray area is the "Save Our Coast" Program. Although we
finally have made the list of properties that are being
submitted to the Governor for consideration, the problem is
to get the State appraisals of the Gordon Nutt property,
which is located south of Wabasso Beach Park, reviewed in
time to make the agenda of the Governor's June 9th meeting.
Mr. Nutt is becoming somewhat impatient for decision, and
although the Chairman felt it is a long shot to get it on
that agenda, he stated that every effort will be made.
Chairman Bird noted that we have been encouraged by the
Department of Natural Resources to submit additional parcels
to the "Save Our Coast" Program. The problem, however, is
that this is such a time consuming process, we need to
decide whether we might not be better off to move ahead and
87
acquire some of these properties now before they escalate in
price or are sold to someone else since we do have the
option of moving ahead and purchasing at full cost. The
Chairman informed the Board that Martin County has been able
to purchase property with their own funds and then use that
property in the "Save Our Coast" Program as a credit.
Attorney Brandenburg confirmed the Chairman's status
report. He believed the time factor is of gfeat importance
if we are to acquire any of these properties and was of the
opinion that the County needs to move ahead and acquire
property on its own and participate in the Program in the
future by the value of what we have already purchased.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that it appears the Nutt
property is already in the mill, but he concurred that we
must move forward. It was felt that the key to the Nutt
property is lobbying.
In further discussion, the Commission felt the Beach
Acquisition Committee is to be congratulated for their
. efforts. The Board agreed they would like to consider all
nine negotiated -parcels, but felt it would be helpful if the
committee could put some ranking on those nine.
Commissioner Lyons commented that it appears quite a
few members of the public believed the bond issue was based
on participating in the "Save Our Coast" Program, and he
felt more comfortable after hearing how Martin County
handled their problem by buying land and then using it in
the program.
It was agreed that the Board would hold a workshop to
consider all nine parcels.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Chairman submitted the following report:
MAY 18 1983
88 1 9909 53 PAQE 57-
MAY 12, 1983 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
890K: 5�3
GIFFORD PARK
Attended Dodger baseball game with Larry Staley - Dodgers
donating $1,000 to Gifford Park.
Larry Staley reported he has been trying to establish leagues and
get sponsors. They now have 10 sponsors for the summer program.
They are trying to have all fees paid by the sponsors so that
none of the participants will have to pay anything. Chairman
Bird talked to Terry Reynolds about donating additional
equipment, and he said they would. He also said when we get
ready to put in an irrigation system, they will try and help.
They are going to try and play their league games on the field in
its present condition, as opposed to playing them elsewhere.
The Gifford representative feels the County is dragging their
feet regarding improvements at the Gifford Park. Tennis Courts
were requested in 1978, and have not been done yet. She said
they are pleased with the things that have been done, but would
like more capital improvements made in their park now.
DONALD MAC DONALD PARK
George Schum made an inspection 5/12/83. People have been
dumping domestic animals in the park. The flush tank in the
women's bathroom has been ripped out. There is a group of
vandals driving around there on Saturday nights between 8pm and
Midnight. Ralph VanHouk leaves 5/19/83, and George will pursue
the request regarding a security gate with his replacement.
The progress that has been made there has been largely due to
George Schum's efforts.
DALE WIMBROW PARK
Don Finney, Engineering department, showed a copy of the proposed
design for paving the area, and placing of a culvert under the
existing erosion area. This area is being given top priority on
their work schedule. The project should be completed by early
summer.
BLUE CYPRESS LAKE
The dock is floating, but not finished yet. They need to install
bumpers and cleats, and then realign the dock. Culverts are in
and the road widened with curbing.
City has an old road grader they are possibly going to dispose
of. Suggested that we might want to obtain the grader and place
it at Blue Cypress for interim grading. Middleton used to be a
road grader operator.
ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT MEETING RE: RECLASSIFICATION OF
MARSH AREA
Susan Wilson said SJRWMD is going to hold a local meeting on May
31, 1983; the place and time is not definite yet. They will also
be having a meeting in Melbourne. The local meeting will be for
discussion about the designation of the management area; the
Fellsmere Grade item was placed on a later agenda by the SJRWMD
so Susan did not know when this would be discussed.
SEBASTIAN RIVER STATE PARK
Talked to Nay Landrum in Tallahassee, and was advised they are
going to spend several thousand dollars on improvements to the
South side of the park.
Discussed nature trail to be undertaken by the Audubon Society
and School Board.
Discussed Boat ramp around Wabasso bridge area.
MACEDONIA BAPTIST MISSIONARY CHURCH
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner wodtke, the Board unanimously
appointed Commissioner Lyons as their represen-
tative to attend ceremonies at the Macedonia
Baptist Missionary Church on Thursday, May 26, 1983.
REPORT - TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Commissioner Scurlock reviewed the following summary of
the May 10th meeting:
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
May 10, 1983
State Road A1A Improvements:
Survey and preliminary design complete for City and County
sections north of Live Oak Road to the south end of the
Indian River Shores project.
Local Gas Tax Option:
Data on transportation expenditures are being tabulated
for the County and all municipalities. A report with
recommendations as to roadway needs and needed additional
gas tax revenue is forthcoming.
State Road 60 "Twin Pairs" Project:
Staff was directed to list all potential projects within
each funding source (i.e., State DOT, County Secondary
Gas Tax and County maintenance budget).
Traffic Signal: C-507 at C-512, City of Fellsmere:
Committee concurred with staff recommendation to convert the
existing traffic signal to an aerial flashing beacon and to
move/upgrade the C-512 school crossing to Cypress Street.
MAY 18 1983 90
BOOK ¢93 FAGF 50
r
MAY 18 1983 -7 57
B�tfJK• c{rF
In regard to the Local Gas Tax Option, Commissioner
Scurlock noted that there is some conflicting information
from the state and the municipalities relating to the five
year historical expenditures, and there is a question about
whose figures we are going to use. He continued that we
need an expression from the municipalities as to their needs
and what they would be in favor of. He further noted that
the committee is taking an aggressive position in regard to
the SR 60 "Twin Pairs" project, and staff has been directed
to come up with a priority for each category.
Commissioner Scurlock informed the Board that the
committee has adopted a policy re attendance. He noted that
Mayor Flood has not attended or sent a representative to the
meetings for a long time, and he felt it is important that
we have active participation in this committee by all
entities.
REPORT ON ANIMAL CONTROL COMMITTEE
Commissioner Lyons informed the Board that Animal
Control Committee has put together a proposed ordinance
which has been pretty well checked by the committee, and the
plan is to go ahead and set a public hearing date and bring
it before this Commission. In next year's budget, he felt
it will be requested that we add another animal control
officer.
VACANCY ON MENTAL HEALTH DISTRICT NO. 9 BOARD
Discussion ensued regarding making an appointment to
the Mental Health District No. 9 Board as well as the
District 9 Advisory Council to the Department of Health and
Rehabilitative Services, and it was noted that DHRS has
requested that a Commission serve on the Advisory Council.
Chairman Bird commented that he would like Commissioner
Wodtke to serve in both capacities since he has worked with
the Mental Health District in the past and he has talked to
him about it. The Board agreed with this suggestion.
Commissioner Wodtke appreciated the Board's confidence,
but informed them that John Ashcraft, Executive Director of
the Indian River Community, believed there would be a
conflict of interest if he sat on both the Advisory Council
and the District Board. He noted that the District Board
does allocate funds and evaluate the Center.
Chairman Bird asked which board Mr. Ashcraft would
prefer that Commissioner Wodtke be on, and Commissioner
Wodtke stated that he felt it would be very helpful for a
Commissioner to have input with the local center.
Commissioner Lyons felt the issue is where Commis-
sioner Wodtke will be most effective for the county.
It was decided to withhold any action on these
appointments until next Wednesday's Special Meeting.
The several bills and accounts.against the County
having been audited were examined and found to be correct
were approved and warrants issued in settlement of same as
follows: Treasury Fund Nos. 85850 - 86109 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 PMotion made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 5:07 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
Clerk
1' $0
6
Ed
Chairman
Coax 53 Psg571