HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1983NOV 16 1983
November 16, 1983
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida met in Regular Session at the County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
on Wednesday, November 16, 1983, at 8:30 o'clock A.M.
Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock,
Jr., Vice Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, and William C. Wodtke,
Jr. Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman was temporarily
delayed. Also present were L.S. "Tommy" Thomas, Community
Services Director; Michael J. Wright, County Administrator;
Gary Brandenburg, Attorney to the Board of County
Commissioners; Jeffrey K. Barton, OMB Director; Barbara
Bonnah and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerks.
Chairman Bird called the meeting to order and
Commissioner Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
10/19/83. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman being
temporarily delayed, approved the Minutes of
the Regular Meeting of 10/19/83, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or
corrections to the Minutes of Regular Meeting of 11/2/83.
N.0 V 16 1983
K 5
Commissioner Lyons had some questions in regard to the
wording of his EMS Report on Page 59 and requested that the
approval of these minutes be postponed until the next
meeting to allow him time to listen to the tape of that
meeting.
CLERK TO THE BOARD
A. Approval of New Application for a Permit to Carry a
Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/83:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 8, 1983 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT NEW
FROM: Michael w REFERENCES:
ERENCES.
County Administrator
The following individual has applied for a new pistol permit
through the Clerk's office:
Marjorie E. Upton
All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met and are
in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman being
temporarily delayed, issued a permit to carry
a concealed firearm for:
Marjorie E. Upton
2
B. Approval of Renewal Applications for a Permit to Carry a
Concealed Firearm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/83:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 8, 1983 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT RENEWALS
FROM: Michael Wright REFERENCES:
County Administrator
The following individuals have applied for pistol permit
renewals through the Clerk's office:
Wilford Bailey Needs
Alvin Young
George Keppell
Martin Francis Fitzgerald
Leroy Brown
All requirements of Ordinance 82-27 have been met and are
in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, approved the renewal
application for a permit to carry a concealed
firearm for:
Wilford Bailey Needs
Alvin Young
George Keppell
Martin Francis Fitzgerald
Leroy Brown
3
tK FACE 2!
NOV 1 6 1983
NOV 16 199
BUDGET OFFICE
A Budget Amendment, Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/7/83:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE. November 7 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT: Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES:
Office of Management and Budget
Per the attached letter from the -Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, Indian
River County's assessment for FY 83-84 is $20,075.00. The amount budgeted is
$18,236.00, the same as last fiscal year. This leaves a difference of $1,839.00
It is requested that you approve the allocation of $1,839.00 from your Reserve
for Contingencies to fund this difference.
This is necessary per the inter -local agreement setting.up the Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council
Account Title - Account No. Increase Decrease
Treasure Coast Reg. Plan. 001-110-515-88.15 1,839
Reserve for Contingencies 001-199-513-99.91 1,839
Reserve balance
$462,560.
Commissioner Scurlock questioned if there would be
monies available within the department, and QMB Director
Jeff -Barton stated that this is a line item in a category
by itself and is the only item. This particular item is for
county -wide and inter -county planning and is a General Fund
obligation.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned that the
contingency fund was smaller than usual this year and felt
we cannot continue to draw from it.
Director Barton stated that this is a line item in a
department by itself and is the only item. This particular
item is for county -wide and inter -county planning.
r
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman being
temporarily delayed, approved the above
budget amendment, as recommended by OMB
Director Barton.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item A be removed
from the Consent Agenda at this time.
Commissioner Wodtke requested that Items B, E, I, and P
be removed from the Consent Agenda at this time.
C. Budget Amendment -Road & Bridge, Pipe & Culvert
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/27/83:
f0: Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 27, 1983
FILE:
SUBJECT: Road & Bridge - Pipe & Culvert
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES:
Office of Management and Budget
The following budget amendment is for pipe and culvert that was to be purchased in
FY 82-83. THe goods were received, budgeted and anticipated to be expended before
the close of the fiscal year, however, correct invoices were not received until
October 27, 1983.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Cash Forward -Oct 1st 004-000-389-40.00 7,062
Pipe & Culvert 004-214-541-35.32 7,062
5
Nov 16 1983
0 PACE 2'
, V,
FILE:
SUBJECT: Road & Bridge - Pipe & Culvert
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES:
Office of Management and Budget
The following budget amendment is for pipe and culvert that was to be purchased in
FY 82-83. THe goods were received, budgeted and anticipated to be expended before
the close of the fiscal year, however, correct invoices were not received until
October 27, 1983.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Cash Forward -Oct 1st 004-000-389-40.00 7,062
Pipe & Culvert 004-214-541-35.32 7,062
5
Nov 16 1983
0 PACE 2'
N O V 16 1993
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECO14DED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board
by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman being
temporarily delayed, approved the above budget
amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton.
D. Budget Amendment - Pistol Permit Fund
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/3/83:
TO:Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 3, 1983
SUBJECT: Pistol Permit Fund
FROM: Jeffrey K. BaGk
rton, Director REFERENCES:
Office of Management and Budget
FILE:
The following budget amendment is to establish the Pistol Permit Fund budget for
Fiscal Year 1983-84.
Account Title Account No. Increase Decrease
Pistol Permits 104-000-329-30.00 11500
Legal Ads 104-114-521-34.91 300
Sheriff 104-114-521-99.14 1,200
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board
by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman being
temporarily delayed, approved the above budget
amendment, as recommended by OMB Director Barton.
F. Execution of Bureau of Emergency Management Maintenance
and Services Program Agreement
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 11/7/83:
C.1
Secretary,�.11-
November 7, 1983
Mr. S. Lee Nuzie, Director
Indian River County Civil
Defense
1840 25 Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear: Mr uzie:
The Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Emergency
Management, is pleased to announce the award of your County's
Maintenance and Services Program allocation for the federal
fiscal year 1984 in the amount of $882.
The enclosed Maintenance and Services Agreement, Exhibit A
(Budget Summary) outlines the categories for which the funds are
to be used. All four copies of the Agreement should be signed by
your County's authorized official and returned as soon as
possible for full execution. A fully executed copy will be
returned to you for your files.
If you have any questions regarding your County's allocation,
please contact me.
Sincerely,
AG �J
Gordon L. Guthrie
Chief
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, approved the Agreement
between the State of Florida Dept. of Community
Affairs and Indian River County re allocation of
funds for federal fiscal year 1984 in the amount
of $882 and authorized the Chairman's signature.
7
N O V 16 1983
Director
0V
16 1983
AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
AND
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(NAME OF SUBGRANTEE)
E-5 FACE29-5
This Agreement, entered into this lst day of October ,
1983 between the Department of Community Affairs (Grantee) and the
Indian River County (Subgrantee), shall govern Maintenance and
Services Program activities to be financed by the Grantee.
THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
I. TERM OF AGREEMENT:
a. This Agreement shall commence on the 1st day of
October , 1983 and shall continue in full force and effect to
and including the 30th day of September , 1984.
b. The Grantee agrees to allocate the Subgrantee the
maximum sum of $ 882 / 50 % which the Subgrantee
will match with $ 882 / 50 % for a total subgrant
of $ 1,764 / 100 % for the successful completion of
the items of performance agreed to herein.
C. It is agreed that liability of the Grantee under this
agreement shall not exceed the total funds received by the Grantee
for this purpose. The Grantee or Subgrantee may request changes
in the amount of funds to be provided under this Agreement. Such
requested changes must be submitted in writing, agreed to and
signed by both parties in order to amend this Agreement.
II. REQUIREMENTS AND ASSURANCES:
a. General Provisions. The Subgrantee hereby assures
and certifies that it will comply with regulations, policies,
guidelines, and requirements including 44 CFR Part 302, CPG 1-3,
Change 6, dated March 7, 1983, and OMB Circular No. A-87 and A-102
as they relate to application, acceptance and use of.federal
funds for the Maintenance and Services Program.
1.1
b.. Budget Summary. The attached "budget summary" 'is
incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. Funds awarded -are
to be .expended only for purposes and activities approved by
Exhibit A of this agreement.
c. Reports and Payment of Funds. The Subgrantee shall
submit quarterly financial reports, which outline activity and
associated expenditures on forms furnished by the Grantee.
Payments to the Subgrantee will be reimbursed on a quarterly basis
in accordance with approved expenditure reports submitted by the
Subgrantee.
d. Recording, Documentation and Retention of Records.
The Subgrantee shall provide for and maintain accurate records,
documents and files pertaining to this Agreement for a period of
three years from the date of conclusion -of the Agreement unless
informed by the Grantee that. said records may be disposed of
earlier. Access to those records must be provided at reasonable
times to the Grantee and to the federal grant agency and their
designees.
e. Legal Authorization. The Subgrantee certifies with
respect to this subgrant that it possesses legal authority to apply
for the grant and that the applicant's governing body has
authorized the execution and acceptance of the agreement with all
understandings and assurances contained herein; and names and
authorizes the person to act in connection with this agreement.
The Subgrantee acknowledges that the responsibility for
complying with the approved subgrant award rests with the recipient
Subgrantee and acknowledges that failure to do so may constitute
grounds for the recession or suspension of this subgrant and may
influence future subgrant awards.
IN WITNESS HEREOF, the Grantee and the Subgrantee have
executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
FOR THE SUBGRANTEE: FOR THE GRANTEE:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
BY
Authorized County Official Secretary
Richard N. Bird. Chairman
Name/Title Date
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County
Approved November 16, 1983 '
NOV 16 1983
9 LACE L�
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
STATE OF FLORIDA
BUREAU OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
RYRTAT'T a — nrrnovrn enuuanv
Object Class Categories
Budget Requested
Budget Approved
Amended Budget
1. Recurring Charges
$ 570
$ 570
Date
Commerical power
2. Charges
312
312
Preventive and
3. Actual Maintenance
Charges
4. Lease Rental Charges
5. Replacement Cost
15.000
Total
$15,882
Federal Share
* Any labor cost in excess of $2,000 associated with repair, replacement, or installation
of equipment funded under this program must comply with provisions of the Davis -Bacon Act.
1
L1
1
G. Resolution Authorizing Chairman to Execute Agreement
Between the State of Florida Dept. of Community Affairs and
Indian River County
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 11/4/83:
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEI ALIrm
XI MENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
DIVISION. OF PUBLIC SAFETY PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE
BOB GRAHAM
Govemor »• w °'
J V
JOHN M��.DppEEpGR.��OVE °
1V4'O�Op� J .
Secretary WILKERSON
°....
Director
November 4, 1983
Mr. S. Lee Nuzie, Director i))34n1
Indian River County Civil 1A /I-�-J3;
Defense -'J
1840 - 25 Street
Vero Beach, Florida .32960
Dear Mr. Nuzie:
We are pleased to inform you that your County's tentative FY 184 EMA
allocation is $10,909. Before this figure can be finalized and
inserted in your EMA Agreement, you need to certify in writing to
this office with a copy to your Area Coordinator that your County
can match this allocation. If the amount you can match is less than
$10,909, please notify us of the exact amount you are able to
match. As specified in Rule 9G-11.05, $9,055 (83%) can be used for
Salaries and Fringe Benefits; $545 (5%) for Travel; and $1,309
(12%) for All Other Expenses. Consequently, we will not only need
to know if you can match your total allocation but can it be matched
in the three categories as specified above.
In order for us to make final allocations, this information must be
received by this office NO LATER than November 18, 1983. If you
plan on asking for a waiver on the limitations as stated above, now
is the time to do it. Each request for a waiver must be specifi-
cally justified as to its need. A decision will be made on a case-
by-case basis using the justification provided and you will be
notified if your request has been approved.
Again, it is imperative this office receive the above requested
information by November 18. Without this information, no final
allocations can be made.
If you have any questions, please contact your Area Coordinator or
Ms. Pat Barrett.
GLG/PCB/rp
NOV 16 1983
Sincerely,
Gordon L. Guthrie
Chief
11
IWA .5 ?AG4ru8
..
N 0 V 16 1993
racy 299
BUREAU OF DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
1720 SOL7H GADSDEN STREET • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 (904) 433.1900
October 8, 1983
Please note that we received this letter
on 11-7-83. We have completed the agreement
which only now needs approval by the board
and a signature.
We can match the three categories
specified in the letter.
This agreement and the required information
has to be mailed by November 18.
S. Lee N zie
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, adopted Resolution
83-110 authorizing the Chairman to execute
Agreement Between the State of Florida Dept. of
Community Affairs and Indian River County re
matching funds for certain EMA related activities.
SAID AGREEMENT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
12
Eil
RESOLUTION NO. 83-110
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE
_ CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION TO EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
(SUBGRANTEE).
WHEREAS, Indian River County has been informed that
the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs -has tenta-
tively allocated TEN THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINE DOLLARS and
00/100 ($10,909.00) to Indian River County for disaster prepared-
ness, and.
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs now needs
additional information in order to make its final allocations,
and
WHEREAS, the attached agreement provides that Indian
River County will match the grant funds with an additional TEN
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND NINE DOLLARS and 00/100 ($10,909.00) of
Indian River County funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Chairman
and Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners are authorized and
directed to execute the attached agreement between the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs and Indian River County.
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 Absent
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th day of November , 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVERR COUNTY, FLORIDA
ByIce.���✓��.�
RICHARD N. BIRD
Chairman
A
APPROV I)L1�S TOR1�L Attest:
AND LEGAL, I
SU7FREDA WRIGHT ✓�
Y GA�� Clerk
RY BRANDENBURG, County Attorney
N O V 16 1983
13 M
Ki
NOV 16
1983
mix 5 Pic
H.
Requisition for Second Quarterly Payment FY -1984 of
Annual Contributions Contract Section 8 Existing Housing
Rental Assistance Program
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/7/83:
TO: Board of County
Commissioners
THRU: Michael Wright
County Administrator
FROM: Edward J. R `n
Executive Di ector
IRC Housing Authority
DATE: 11/07/83
FILE:
SUBJECT: Requisition for the Second
Quarterly Payment FY 1984
of Annual Contributions Contract
Section 8 Existing Housing Rental
Assistance Program
REFERENCES:
It is recommended that the data herein presented by
given formal consideration by the County Commission.
In order to requisition funds quarterly from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development to operate our
Section 8 Housing Assistance Program, we are required to sub-
mit four (4) executed copies of HUD Form 52663. This is con-
sistent with our Annual Contributions Contract entered into on
December 30, 1978 and as amended August 3, 1982.
I respectfully request the Board of County Commissioners
authorize the Chairman to execute the four copies of HUD Form
52663 for the Second Quarterly payment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, authorized the
Chairman's signature on the Requisition for the
Second Quarterly Payment FY 1984 of Annual
Contributions Contract Section 8 Existing Housing
Rental Assistance Program.
14
►gib♦2eaa
0411)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ANO URBAN uL VLLOPMENT FOR HUD US
• REQUISITION FOR PARTIAL PAYMENT OF ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIOI'NS
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS PROGRAM voucher N
r SECTION 23 SECTION 8 L77
Dots of Requisition 11/7/83 Fiscal Year Ending Date 9/30/84 For Quarter Ending 3/31/84
NAME ANO ADDRESS OF PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY (including Zip Code) ACC Contract Number A-3409
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ProjectNumbarFL29—E132-001 &
1840 25th St., Suite S-321, Vero Beach, Fla. No. of. Months inFiscel Year 1_12
DEPOSITARY BANX (Name, Addm" and Account Number) Type of Project:
First Bankers of Indian River County
Vero Beach, Fla. 32960 Acct. #98-04000-1 11EXISTING 11NFW ClREI
L Number of Units Under Lease to Eligible Families as of Data of Requisition 163
b. Estimated Number of Units to be under Lease at End of Requested Quarter 190
c. Avera(p Monthly Housing Assistance Payment Per Unit at of Oats of Requisition 165
ESTIMATE OF ESTIMATED CUMULf
kEQU1RED TOTAL COST ADDITIONAL TOT/
DESCRIPTION ANNUAL INCURRED COST TO ENDOF REQUESTED FUNi
COi'iTRIBUTIONS TO DATE I QUARTER REUUI
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(31
PRELIMINARY ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE
1. Preliminary Administrative Expense—Prior to ACC (Account 4010)
0
1 0
0
0
00
2. Preliminary Administrative Expanse—After ACC (Account 40121
0
0
0
0
3. Total Preliminary Administrative Expense /Lines I d 2)
0
NONEXPENDABLE EQUIPMEAT
4. Replacamettt of Nonexpendable Equipment (Account 7520)
0
0-
0
_5.
0
5. Property Betterments and Additions (Account 7340)
1 0
0
0
6. Totd Nonexpendable Equipment (Lines 4 d S)
0
0
-
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
7. Hou>lin, Assistance Payments (Accounr4713)
459,972
53.605
125.400
179.00-c
t
ADMIXaTRATIVE FEE
8. Total Administrative Fee Approved for Fiscal Year
59 303
9. Monthly Rste of Administrative Fee (Line 8 divided by number of months
`
in tiical year)
18. Amount Previously Requisitioned for fiscal year
4,942
f
14 826
14,826
11. Estimated Additional Amount Required to end of Requested Quarter
12. Total Administrative Fee (Liner 10d 111
29,652
iNDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT AUDIT COSTS (Section 8 only)
13. Total Indspelldent Public Accountant Audit Costs
2,500
0
SECURITY AND UTILITY DEPOSITS (Section 23 only)
14. Total Ailtnivence Approved for Security and Utility Deposits
15. Amount Pmviowly Requisitioned for Fiscal Year
0
0
18. Estimated Additional Amount Required to End of Requested Quarter
17. Total Security and Utility Deposits(Lincs 15d 16)
0
_
0 —r
,
AMOUNT OF THIS REQUISITION
18. Total Funds Required to End of Requested Quarter (Lines 3.6. 7 12,
}
13d 17)
19. Total Portisi Paymenti liaceived for Fiscal Year to Date
��
208.657
108,876
20. Partial Payment Requarted (Line 18 minus Line 191
99,781
IST
INSTALLMENT
21,40
INSTALLMENT
3RD
INSTALLMENT
TOTAL
METHOD OF PAYMENT
21. Requested Installment Payments
33,260 •
33,260
33.261 i
99,781
1 CERTIFY that housing assistance p+yinents have been or will be made only with rwnp,�ct to units whish: 11) are undor Irene by Famdl" ct the titre r,4
housing assistance payments are m -,da except as othwwise provktivl in the Housing Assistance Payments Contracts sro '2) thtr linwlrr2 Ag"KV, has witbiri
slew yew pnor to the making of suds housitlq�taQelyt.atatlitm.Zttd pr CaU fid t9 be inePertsd (rni :udlR( 1MFfCtlan U( ;,^.O Ynrr►, �U�1I is
anI anew /or the benefit and use or the Fdr",die I to assura that gsrwritt safe and sanitary housing accommodations or* being provided; that all 800:cnb/e
•vias of tits shore ►wrr+ba►ed Contract ha0a beeK�cvrt►pfiatt;ir Siijepre using A"; and that this requ,.ution for annual cor..ributionz hes teen sxa,
load by iiia grid to the best or my k. dad" and 09J..'ef it is,e ir4CA rd eompf(ito.
�: t�,°�� Indian River County Board of
n.� / Y/ii Lf •' PY flUYt�n-,� L%:
ovember 16, 619_84 , ai
� 'M. I!!
(Date)
__�_ t•_. t. t r (Sianatu•e end ]'Itis u/0(ffi/af A�thorued to Certl/YI
HUO FIELD CFFiCE APPROVAL
(tiignaharr and Title of Offiewi Authorized to Approve)
15
N O V 16 1983
(Date)
.N0V16 1.983
J. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, Indian
River County Volunteer Ambulance Service
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, granted a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity, Emergency
Ambulance Service, to Indian River County
Volunteer Ambulance Squad.
16
C13
8z
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
WHEREAS, the INDIAN RIVER COUNTY VOLUNTEER Ambutance SeAvice puvidez
zem or Indian River County;
quatity emergency mediW WCviic
6s to the
and,
WHEREAS ,t the.,ce has been demonstrated that theAe is a need Son thi6 ambutance seAvice
to opeAa
e in this county to p&ovide U.6entiat zeAvices to tke citizens o6 this
County; and,,
WHEREAS, the above ambutance seAvice W indicated that it wilt compty with att the
&equikement,s o6 the EmeAgency Medicat SeAvice,6 Act o4 1973, the Board o6 County
Commi, Indian River County hereby i.6.6ue.6 a CeAtiSicate os Pu
ssioneu os -bU-ance company joiL theyeah1984 bUc
• Convenience and ff&"Aity to th" dm
In issuing thi,6 ceAtijicate it a undeutood that the above named ambutance .6eAvice
wiU meet the &equiAement6 os State Legt6tation and provide emergency .6eAvic" on
a twenty-jouA hour ba-si6 Sox the 4ottowing area (,$):
in Indian River County.
November
:25 to i(j;ltltl z
VJ9V57a—n,- BoaAd o6 County CommU44-oneX6
f f i 1(" K
and le ,
A - I Richard N. Bird
4
NOV 16 1993 1W3,05''
K. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, SeAir
Ambulance Service
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, issued a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity to Odom
Aviation, Inc., d/b/a SeAir Ambulance Service.
18
0
W
1
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND.NECESSITY
WHEREAS, the ODOM AVIATION Ambu2anee Setivicee provides
quat ty emergency medica zervicees to the ctuzeAz o6 Tndia-n Ri37es County;
and,
WHEREAS, thence hays been demonstrated that there is a need 4or th z ambutanee z eAv ice
to operate in this county to provide mzenti.ae zervieez to the citi.zew og this
County; and,
WHEREAS, the above ambulance .6ehv ice ha3 .indicated that it wilt comply with att the
requiuments o4 the Emergency Medi.cat Se&vtieed Act o4 1913, the Boa&d as County
Commis-6ionefus o6 Indian River County hereby .u6.6ue�s a. Cert i6.ieate of Pub.ei.e
• Convenience and Necez.6 y o —am-Wance company 6or the yeah 1984
In -us,6u.ing this eu,jicate .it is undeutood that the above named ambutanee seAv.ice
w,i,P,Q meet the %equ &ement6 o4 State Legistation and provide emergency aerv.ices on
a twenty -flour hour basis 4or the 4ottowtng area (.a) :
in Indian River County. This CERTIFICATE is issllgd subject to the
right of Piper Aircraft Company continuing to provide mergPpnrN a, n d
nonemergency flights as they have customarily done in Lbe Pasr
I 01 17i
and n,BoaAd o4 Cou Commthsionem
Thr November 16,198' p �.j », Ric and N. Bird
C
co
0
=.
.NOV 16 7983
I
!C 5 PKK -3017
L. Resolution granting Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity to Town of Indian River Shores for Emergency
Transportation Services
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, adopted Resolution
83-112 granting a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to the Town of
Indian River Shores for emergency transportation
services.
20
RESOLUTION NO. 8.3-112
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, GRANTING THE TOWN
OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR EMERGENCY
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Town of Indian River
Shores, Florida is hereby granted a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to provide emergency transportation
'a
services within Indian River County in accordance with all
applicable provisions and requirements of Chapter 401, Florida
Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder by the Department of
Health and Rehabilitative Services.
This certificate shall be valid for the period of one
year from the date of a motion adopting same.
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 Absent
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons Aye
Commissioner William Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th day of November, 1983.
Attest:.
FREDA WRIGHT, C erk
APPROVED AS TO, FORM
AND LEGAL S'(J'FFIC.ZtN
74
• 1 1%X111 L 14 LY
Attorney
NOV 1 � 1983
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By2v�J/ G�
RICHARD N. BIRD
Chairman
21
5 �A��
NOV 16 1993
5 fnE30
M. Preliminary Plat Approval for Grove Park Manor
Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/31/83:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 31, 1983 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Kobert M. Keatilng,CXICP
Planning & Development Director
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL
FOR GROVE PARK MANOR
SUBDIVISION
FROM: Staff Plannerard G�� REFERENCES: DISe6AECLA Manor
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on November 16, 1983.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Grove Park Manor is a 10 lot, ±6.1 acre subdivision, located on
the south side of 22nd Street, west of 47th Avenue. The site
is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential (6.2 dwelling
units/acre), and has a LD -1, Low -Density Residential (3 dwell-
ing units/acre), land use designation. The project's proposed
density,is 1.6 dwelling units/acre.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The preliminary plat has been reviewed by staff and found to be
in conformance with all applicable County regulations. A
Stormwater Management Permit has been issued by the County
Engineer. The use of individual wells and septic tanks has
been approved by the Environmental Health Department. The
subdivision's interior street conforms to the County's Thor-
oughfare Plan, as does 22nd Street north of the subject
property. The applicant has also agreed to improve the corner
of 47th Avenue and 22nd Street as it leads to the subject
property, as required by the County's Subdivision Ordinance
75-3.
All staff recommendations concerning the subject property have
also been addressed by the applicant.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
preliminary plat approval to Grove Park Manor Subdivision.
22
-10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
:.�,
being temporarily delayed, granted preliminary
3 plat approval for Grove Park Manor Subdivision.
N. Final Plat Approval for Wabasso Estates Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/31/83:
t1 .
o
TO: The Honorable Members ®ATE: October 31 1983
FILE:
of the Board of County
E Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR
WABASSO ESTATES SUBDI-
SUBJECT: VISION
Robert M. Keatilng.CP
Planning & Development Director
Clare Z. Poupard 4P Wabasso Est.
FROM: Staff Planner REFERENCES: DIS:6AECLA
It is requested that the following information be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting on November 16, 1983.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Wabasso Estates is a ±5.9 acre; 10 lot, subdivision located on
the west side of State Road A -1-A, just north of Turtle Cove
Subdivision. The subject property is zoned R -IAA, Single
Family Residential (2.6 dwelling units/acre allowable building
density) and has a LD -1, Low -Density Residential (3 dwelling
units/acre allowable density) land use designation. The
project's actual density is 1.7 dwelling units/acre.
Preliminary plat approval was granted by the Board of County
Commissioners on March 2, 1983.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The final plat is in conformance with the approved preliminary
plat. The on-site improvements have been inspected by the
County Engineer and have been found to be constructed according
to County specifications. The final plat has also been re-
viewed for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney's office.
The applicant has conformed with all applicable County regu-
lations.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board grant final plat approval to
Wabasso Estates Subdivision.
23 rr��
NOV 16 1983
NOV 16 1993
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board,
by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman being
temporarily delayed, granted final plat approval
for Wabasso Estates Subdivision.
0. Approval of Extension of Site Plan Approval, K. D, Hedin
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/83:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: November 8, 1983 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keat ng, ICP
Planning & Development Director
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF
SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM
K. D. HEDIN
Fj�Q(�; Mary Jane V. Goetzfried REFERENCES: K. D. Hedin
Staff Planner DIS:PNOT
It is recommended that the data herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
their regular meeting of -November 16, 1983.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 13, 1982, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved
the site plan application submitted by Mr. Karl Hedin to
construct a sales and service facility at 1025 Old Dixie
Highway. Subsequently, the Board of County Commissioners
extended the period of site plan approval for six months, at
the request of the applicant. Presently, Mr. Hedin is seeking
an additional six month extension to allow for finalization of
the development plan.
24
ANALYSIS
The Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion,
grant an extension of the site plan expiration date as provided
in Section 23(h) of the Zoning Code.
Normally, the Board is requested to grant a one year extension
to an approved site plan. At the time of the original request,
Mr. Hedin felt six months would be adequate to complete the
project plans. However, as the expiration date of November 13,
1983 approached, it becage apparent finalization of plans would
not be possible so as to allow for the commencement of con-
struction.
RECOMMENDATION
r
Staff recommends approval of the ,request to grant a six month
extension to Karl Hedin to construct 'a sales and service
facility at 1025 Old Dixie.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board.
by a vote of 4-0,Commissioner Bowman being
temporarily delayed, granted a six-month
extension of site plan approval to K. D. Hedin
to construct a sales and service facility at
1025 Old Dixie Highway.
NOV 16 1983 25 IRK '5 roc `?
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION
A Report on Telephone Company Divestiture
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/7/83:
TO: The Honorable Members of CRATE: November 7, 1983 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: C. B. rdin, Jr. Ph. D.
Asst. County Admin. REPORT ON TELEPHONE
GENE RR --SERVICES DIVISION SUBJECT: COMPANY DIVESTURE
FROM: Lynn Williams, Supt. REFERENCES:
Building and Grounds
Staff recently attended a one day workshop concerning the
Federal Court Divesture ruling pertaining to Southern Bell..and
the Bell System. The workshop was provided for state agencies
and local government to disseminate information available on how
these rulings would impact telephone service in Florida.
Appearances are that several key issues concerning the
breakup have not been decided at this time. A conversion of
ownership and responsibility for various services will take
effect on January 1, 1984. A new company, ATT -IS, will assume
existing lease and purchase agreements for equipment now in place
and presently served by Soutbern Bell.
ATT -IS will be anon -regulated free enterprise company com-
peting with other equipment vendors in the sale and installation
of telephone systems. Dial -tone, and local service will be pro-
vided by Southern Bell, a company regulated by the Florida Public
Service Commission and franchised in this area of Florida.
ATT -IS will be offering to County an option to purchase the
in-place equipment sometime during the first quarter of 1984. The
County presently has several lease agreements ranging from 48 to
60 months for in-place equipment. These agreements will convert
to ATT -IS on January 1, 1984. Purchase of in-place equipment would
be very expensive and far beyond budgeted amounts for telephone
services in the General Services Budget. Southern Bell is recom-
mending to its customers that they do not hastily purchase replace-
ment or in-place equipment without thorough analysis.
The final rulings are to,be handed down the end of this month.
At that time, staff will begin review of alternatives available
and return to the Commission with recommendations.
Commissioner Scurlock was dissatisfied with the phone
system in the administrative complex and noted it is
becoming a ever growing problem in terms of getting into the
switchboard, even with the additional trunk lines. He
understood that this system was sold to the County as the
most updated and flexible system that was available;
however, he had some real questions about the entire system
and suggested that the Administrative staff take an in-depth
look and analyze an approach for the future to correct the
situation so that the public can have easy access to the
Commissioners' offices. Chairman Bird directed
Administrator Wright to address this problem.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, accepted the
Report on Telephone Company Divestiture plus
the comments made for improving the phone
situation in the Administrative Building.
B. Budget Amendment - Data Processing, IBM System/38
The Board reviewed the following memos dated 9/27/83
and 10/26/83:
27 .?A R
NOV 16 1983
JV
"'OV 16 1993
TO:Board of County Commissioners
k14 E5 FACIE -315
DATE: October 26, 1983 FILE:
SUBJECT: Data Processing - IBM System/38
FROM: Jeffrey K. Barton, Director REFERENCES:
Office of Management and Budget
The following budget amendment is to request that funds
be allocated
to cover the
unanticipated expense of
expansion of the IBM System/38
computer per
the attached
letter.
Account Title
Account No.
Increase
Decrease
Other Mach A Equip.
102-232-513-66.49
6,485
Reserve for Contingency
102-199-584-99.91
6,485
Balance in Reserve
$15,000.
TO: Freda Wright DATE: 9/27/83 FILE:
Clerk of Circuit Court -
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment, FY 83-84
FROM: Bob Fuhr REFERENCES:
Data Processing Manager
As part of the capital outlay requested and approved for Data
Processing were two features required for installation as
integral parts of the IBM System/38-computer necessitated by
the increasing number of terminals being connected. These
two features, a device control expansion and a'third work
station controller, coot $1,230 and $5,0701 respectively. At
the time the budget was prepared for fiscal year 1983 -84, -this
was the only known cost for this computer enhancement.
However, IBM has just advised us that twb additional engineering
features -are also required in order to install the required
expansion features. Therefore I request an amendment to the
budget for Data Processing capital outlay for an additional
$6,485. The additional items are:
1 Feature 6304 Processing Unit Expansion 5 $4,055
1 Feature 6305 Processing Unit Expansion 6 $2,430
28
Commissioner Wodtke objected to the after -the -fact
approval of this invoice, and stated he has a real problem
dipping into contingencies this year.
OMB Director Jeff Barton explained that when the budget
was prepared these items were not included because we did
not realize.we needed the additional pieces of equipment at
that time. It was the fault of the IBM representative.
However, the equipment has been delivered.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there was any way of
paying for it through the existing budget because the money
just isn't there in the contingency fund.
Director Barton explained that it is all equipment, and
that is why it is in Federal Revenue Sharing. The memory
expansion modules, units 5 and 6, would be installed on the
present units in the Data Processing Dept. on the second
floor. Basically, IBM said we could expand the present
system for $6,000, and now they are telling us it costs
$12,000.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what would happen if we
just tell IBM to take it back, and Director Barton advised
that the present system will still work, but we will not
have the ability to hook up with other department systems
within the County.
Commissioner Wodtke agreed this is the sort of
emergency situation that should be paid for out of
contingency funds, but felt that they should have come to
the Board before the fact, not after.
OMB Director Barton explained that the date on the
invoice was for delivery on or after 10/1/83.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if there was any budget
line where we could transfer this item and Director Barton
advised there was not; capital items are all in Federal
Revenue Sharing. The Board has kept the capital needs in
29
Novi 6 1983
a '
NOV 16 193 5
5 rni-31-7
their books, and all"the rest of the operations in the Data
Processing Dept. are in the Clerk's books.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board by a 4-0 vote, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, requested OMB
Director Barton to take another look to see
where we can find this money without going
into the contingency funds, including the
possibility of telling IBM that we will pay
them next year.
E. Approval of Medical Examiner's Contract
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 10/18/83
and the 1983 Expenditure Report:
October 18, 1983
Richard Bird
Chairman
Indian River County Board of Commissioners
1840 25th St.
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Mr. Bird:
Enclosed for your approval are three copies of contracts between your
County and the State of Florida for per capita funding to your county
for medical examiner system use for state fiscal year 83-84.
Kindly forward these to me after signing, at the address below and I
will forward thein to the Camli.ssioner, Florida Department of Law
Enforcement.
If You have any questions, please write or call anytime.
Sinj-1y,
alker, M. D.
6015 Silver Oak Dr.
Ft. Pierce, FL 33450
L,
Enclosure
P.S. Also enclosed is a Medical Examiner Expenditure Report to be
completed in as much detail as possible.
30
STATE OF FLORIDA
DISTRICT 19. MEDICAL EXAMINER
,z EXPENDITURE REPORT
1983 FISCAL YEAR
Indian River COUNTY
I. Salaries and Benefits
II. Transportation
III. Facilities and Equipment
IV. Administrative Costs
V. Other Related Expenses
TOTAL
TOTAL ALL
County Expenses State Expenses
$ $ 8,680.00
$ 32,964.50 $
$ 32';964,50 8,680.00
41.644.50
VI. Revenue Total: $ 8,680.00
(Income accrued to the Office of the District Medical Examiner)
Instructions: Complete one copy for each county for each county fiscal
year and mail to:
Medical Examiners Commission
Florida Department of Law Enforcement
Post Office Box 1489
Tallahassee,"Florida 32302
Commissioner Wodtke asked if there were any local
dollars we have to come up with that are not already
budgeted as he did not really understand the figures in the
expenditure report.
014B Director Barton answered no, this is mainly a
statement of last year's. expenditures for the fiscal year,
but it does look like there is an error it it. We have to
identify the total dollars spent as to the State dollars
received and as to the local effort. The figures should
read: TOTAL 32,964.50, and TOTAL ALL $41,644.50.
31 1
.0KK 55
NAV 16 1983
NOV 16 1983
55 wi'31_9
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, approved the
contract between the State of Florida Dept.
of Law Enforcement Medical Examiners' Commission
and Indian River County for Medical Examiner
Funds, with the correction of amounts as explained
above, and authorized the Chairman's signature.
SAID CONTRACT WILL BE MADE PART OF THE CLERK'S RECORDS WHEN
EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
I. Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity,
Non -Emergency Ambulance Service, C & J Ambulance Service
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 11/1/83:
Martin County St. Lucie County
283-5544 465-0410
C & J AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.
P. O. Box 3421
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA 33454
November 1, 1983
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
P.O. Box 1417
Vero Beach, Florida 32961
Dear Sirs,
Indian River County
567-5512
We are presently updating our files and have found that
our Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is due for
renewal on December 15, 1983. For your records we have en-
closed our Certificate of Compliance from the state and sever-
al letters from agencies who have written commending our ser-
vice.
C & J Ambulance Service has been in business since Jan-
uary of 1976 and is presently providing non -emergency Ambu-
lance Service in Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee and St. Lu-
cie counties. We are based in Fort Pierce however, it has al-
ways been our policy to charge rates based on responding with-
in the city or county requiring the transfer. 'For example, a
person in Indian River county is charged as if we were based in
Vero. Beach, there is no charge to the person for us to come
from Fort Pierce. We charge $70.00 within the city and $75.00
within the county with no mileage charged.
32
We staff only Florida State Registered Emergency Medical
Technicians and have two of these technicians on board all of
our units. We are licensed by the state of Florida as a Ba-
sic Life Support system and we meet all of the requirments in
regards to medical equipment, vehicles, staff and inspections.
Our services includes
1. Hospital to Hospital transfers
2. Hospital to residence transfers
3. Non -emergency residence to Hospital transfers
4. Residence to Doctor's Offices and return
5. Residence or Hospital to local and International Air-
ports
6. Skilled Nursing Facilities or Hospital transfers
We hope to continue servicing Indian River County with
quality non -emergency ambulance transfers as we have done in
the past. If you should have any questions please feel free
to contact me.
S' cerely,
oanne W. Correll President
Commissioner Wodtke asked if their rates were the same
as last year, $70 within the City and $75 with the County.
It was determined that their base rates had increased by $10
over last year.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board, by a vote of 4-0, Commissioner Bowman
being temporarily delayed, adopted Resolution
83-111 granting a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity to Non -Emergency
Ambulance Service, C & J Ambulance Transfer
Service.
33
NOV 16 1983 oK ?A 9
N 0 V 16 1993
BOOK 15`Fka" 2.
RESOLUTION 83-111
NON -EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
WHEREAS, the C & J AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE provides
quality non -emergency ambulance service to the citizens of Indian
River County; and
WHEREAS, it has been demonstrated that there is a need for
this ambulance service -to operate in the County and provide
essential services to the citizens of this County on a
non-exclusive basis; and
WHEREAS, the above ambulance service has indicated that it
will comply with all the requirements of the Emergency Medical
Services Act of 1973, as amended;
NOW, THEREFORE, the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA hereby issues a CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY to C & J AMBULANCE TRANSFER SERVICE
from December 15, 1983 to December 15, 1984 and that in issuing
this Certificate it is understood that the above named ambulance
service will meet the requirements of State Legislation and
provide non -emergency ambulance service for Indian River County.
ATTEST:
�
Al�� h , Ir
FRED WRIGHT, C r
Adopted: November 16, 1983
APPROVED T O FORM AND
LEGAL SUOFI'CIEN
By
GA Kc. BRA14DENBURG
�i�unty Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By�
RICHARD N. BIRD, Chairman
P. Approval of Contracts for County Attorney/Administrator
Commissioner Bowman entered the meeting at 9:15 o'clock
A. M.
The Board reviewed a draft of the proposed contract.
Commissioner Wodtke stated that he did not have an
opportunity to get with either the Attorney or the
Administrator prior to this meeting and questioned a -few
items in the contract:
Under Item 2: The negotiation of salaries 60 days in
advance of the start of the year, which is August 1st. He
felt this would really put the County in a pretty tough
position to discuss salary increases with the Administrator
and Attorney prior to doing it with the regular membership
and before we know what funds are there. Attorney
Brandenburg suggested the deletion of "at least 60 days" in
the second sentence of Item 2, and add "prior to the
beginning of the second year, and any additional years under
this contract."
2) Under Item 2:
"The percentage of increase being
not
lower than
that given to the Commissioners
by the State
of
Florida."
Commissioner Wbdtke did not feel
this was a
good barometer to use in determining salaries for these two
key employees, and perhaps other County employees would say
that they should have the same percentage of increase. He
noted that the salaries the County Commissioners receive are
basically statutory as far as population growth. Maybe an
increase in population is a good standard to look at, but in
some years there may be no raise, while employees might
receive a 6%-8o raise, and he did not think that the
Commissioners' salaries were intended to be a living wage.
Commissioner Scurlock felt he understood it
differently, and Administrator Wright felt the intent was to
try to get a barometer that gauges the responsibility that
35
_ NOV 16 1983 Kitt ES5 wit 2 .
Nov 16 198 rA� ?
goes with growth in population as he and the Attorney are
the ones that accept that added responsibility. He felt
that the responsibilities of other staff members do not
increase as proportionately.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested the wording, "in any
event, the increase shall be no less than the percentage
increase given to the other County employees."
Commissioners Scurlock and Lyons agreed that they
preferred it the way it stood.
Chairman Bird felt that we really could not come up
with a more reasonable barometer.
Commissioner Wodtke 'personally felt that the County
Commissioners' salaries of $17,00 were too high. He stated
that here again it is a numbers game and you are talking big
dollars when you give a 6% increase in salaries at $17,000
and $48,000.
Attorney 'Brandenburg advised that it is a state-wide
barometer of how the State has done, including increases in
population in our County and such factors as inflation.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to vote for the contract,
but first wanted the opportunity to state his disagreement
on certain items.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wodtke,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the
Board change the contract of the Attorney/
Administrator under Item 2 to read: "and shall
in any event be no less than the percentage
increase given to other County employees.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock pointed out
that the County already has a 2 -year contract with the fire.
fighters, calling for a 6% increase in fiscal year 1984-85.
36
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion failed by a 1-4 vote, with
Commissioner Wodtke voting in favor.
Commissioner Bowman felt that we had talked about
offering either the Administrator or the Attorney a 3 -year
contract so that we would not lose both of them at the same
time, -and Commissioner Lyons advised that they could
terminate their contract at any time during the contract.
Administrator Wright explained they could cancel
"only" after giving 60 days notice prior to the end of the
contract. He would prefer that it be 60 days for either
party, but he has made a commitment to this County and
intends to follow through with it.
Commissioner Wodtke wanted to know the relationship
between Items 5 & 6. Attorney Brandenburg clarified that it
is their opinion that should the contract be terminated at
the end of the initial term, the Administrator and the
Attorney should be entitled to some severance pay.
Commissioner Wodtke understood that Item 5 states that
the County can terminate the contract for "cause" and
severance pay would come into effect, and Item 6 states that
either party can terminate 60 days at the end of the
contract. He was concerned that if sometime in the future
the County has an Attorney or an Administrator who is guilty
of a crime or a felony, that this wording would force the
County to pay severance. But, if the County decides that we
want to terminate them, and give them 60 day notice, there
is no severance pay.
Administrator Wright advised that severance pay is
addressed either in Ordinance 82-10 or his employment
contract. It says something to the effect that if the
Administrator or Attorney is fired for committing a felony,
etc., they do not receive any severance pay.
N®W 16 1983 37
Took 5 PAE 32
NOV 16 1983
Commissioner Wodtke preferred that severance pay be
limited to a maximum of 120-150 days after five years of
employment. He also suggested that only 60 days severance
pay be given after two or less years.
Chairman Bird agreed that the 6 -month severance pay was
excessive, and Administrator Wright interjected that his
was a highly competitive field and it is very difficult to
relocate. Actually, he would rather have the severance pay
than a pay raise. It is that important to him as it is
security for his family if his contract was terminated.
Commissioner Lyons suggested that 30 days be taken off
all down the line:
,Years of Service Severance Pay
�J
2 or less Q-A days �
3days
4 150 days
5 or more T W�xays
Attorney Brandenburg explained that under this
agreement they are committing to stay with the County for
the 2 -year period and at the end of that period, if they do
not want to continue on, they have to give 60 days notice
prior to the end of the 2 -year period, and if they did that,
it would not trigger the severance pay. If the County
decides to terminate the contract for good cause, it does
trigger the severance pay. If the County just decided to
dismiss them without good cause, it would constitute a
breach of contract.
Chairman Bird asked if there were any further changes
to the contract.
Commissioner Wodtke presented his third question in
regard to Paragraph 5: He asked if it could be stated
somewhere in that paragraph that should the County terminate
the Attorney or Administrator without cause, that a 60 -day
notice would trigger the severance pay provision; and then
38
in Paragraph 6, the employee can terminate 60 days in
advance of the contract and it does not trigger severance
pay.
Attorney Brandenburg stated that would be just a
clarification of Paragraph 6, meaning that the employment
contract may be terminated by the employee at the end of the
term of the contract or extended by giving the other party
written notice 60 days in advance, in which event no
severance.pay will be forthcoming. Furthermore in the event
that the County terminates the contract by giving 60 days
notice to the employee in advance of the end of the contract
term or extension, then the provision in Paragraph 5
requiring severance pay would be applicable.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously approved the changes
as discussed: the modification of
Item 5 and Item 6; the reduction of the
severance pay by 30 days in each category
and in Item 2, inserting the words "prior
to the beginning of the second year, and
additional years under this contract."
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
On behalf of Supervisor of Elections Rosemary Richey,
Chairman Bird requested the addition to today's Agenda of a
brief discussion re the opportunity to acquire some
additional voting machines free.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously added the above item
to today's Agenda.
39
NOU 16 1983 K 55 PAc, ?6
-NOV 16 1983 1' �Ac
Administrator Wright requested the addition to today's
Agenda of four items:
1. A brief discussion on the "Save Our Coasts"
presentation to be made in Tallahassee.
2. A brief report re Thanksgiving and
Christmas contributions made through the
Welfare Dept.
3. Scheduling of a joint workshop with the public
and the Planning Zoning Commission on December
14 to discuss land use plan, nodes, and some
general directions on how the Board would like
the Planning Dept. to proceed.
4. Discussion re County services provided in
Gifford.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously added the above four items
to today's Agenda, as requested by Administrator
Wright.
PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION PAVING
The hour of 9:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication,
to wit:
40
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as fol-
lows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and
ratified in their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drain-
age improvements to 11th Court, between
South Relief Canal and 4th Street; 38th Ave-
nue, between 10th Street and 12th Street; 7th
Court S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and4th
Street S.W., 8th Avenue S.W. between 3rd
Street S.W. and 5th Street S.W., heretofore
designated as Public Works Project No.'s
8311, 8323, 8233, 8234, is hereby approved
-subject to the terms outlined above and all
applicable requirements of Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner ------ who moved its adoption.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Richard N: Bird
Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons
Commissioner William C. Wodtke Jr.
The Chairman thereupon declared the
resolution duty passes and adopted this --
day of ------• 1983.
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County. Florida
By: Richard N. Bird, Chairman .
Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk
Approved as to Form
and Legal Sufficiency
By: Christopher J. Paull
Assistant County Attorney
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at
the same public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners shall also hear all interested
persons regarding the proposed roll for the
improvements described in the above resolu-
tion. The preliminary assessment roll is cur-
rently on file with the Public Works Depart-
ment and open for inspection between the
hours of 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday.
If a person decides to appeal any decision
made by the Commission with respect to any
matter considered at this hearing, he wig need
a record of the proceedings• and that, for
such purpose• he may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Indian River County
Michael Wright
County Administrator
Oct. 31, 1983.
Lk J
1.
ifD
r-4
d1
CO
C)
Z
PUBLIC NOTICE
Lots 1 through 29, Block E, as shown on
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Board of
the Plat of Indian River Heights Unit 8 Subdivi- .
County Commissioners of Indian River Coun-
sion on record in Plat Book 7, Page 31. of Pub-
ty, Florida, will hold a public hearing at 9:00
lic Records of Indian Railer County, Florida.
A.M. on Wednesday. November 16, 1983, in
Lots 1 through 17, Block F; Lots 18 through
'Block
the Commission Chambers located at 1840
34 G; as shown on the Plat of Indian
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, to consider
River Heights Unit 7 on record in Plat Book 7,
adoption of the following proposed resolution:
Page 29 of Public Records of Indian River
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
County, Florida.
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF
Lots 1 through 10, Block J; Lots 1 through
_
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
9, Block F; Lots 10 through 18, Block E: Lots
62128
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
11 through 20, Block K; as shown on the Plat
���
CERTAIN . PAVING AND DRAINAGE IM-
of Malaluka Gardens Subdivision on record in
a2�2
Published Daily
PROVEMENT TO 11TH COURT, BETWEEN
Plat Book 4, Page 10 of Public Records of In -
o Beach, Indian River County, Florida
SOUTH RELIEF CANAL AND 4TH STREET;
38TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 10TH AND 12TH
than River County, Florida.
Lots 1 through 14, Block 14; the Southwest
G W
STREET; 7TH COURT S.W., BETWEEN 3RD
"; 1/4 of the Northeast '/4 less Whispering Palms
C3 �a (t
ry¢ c n .p
STREET S.W. AND 4TH STREET S.W.; STH
" Unit 4 and less Whispering Palms Unit 5 as
CtltaV�)F IOIANtBj ER: STATE OF FLORIDA
AVENUE S.W. BETWEEN 3RD STREET S.W.
shown on the Plat of Whispering Palms Unit 4,
r � ��, re the u signed authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
AND STH STREET. S.W.; PROVIDING THE
Subdivision on record in Plat Book 5, Page 11
�ssayoh'at he is Bus ' Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
!fir Yero Beach River County, Florida; that the
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF IN-
STALLMENTS, AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
of Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
Cb n attached copy of advertisement, being
k%
OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
,
Lots 26 through 38, Block 15; Lots 15
WHEREAS, the County Public Works De-
through 28, Block 14; as shown on the Plat of
a
partment has received a public Improvement
Whispering Palms Unit 4 Subdivision on i
petition, signed by more than % of the owners
record in Plat Book 5, Page 11 of Public '
in the matter of �-r r 1%f! �1
of property in the area to be specially benefit-
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
-i- "-
ed, requesting paving and drainage improve-
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY
ments -to 11th Court, between South Relief
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1�
Canal and 4th Street; 38th Avenue, between
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as foi-
441
and 12th Street; 7th Court S.W., between
lows:
_ in the -_ Court, was pub.
3rd Street S.W. and 4th Street S.W.; 8th Ave-
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and
_
nue S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and 5th
ratified in their entirety.
lished in said newspaper in the issues of l��3
Street S.W.; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified
2. A project providing for paving and drain-
age improvements to 11th Court, between
and meets the requirements of Ordinance 81-
South Relief Canal and 4th Street; 38th Ave -
27, and design work including cost estimates
nue, between 10th Street,and 12th Street; 7th
has been completed by the Publid Works Divi-
Court S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and.4th
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper_ published at
sion• and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the
Street S.W., 8th Avenue S.W. between 3rd
Street S.W. and 5th Street S.W., heretofore
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
proposed improvements is $109,662.50' and .
designated a's Public Works Project No.'s
entered as second class mail matter at the post office m Vero Beach, in said Indian River COun-
WHEREAS, the special assessment pro-
8311, 8323, 8233. 8234, is hereby approved
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
vided hereunder shall, for any given record
-subject to the terms outlined above and all
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
owner of property within the area specially
applicable requirements of Ordinance 81-27.
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
benefited, be in an amount equal to that pro-
The foregoing resolution was offered by
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
portion of seventy-five percent (75%) of the
Commissioner ---- who moved its adoption.
a1t
' to bet-s ' �-�
total cost of the project which the number of
by
The motion was seconded by Commissioner
a --- and, upon being to a vote, the vote
Sworn and subscribed p" met _, __ day of _1� - A.D. 19
lineal feet of road frontage- owned the
owner bears to the total number of lin-
put
was as follows:
�given
eal feet of road frontage within the area spa-
Chairman Richard N. Bird
--t �t r .l, i8usinby�.panagen
1�
cially benefited, and shall become due and
Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Margaret C.
payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of
Commissioner Bowman
Indian River County ninety (90) days after the
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons
(Clerk of the Circuit Court- Indian River aunty, Florida)
final determination of the special assessment
- Commissioner William C. Wodtke Jr.
(SEAL)
pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
The Chairman thereupon declared the
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay
resolution duly passes and adopted this
the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) of the
day of ----, 1983.
total cost of the project; and
Board of County Commissioners
WHEREAS, any special assessment not
of Indian River County, Florida
paid within said ninety (90) day period shall
By: Richard N. Bird, Chairman
bear interest beyond the due date at a rate es-
Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk
tablished by the Board of County Commis- .
Approved as to Form
sioners at the time of preparation of the final
,and Local SuRtciencv
assessment roll, and shall be payable in two
(2) equal installments, the first to be made
twelve (12) months from the due date and the
second to be made twenty-four. (24) months
from the due date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature
and anticipated usage of the proposed im-
provements, the Board of County Commis-
sioners has determined that the following de-
scribed properties shall receive a direct and
special benefit from these improvements, to
wit:
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as fol-
lows:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and
ratified in their entirety.
2. A project providing for paving and drain-
age improvements to 11th Court, between
South Relief Canal and 4th Street; 38th Ave-
nue, between 10th Street and 12th Street; 7th
Court S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and4th
Street S.W., 8th Avenue S.W. between 3rd
Street S.W. and 5th Street S.W., heretofore
designated as Public Works Project No.'s
8311, 8323, 8233, 8234, is hereby approved
-subject to the terms outlined above and all
applicable requirements of Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by
Commissioner ------ who moved its adoption.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote
was as follows:
Chairman Richard N: Bird
Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Patrick B. Lyons
Commissioner William C. Wodtke Jr.
The Chairman thereupon declared the
resolution duty passes and adopted this --
day of ------• 1983.
Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County. Florida
By: Richard N. Bird, Chairman .
Attest: Freda Wright, Clerk
Approved as to Form
and Legal Sufficiency
By: Christopher J. Paull
Assistant County Attorney
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that at
the same public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners shall also hear all interested
persons regarding the proposed roll for the
improvements described in the above resolu-
tion. The preliminary assessment roll is cur-
rently on file with the Public Works Depart-
ment and open for inspection between the
hours of 8:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday.
If a person decides to appeal any decision
made by the Commission with respect to any
matter considered at this hearing, he wig need
a record of the proceedings• and that, for
such purpose• he may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made,
which record includes the testimony and evi-
dence upon which the appeal is to be based.
Indian River County
Michael Wright
County Administrator
Oct. 31, 1983.
Lk J
1.
ifD
r-4
d1
CO
C)
Z
N01i 16 1993tax
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/27/83:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: October 27, 1983
the Board of County
Commissioners 2�c
TROUGH: Michael Wright, Public Hearing to Consider Resolution
County Administrator SUBJECT:
Providing for the Paving of Portions of
38th Avenue, 11th Court, 7th Court S.W.,
8th Avenue S.W.- and to Consider Prelim-
inary Assessment Rolls
FROM: James w. Davis, P.E.;REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
1p
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
Valid petitions have been received from at least 66.70 of the
property owners of the following streets
1) 38th Avenue between 10th and 12th Street (Preliminary cost
$26,100.00) - 76% in favor
2) 11th Court South Relief Canal to 4th Street (Preliminary
cost (44, 276.00) - 67% in favor
3) 7th Court S.W. between 3rd Street S.W.and 4th Street S.W.
(preliminary cost $19,089.50) - 81% in favor
4) 8th Avenue S.W. between 3rd Street S.W. and 5th Street S.W.
(Preliminary cost $20,197.00) - 67% in favor
Preliminary assessment rolls have been prepared for the paving
and drainage improvements. The total costs of these projects
is approximately $109,662.50. There is approximately $110,000
to be set aside in FY 83-84 budget for Petition Paving Account
No. 703-214-541-35.39.
These roads will be constructed as revenue is received from other
already paved roads.
Also, advertisement of the Public Hearing and notification to the
Property Owners has been performed.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
After consideration of the public input provided at the Public
Hearing, it is recommended that motions be made to:
1) Adopt resolutions, providing for the paving and drainage
improvements for each petition paving project, subject to
the terms outlined in the Resolutions.
2) Approve preliminary assessment rolls including any changes
made as a result of the Public Hearing.
3) Allocate $109,662.50 from the Petition Paving account to
fund this work.
4) The Road and Bridge Division be notified to begin construction.
42
11th Court - South Relief Canal to 4th Street
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard.
A resident of 11th Court spoke from her seat and
expressed her delight that their street would finally be
paved.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board
unanimously closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board
unanimously adopted Resolution 83-113 providing
for certain paving and drainage improvements to
11th Court between South Relief Canal and 4th
Street.
43
NOV 16 1983
ao r�E� � n
I
NOV 16 1983
RESOLUTION NO. 83-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT TO 11TH COURT,
BETWEEN SOUTH RELIEF CANAL AND 4TH STREET;
PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF
INSTALLMENTS, AND ISL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of
Property in the area to be specially benefited, requesting paving and
drainage improvements to 11th Court, between South Relief Canal and 4th
Street; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been verified and meets the
requirements of Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost esti-
mates has been ccnPleted by the Public Works Division; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed im-
provements is $44,276.00; and
WHEREAS, the.special assessment provided hereunder shall,
for any given record owner of property within the area specially bene-
fited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five
percent(75%) of the total cost of the project which the number of lineal
feet of road frontage owned by the given owner bears to the total number
Of lineal feet of road frontage within the area specially benefited, and
shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of
Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of
the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County shall pay the retraining
twenty-five percent(25%) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date at a rate
established by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of
preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two
(2) equal installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months frau the
due date and the second to be made twenty-four(24) months fran the due
date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
usage of the proposed .improvements, the Board of County Commissioners
has determined that the following described properties shall receive a
direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit:
Lots 1 through 29, Block E, as shown on the Plat of
Indian River Heights Unit 8 Subdivision on record in Plat
Book 7 Page 31 of Public Records of Indian River County,
Florida.
Lots 1 through 17 Block F; Lots 18 through 34 Block G; as
shown on the Plat of Indian River Heights Unit 7 on
record in Plat Book 7 Page 29 of Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The forgoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
44
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
ments to lith Court, between South Relief Canal and 4th Street., hereto-
fore designated as Public Works Project No.8311, is hereby approved
subject to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of
Ordinance 81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock
Who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commis-
_ sinner Wodtke 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. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passes and adopted this 16th. day of November 1983.
BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
1 3y, r,ze- .
RICI4ARD N. BIRD
Chairman
Attest; a1ih-p
FR DA WRIUHT, Clerl
APPROVED IPTO FORM,
M'1• GC
HER J. PAULL
CountyAssistant •
45
NOV 16 198
N O V 16 1983 !'j�5 3
13
38th Avenue - between 10th Street and 12th Street
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard.
Mr. Joseph Carroll, 1160 38th Avenue, first wished to
say that he is in favor of paving the street, but was
concerned with the associated drainage work. He felt that
they have satisfactory swales and culverts in their area and
had experienced no severe flooding even during Hurricane
David. He pointed out that many of the residents have
concrete driveways that run out to the unpaved street and
would like to have a minimum of disruption and utilize the
existing swales as much as possible.
Chairman Bird advised Mr. Carroll that Public Works
Director Jim Davis and his staff will bend over backwards to
cooperate wherever possible.
Administrator Wright pointed out that the design is
completed on that street, and Project Manager Michelle Terry
stated that they have tried to maintain and keep all the
existing driveways on 38th Avenue. They had discussed this
a week ago and they are going to try to accommodate
everyone; however, there may be some adjustments that will
have to be taken under consideration.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, that the
Board adopt Resolution 83-114, providing for
certain paving and drainage improvement to 38th
Avenue, between 10th and 12th Street; with the
understanding that the project is to be completed
with the least disturbance of the drainage system
and driveways.
46
NOV 16 1983
Under discussion, Ms. Terry; explained that if the
County does have to remove a concrete drive, it is the
expense of the property owner to replace it. The
right-of-way ordinance states that no paving should occur
past the right-of-way line on a marl or dirt road, and the
road graders sometimes hook the edges of the concrete
driveways and cause a problem.
Chairman Bird believed it was the right approach' to
cooperate with the property owners, but felt that we should
not lock ourselves into a situation where we agree to
replace anything that is damaged.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUEST( 4:
The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously,
47
55 rkc.0014
J
NOV 16 1983
RFsowriON N0. 83-114
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUN'T'Y, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR
CER= PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT TO 38TH AVENUE,
BETWEEN 10TH AND 12TH STREET; PROVIDING THE TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF INSTALLMENTS, AND LEGAL
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA SPECIALLY BENEFITED.
WHEREAS, the County Public Works Department has received
a public improvement petition, signed by more than 2/3 of the owners of
property in the area to be specially benefited, requesting paving and
drainage improvements to 38th Avenue, between 10th and 12th Street; and
WHEREAS, the petition has been "verified and meets the
requirements of 'Ordinance 81-27, and design work including cost.esti-
mates has been completed by the Public Works Division; and
WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the proposed im-
provements is $26,100.00; and
WHEREAS, the special assessment provided hereunder shall,
for any given record owner of property within the area specially bene-
fited, be in an amount equal to that proportion of seventy-five
percent(75o) of the total cost of the project which the number of lineal
feet of road frontage owned by the given owner bears to the total number
Of lineal feet of road frontage within the area specially benefited, and
shall become due and payable at the Office of the Tax Collector of
Indian River County ninety (90) days after the final determination of
the special assessment pursuant to Ordinance 81-27; and
WHEEEA.S, Indian River County shall pay the remaining
twenty-five percent(25%) of the total cost of the project; and
WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid within said
ninety (90) day period shall bear interest beyond the due date.at a rate
established by the Board of County Commissioners at the tune of
Preparation of the final assessment roll, and shall be payable in two
(2) equal instal]Tents, the first to be made twelve (12) months frcen the
due date and the second to be made twenty-four(24) months frau the due
date; and
WHEREAS, after examination of the nature and anticipated
usage of the proposed improvements, the Board of County Commissioners
has determined that the following described properties shall receive a
direct and special benefit from these improvements, to wit:
Dots 1 through 10 Block J; Lots 1 through 9 Block F; Lots
10 through 18 Block E; Lots 11 through 20 Block K; as
shown on the Plat of Malaluka Gardens Subdivision on
record in Plat Book 4 Page 10 of Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
CSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The forgoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in
their entirety.
48
2. A project providing for paving and drainage improve-
nmts to 38th Avenue, between 10th Street and 12th Street, heretofore
designated as Public Works Project No.8323, is hereby approved subject
to the terms outlined above and all applicable requirements of Ordinance
81-27.
The foregoing resolution was offered by amissioner
Lyons Who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Canmis-
sioner 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. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passes and adopted this 16th . day of November , 1983.
Attest: 1_ r
FRIDA WRIGHT, Cler
APPW'C
AND'LL
Assistant County Attorney
NOV 16 1983
BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN Rim COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
RICHARD N. BIRD
Chairman
49
BOCA rAuT
I
NOV 16 1993
7th Court S.W. - between 3rd Street S.W. and 4th Street S.W.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that 7th Court S.W. had
been incorrectly advertised and recommended that the Public
Hearing be postponed to a later date and properly advertised
in order to consider other methods of assessment that are
not based on front footage alone.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board
unanimously postponed the Public Hearing on
7th Court S. W. between 3rd Street and 4th
Street S.W. to a later, properly advertised date,
in order to consider other methods of assessment
that are not based on front footage alone.
Attorney Richard Bogosian, representing Mr. Nickerson,
who had purchased the Renick property in.Whispering Palms,
pointed out that Mr. Nickerson had not signed the petition
which would result in his being assessed $7,146. His client
was presently in the hospital, and had asked him to
represent him today.
Commissioner Lyons suggested that we withhold
discussion on this matter as it is going to come back at a
later date.
Commissioner Wodtke suggested that Attorney Bogosian
meet with staff prior to the rescheduled Public.Hearing.
8th Avenue S.W. - between 3rd St. S.W. and 5th St. S.W.
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard.
Mr. Ralph Vandenburg, 349 8th Avenue S.W., stated that
while all of the residents want the road paved, they do not
want it paved to the extent proposed. The people do not
really want the big swales to go in front of their property,
50
NOV 16 1983
but would like to see if the road -could be extended similar
to the way it is paved on 8th Avenue just to the south of
their area. Mr. Vandenburg reported that during the last
7h years, their road used to be graded regularly and they
never had a drainage problem at that time. He did not know
if paving would complicate the drainage.
Mr. Vandenburg presented the following petition signed
by 17. owners of the 20 occupied homes of the total of•26
homes:
SAID PETITION IS HEREBY MADE A PART OF THE MINUTES
51
�+K E5 r��
Nov 16 1983
THE UNDERSIGNED, HAVING PETITIONED THE COUNTY FOR
PAVING OF 8th AVE. S.W. WISH TO EXPRESS TO THE
COUNTY COMMISSION THAT THE PROPOSAL IS NOT AS WE
ANTICIPATED. WE FEEL THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE T(DCOSTLY
AND WOULD LIKE A REVISION OF THE PLAN. IF THIS CANNOT
BE DONE WE WOULD PREFER REGULAR GRADING AND MAINTENANCE.
Mr. Vandenburg advised that although the residents want
the road improved, they felt the way .it is proposed, is too
52
costly, because of the additional expenses that would have
to be borne by the property owners in the event they have to
buy the culverts, repave their driveways, etc., and they
would like to see the plan revised.
Administrator Wright recommended that the matter be
taken back to Public Works for consideration of drainage
revision and then readvertised for a Public Hearing.
Mr. Michael Ellison, 359 8th Avenue S.W., believed the
main reason the road has deteriorated is because it has only
been graded once since 1977. It is full of holes that are
15-20 feet in diameter and hold water. He stated that he
has called the Road & Bridge Dept. on the average of once a
month during the last year and did not receive any response
except that he was told that the street was County owned but
was not budgeted for maintenance.
Project Manager Michelle Terry advised_ that prior to
the development of that area, there was no need to get in
there and grade, but she did not know why it is not being
graded now. She advised that Public Works Director Davis
has indicated that if the Board approved the paving, the
Road & Bridge Dept. would go in there and fill in the holes
in preparation for paving.
Mr. Vandenburg asked if this would affect the grading
maintenance in the meantime and Chairman Bird advised that
the County has a responsibility to maintain County roads
until such time a decision is made to pave. He requested
Administrator Wright to check and find out why this road has
not been regularly maintained.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
unanimously closed the Public Hearing.
53
NdV16193 �x 5.?AC13
}
J
ROV 16 1993 IACD;, 1
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, that the
Board postpone the Public Hearing and authorize
the Public Works Department to work with the
property owners to consider a drainage revision on
the 8th Ave. S.W. paving project, as recommended
by the County Administrator; and to reschedule and
properly advertise another Public Hearing in the
future.
Mr. Ellison asked if the next public hearing could be
held in the evening and Commissioner Lyons advised that
before it comes back before the Commissioners at a Public
Hearing, there will be another informal evening meeting with
the property owners and Public Works Dept. staff
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
APPROVAL OF SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS — CHANGE
ORDER #2
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/7/83:
TO: The Honorable Members of theDATE: November 7; 1983 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS - CHANGE ORDER
FROM: Terrance G. Pinto REFERENCES: Contract Change Order from
Utility Services Director Water Services of America
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Water Services of Americahave requested a price adjustment for
manufacturers field services in accordance with Section C. Bid and
Section 2A, paragraph 2A(3)d of the contract documents. The contract
will be increased by thirteen thousand six hundred fourteen and
3811100 dollars ($13,614.38).
RECO` 111ENDATION :
Staff recommends the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the change
order.
54
Utilities Director Pinto reported that during the
finalization of the contracts for the reverse osmosis plant,
it was found that Water Services of America, the contractor
for the installation of the filters and membranes and all
the controls, had exceeded the time allocated in their
contract. Their initial bill was some $18,000. The
engineer and our staff went through the documentation of the
bill, .to qualify the various items, and came up with•a
figure of $13,000. The contract spelled out specifically
the number of hours that were allowed for startup and also
set a per diem cost if the time allowed was exceeded.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the
Board approve Change Order #2, an increase
of $13,614.38, to be paid to Water Services
of America, as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Wodtke realized that there have been many
problems on this project and asked if this delay was due to
the problems that they had with the insulation.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that they had
a removed the items that they spent time on due to faulty
equipment. Many items became a judgment call. He felt that
they had cut as much as possible under the terms of the
contract. In addition, there were problems that came about
after the completion of the plant -- they were hit by
lightning and had to call in a company on an emergency basis
to do those repairs.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
55
NOV 16 1983 rAG.i Al,�
N O V 16 1993
Form FmliA 424-7 UNITLLU S7*n'I'1•.S UL• VARTMENT Ul- AGRIC:UL7 URL f•OHM APPROVED UMH No. 40.04500'
:!Ker. 6-11-80) FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION ORDER NO.
F tF ti
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER DATE
Water System Improvements, South County Water -System STATE
CONTRACT FOR Florida
Contract Part 11 -- R. 0. E ui ment couNTr
OWNER andian River
Indian River County, Florida
ro ----Water---Ser-vices-of•-America,• -Inc..
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract plans and specifications:
Descriptiun of Changes DECREASE INCREASE
(Supplemental Plans and Specifu•atiuns Attached) in Contract Price in Contract Price
1.Price Adjustment for Manufacturers Field
$ $ 131614.38
services in accordance with Section C, Bid and
Section 2A, paragraph 2A(3)d of the Contract
Documents.
............................................. ..... ......... ................ ....... --
TOTALS $ .................... .$..1.3.,614.38 :..
NET CHANGE: 1N CONTRACT RICE
JUSTIFICATION:. ........ 3 ...............
See attachement
The amount of the Contract will be (W000 (Increased) By The Sum Of: Thi rtpan thnimand Six hu-- unfir.-Ati
fourteen and3Winn
Dollars ($L3,6 -14,3,a-).
ontract
$1.3.,,,6143,a).
on/ract Total including this and previous Change Orders Will Be: -0gin W1 jj 104
! ne thousand six hundred seventy two and 3$x100
c, I Dollars ($ 1,231,672.38
iejlontract Period Provided for Completion Will Be d) ) (Unchanged
a. ) Days
CA)*h tis document will ome a supplement to thecontract ll provisions will apply hereto.
co i
aRt,eited
0. 7l 7 a (Owner)
mended
(0>Vner'r A,t'hi sect/ Engin eer
Approved By FmHA )
(Contractor) "(Date)
(Nance and Title) (Date)
This Information will be used as record of any
ch+f+ees to the original comtructloh contract. Number Copies required: 4 No further monies or other benefits may be paid out under this
Time to Complete: 30 min. program unless ties report Is COmpleted and filed as required by
existing taw and regulatloni (T C.F.R. Part 1824).
•u.aao tJ�o�tsrtst4 FmHA 424-7 (Rev. 6-11-80)
56
JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 2
Water System Improvements Contract Part II
R. 0. Equipment
South County Water System
Indian River County, Florida
Section 2A, paragraph 2.A (3)d of the contract documents for contract part II
states: ., .
"The Contractor shall furnish, at his expense, the services of a factory trained
serviceman to check and certify the installation of the equipment, instruct the
Owners personnel, pl&ce the equipment in service and calibrate and adjust each iter,
of equipment. Service shall be furnished for at least ninety (90), eight hour
man -days at the job site, including a minimum of thirty (30) days during start up.
Any additional services will be paid for at a per diem rate as specified by the
Bidder in the appropriate space in the Bid".
Water Services of America, Ing. bid a per diem rate of $530.00 per eight hour day
.as stated in their original Bid. This Change Order represents costs incurred by
Water Services of America, Inc. for technical services provided in addition to the
90 days specified in Section 2A, paragraph 2,a (3)d'of the Contract Documents.
The total amount invoiced by Water Services of America, Inc, is $18,583.13, which
represents a total of 280.5 hours of additional tecnical service. (see attachments)
After evaluation of the timesheets representing the 280.5 hours of service, it was
determined that 75 hours of this total was service associated with corrective work
and punch list items which are not covered by the specified per diem rate.
Therefore, justification for change order #2 is based on additional technical servi
provided by Water Services of America, Inc. for 205.5 hours or a total Contract
increase of $13,614.38
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
57
NOV 16 1983
July 26, 1983'
' C
�
JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 2
Water System Improvements Contract Part II
R. 0. Equipment
South County Water System
Indian River County, Florida
Section 2A, paragraph 2.A (3)d of the contract documents for contract part II
states: ., .
"The Contractor shall furnish, at his expense, the services of a factory trained
serviceman to check and certify the installation of the equipment, instruct the
Owners personnel, pl&ce the equipment in service and calibrate and adjust each iter,
of equipment. Service shall be furnished for at least ninety (90), eight hour
man -days at the job site, including a minimum of thirty (30) days during start up.
Any additional services will be paid for at a per diem rate as specified by the
Bidder in the appropriate space in the Bid".
Water Services of America, Ing. bid a per diem rate of $530.00 per eight hour day
.as stated in their original Bid. This Change Order represents costs incurred by
Water Services of America, Inc. for technical services provided in addition to the
90 days specified in Section 2A, paragraph 2,a (3)d'of the Contract Documents.
The total amount invoiced by Water Services of America, Inc, is $18,583.13, which
represents a total of 280.5 hours of additional tecnical service. (see attachments)
After evaluation of the timesheets representing the 280.5 hours of service, it was
determined that 75 hours of this total was service associated with corrective work
and punch list items which are not covered by the specified per diem rate.
Therefore, justification for change order #2 is based on additional technical servi
provided by Water Services of America, Inc. for 205.5 hours or a total Contract
increase of $13,614.38
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
57
NOV 16 1983
July 26, 1983'
NOV 16 1993
.5 ?Aa'%!45
DISCUSSION RE COMMITMENT TO FURNISH WATER TO AREAS OF COUNTY
ON SEPTIC TANKS
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 10/5/83:
VERO BEACH - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF REALTORS°
2182 Ponce De Leon Circle
Post Office Drawer G
R E A LTO R O Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Phone (305) 567.3510
October 5, 1983
_'.7 -
The Honorable Chairman Richard Bird
and Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street -
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Chairman Bird and Commissioners:
At the recent on-site sewage (septic tank) workshop which was attended by
yourselves, health officials and interested members of the community, you
will recall that Mike Galani.s :Mated that his office could proceed with
issuing permits for multi -bedroom homes in areas that would otherwise be
restricted to smaller dwellings because of lot size IF the county would
commit to providing public water to those areas.
7n line with those discussions and our position set forth in a letter to
you dated June 26, 1983, a copy of which is enclosed, we request that
this matterbe given your formal consideration as an agenda item for a
future meeting of ycurJboard.
Should we be able to provide any assistance to you or if you would
welomne informal discussion before the matter is scheduled, please do
not hesitate to,,contact us.
Sincerely,
Paul' E. Koehler
President
Paul E. Koehler, President of the Vero Beach -Indian
River County Board of Realtors, addressed the Board in
regard to House Bill 47B which addresses -the use of wells
and septic tanks, and which the realtors feel is too
restrictive in regard to the size of houses that can be
built on these lots. He emphasized that the availability of
water and utility service will determine the future growth
of Indian River County. In order to further protect the
quality of our groundwater, the Board of Realtors wished the
58
- M
I
Commission to give serious consideration to the following
points:
1. that the county formulate longi; -ranee planning; to
determine the future demands for public wader and
that miblic water be provided to approved sub-
divisions when they become 50% developed and
occupied with dwelling units;
2. that the county require its residents to hook-up to
existing; public water when it is available;
3. that the county standardize the placement of wells
and septic tanks (this is included in the subdivision
and platting ordinance);
4. that the standardized placement require septic tanks
to be located in the front yards and wells in rear.
Chairman Bird suggested that the Board address each
item separately, and Administrator Wright suggested that
items 3 & 4 be taken first.
Items #3 & #4
Administrator Wright felt we should have standard-
ization but should not specify that septic tanks be placed
in the front or back in order to give us the flexibility in
each subdivision.
In the ensuing discussion, it was noted that it is
going to be difficult to adopt a policy that would apply to
subdivisions that are already platted.
Attorney Brandenburg advised that a vehicle for
standardization is provided in the new subdivision
ordinance, which requires staff to investigate every
subdivision to see if there is any difficulty with an
individual being able to place a septic tank in a specific
pattern. If so, they will then require deed restrictions
placed on the plat itself saying that the tank be placed
either in the front or the back, respectfully.
Michael Galanis, Director of Environmental Health,
reported that his department is presently surveying property
NOV 16 1983
59
BOOK 55
rnif.346
NOV 16 198305 PACE 347.
to determine where a septic tank should be placed, and the
survey is revealing a lot of unbuildable lots.
Local builder, Cliff Reuter, felt that before any law
is passed, some provision should be made to have the
flexibility of placing the septic tanks in either the front
or back yards, and suggested that the Building Dept. come up
with some recommendations.
Items #1 & #2
Administrator Wright advised that there is an ordinance
that provides for mandatory hookup to water; however, the
County does not enforce it as the demand is greater than the
supply.
Mr. Koehler felt that the problem is not with demanding
that homes be hooked up to County water, but rather by doing
it on a subdivision by subdivision basis. He believed we
would have better control if we set policy now and required
a subdivision to hook up at 50% occupancy.
Administrator Wright estimated it would cost a resident
about $1,200 to hook up to county water. If that cost were
postponed until a development was 50% occupied, the problem
would be compounded since residents would have already paid
to put down their own wells for water.
It was stressed that property owners should recognize
that their lots would be worth at least $1000 more if water
was available.
Director Pinto felt that we should be much more
concerned with the location of the wastewater.
Local realtor, Ray Scent, stated that our problem is
not providing water to subdivisions, but rather providing
for wastewater removal. He suggested that we stop talking
"water" and start talking "sewage". The water is pure, but
will remain contaminated until the.wastewater solution is
found.
.M
se �
Various alternatives were debated on how to expand the
water lines, such as on a petition basis, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the first item should be to
expand the water system, but we would be fooling ourselves
if we did not start looking into County -wide wastewater
facilities.
After considerable discussion, it was agreed that this
subject was important enough to hold a workshop and
suggested that it be scheduled sometime during December.
DISCUSSION RE SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK PARCELS
Chairman Bird presented the Parks & Recreation
Committee's recommendations.
The Chairman informed the Board that out of 40 some
parcels, they chose 5 parcels to start on and wanted to
present the process they were following to the Board for
approval.
Committee member, Al MacAdam, explained that his
assignment was to determine whether those parcels were of
any value to the County. If it was determined that any
parcels could be sold, the committee would propose that the
funds received be placed in escrow for the sole purpose of
providing capital funds to be used to develop our principal
county parks that are easily accessible.
At present, members of the committee have investigated
14 parcels, and have found that almost without exception
none of these parcels are accessible to the general public.
While some might be developed into "neighborhood parks",
today's costs of such a program would be unjustified given
the Parks Department's limited budget. Other parcels have
no potential whatsoever.
Mr. MacAdam gave the following summary of alternatives
for these 14 parcels:
N O V 16 1983
Potential building lots: 4 parcels
N 0 V 16 1933
Potential govt agency takeover/use: 4 parcels
Potential neighborhood assoc. takeover: 2 parcels
What do we do with these: 2 parcels
Questionable ownership: 2 parcels
(After further investigation, such as title search,
some parcels may move from one category to another.)
Mr. MacAdam pointed out that untouched in this report, are
such questions as the County's insurance liabilities on
these parcels, the task of policing problem parks and the
more positive approach of working with the Indian River
County School District to utilize school recreational
facilities all year round.
Mr. MacAdam asked the Board to authorize further
investigation of 70 other County -owned parcels, and
Chairman Bird suggested we establish some sort of a
procedure so that we can bring these parcels before the
Board on a case by case basis.
Attorney Brandenburg explained that each one of these
parcels have been acquired by the County under different
situations, and in order to dispose of them, we need
abstracts. They have gone ahead and had abstract work done
on these initial parcels, but would like authorization to
continue abstract work on the remainder of the parcels.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, that the Board
authorize the County Attorney to proceed with
abstracts on the remaining parcels.
Mr. MacAdam explained that they will start with 24
parcels and do their homework. It may set the pattern for
pursuing the other parcels..
62
I
Nov 16 1983
Chairman Bird stated that the Committee will bring
these parcels to the Board in groups of five.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously.
Commissioner Lyons thanked Mr. MacAdam and his
committee for their efforts and good work in this matter.
Administrator Wright reported that they are pulling
some assessments on a few parcels that are not under the
Parks Dept. and will be bringing those before the Board. He
felt that there should be a special account established for
proceeds from any sales to be used specifically for
development or acquisition of park property.
Charlie Parks, member of the Parks & Recreation
Committee, did not think he could add to Mr. MacAdam's
report, but felt we should not overlook large lots such as
in Sebastian Highlands that could be used for recreational
centers, and also take a good long look at the smaller areas
because some of them might be very valuable.
Mr. Ray Scent, local realtor, was glad to note the tack
that has been taken in regard to being sure that the County
properly earmarks any monies from the sale of these
properties for the development and maintenance of parks that
are in use. He felt that the reason these particular parks
are not "in use" is because they are hidden and people are
not told these parcels are parks. A good example of one is
on little Orchid Island off State Road #510. There are
private road signs posted, but those are public roads, and
the general public does not realize there is a park area
down in there.
Mr. Scent urged the Board to consider all aspects
before indiscriminately putting land up for sale. He felt
that it is good that we are talking about it today, and
63
NOV 16 1993 roc
maybe more people will get excited about the fact that there
is land out there that we own and are being deprived of
using.
Chairman Bird thanked Mr. Scent and assured him that
the Board will consider the parcels on a case by case basis.
DISCUSSION REGARDING HANDICAPPED PARKING & BUILDING
VIOLATIONS
Mr. Alexander M. Smith addressed the Board from his
wheelchair in back of the chambers in regard to numerous
violations in regard to handicapped parking and building
requirements. He felt that the knowledge of handicapped
parking requirements by County employees is nil, as he has
called many timea and they finally sent out some literature
on handicapped requirements.
Mr. Smith cited the following situations:
1) City Bank at U.S. #1 and 12th Street does not have
a wheelchair ramp.
2) Morrison's restroom facilities cannot accommodate a
wheelchair.
3) The Donut Shoppe has changed their handicapped
parking signs. Handicapped parking is not to be
in a traffic area.
He also cited the County for a violation of the handi-
capped requirements in this.Administration Building in that
the outer doors to the part of the building containing the
Commission Chambers are too narrow and two doors need to be
opened to allow a wheelchair to pass through. That is a
fire hazard. In addition, there are no proper signs at"the
Indian River Memorial Hospital and the Medical Center on
37th Street.
Mr. Smith explained that his specialized van with a
wheelchair lift requires almost two full 10 -ft parking
spaces to allow him to get in and out. He advised that
64 �.
handicapped people using a specialized van cannot park at
K -Mart, Morrisons, etc. and suggested that some large
parking spaces be provided for people using specialized vans
and that they be designated for "wheelchaired handicapped
only."
Building Director Rymer stated that her staff is
knowledgeable in regard to handicapped laws: the laws are
applied and followed to the letter; and they call the Dept.
of Community Affairs for interpretation of Florida Statute
whenever there is some question.
Evidently, the 12 -ft. handicapped parking spaces are not
wide enough to accommodate a van with a wheelchair lift and
she doubted whether the Legislature had taken that under
consideration. She confirmed that the normal parking space
is 10 feet wide.
Director Rymer continued that handicapped signs are
furnished free by the D.O.T. in Ft. Pierce, and she has been
told that a ticket cannot be issued on illegal handicapped
parking if a sign is not posted. This is true of all
parking spaces that just have pavement markings.
Director Rymer explained that a building under
construction or already built when the law went into effect
in 1974 is not required to meet the current guidelines.
However, efforts have been made in public buildings
constructed after that date to provide easier access to the
handicapped, such as the new ramp at the Vero Beach City
Hall. The Donut Shoppe apparently was renovated prior to
the law going into effect and the law was not retroactive.
Director Rymer reported that she had contacted the
people at the bank and was assured that they are in the
process of selecting a contractor to construct a wheelchair
ramp in the very near future.
Chairman Bird reported that the architects for the
Administration Building had tried to address all the
65
NOV 16 1993
6Q8K Q";5
NOV 16 1983 .55 PAU-153
requirements for the handicapped and if there is something
here that doesn't meet the code, it certainly was not
intentional.
Mr. Smith suggested that they ask the handicapped what
is needed, and in the meantime, he will park his special van
on an angle using two spaces, and if the Police want to
arrest him, they will have to find some way to carry him up
the stairs.
Chairman Bird suggested that Mrs. Rymer confer with the
County Attorney on the interpretation of the handicapped
laws as the Commission does want to help the handicapped and
if there are things, that need to be changed, and if it is
within the law, they will'be corrected.
CONSIDERATION OF HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Attorney Brandenburg reported that at the meeting of
October 6th, the Hutchinson Island Resource Planning
Management Committee had adopted the plan. The Dept. of
Community Affairs has been going over it, and Dr. DeGrove's
recommendation is scheduled to be distributed on November
18th. There will be a meeting of the Cabinet aides on
Tuesday, November 22, and the Cabinet will consider the
recommendation on November 29th. The Attorney suggested
postponing this matter until after November 18th, so that
the Board will be aware of Mr. DeGrove's recommendation and
also suggested holding a special meeting on Monday, November
21, so that the Board can take some positive action and
convey it to the Cabinet on November 22nd.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board
unanimously postponed further consideration of
the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan
until the Special Meeting of November 21, 1983,
at 1:30 p.m.
Attorney Brandenburg reported that he has drafted a
lengthy resolution and asked the Commissioners for their
input prior to the meeting of the 21st.
ADDITIONAL FINAL ASSESSMENT - PETITION PAVING - 10th COURT &
11th AVENUE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/2/83:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: November 2, 1983 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Additional Final Assessment - Petition
Paving
10th Court - 2nd Street to 4th Street
11th Avenue - 2nd Street to So. Relief
Canal
REFERENCES:
i
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
10th Court and 11th Avenue have required additional asphalt to be applied to
obtain the design thickness. The additional cost for this extra asphalt
with previous cost data is:
Preliminary Cost/FF Cost Before Extra Asphalt/FF Additional Cost/FF
10th Court $8.012 $6.4794 $1.4176
11th Avenue $5.655 $3.7686 $1.4382
Preliminary Estimate Before Extra Asphalt Additional Cost
10th Court $26,169.25
11th Avenue $16,365.20
$21,119.46 $4,713.06(1)
$10,119.07 $3,970.10(2)
(1) Cost after 75% P.O. Assessment = $3,534.80
(2) Cost after 75% P.O. Assessment = $2,977.58
All construction costs are under the original estimates. The Additional
Final Assessment Rolls have been prepared and are ready to be delivered to
the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in
two equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date
and the second to be made twenty-four months from the due date at the rate
of interest established by the Board of County Commissioners. The due date
is 90 days after the final determination of the special assessment. The
interest -rate shall be 120- per annum.
Aw
NOV 16 1983
N O V 16 1983
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS
91%R TAG.. ; 53'
Since the final assessment to be benefited owners will be less than computed
on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative presented is to
approve the final assessment rolls.
RECOMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Additional Final Assessment Rolls for the paving
of 10th Court and 11th Avenue be approved by the Board of County Commissioners
and that they be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for
collection.
Administrator Wright explained the problems the County
has encountered on 10th Court and 11th Avenue and reported
that he had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Tyson of
Dickerson, Inc.-, this morning as to what had happened on
that street. Rather than proceed with the additional
assessment roll at this time, he suggested that the
Commission defer this matter until he has met once more with
Dickerson, Inc.
Commissioner Wodtke asked if a public hearing was
necessary for additional assessments, and Attorney
Brandenburg advised that it will be handled as a
modification of the original final assessment roll and
suggested that the Board just delete this item from the
Agenda at this time and reschedule it in a proper manner.
The Board agreed to delete this item from today's
Agenda and reschedule it at a later date.
TRACKING STATION PARK - DIV. II - CHANGE ORDER NO. II -1 AND
REQUEST FOR FINAL PAYMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/9183:
19-7
M
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 9, 1983 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis P'.E. ,
Public Works Directo
SUBJECT: Change Order No. II -1 and Request
for Final Payment - Indian River
County Tracking Station Recreatic
Area - Division II - Dune Structu
and Lifeguard Stand .
REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS '
Indian River County and John Hamilton and Sons, Inc., entered into
an agreement on June 1, 1983 for construction of the dune walkovers
and lifeguard stand at the Indian River County Tracking Station
Recreation Area. The cost of the original contract work was
$59,360.24. A Change Order is recommended to add $93.79 to the
Contract. This change was for the installation of plexiglass
windows in lieu of glass in the Lifeguard Tower. Therefore, the
contract cost will be $59,454.03. The notice -to -proceed was
issued for work to begin June 13, 1983, and work was completed
on or before October 13, 1983.
The materials supplied and work performed does meet the contract
requirements. The work has been inspected and there are no
objections to final payment.
The ramp leading down from the Lifeguard Tower to the beach was
destroyed by an "act of God" during a severe storm in early
September. The ramp was built according to plans and inspected
by County inspectors. There was nothing the Contractor could have
done to prevent the damage, except remove the ramp from the structure.
The Division of Public Works will design a new ramp structure or
similar device for the tower when a lifeguard is hired to man the
facility.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The following alternatives are presented:
Alternative No. 1
Approve Final Payment in the amount of $6,029.87 for Division II,
Dune Structures and accept the work as complete. The one year
warranty period will begin November 16, 1983, upon approval of
Final Payment. Accept -staff recommendation to approve Change Order
No. II -1 in the amount of $93.79 and finalize the Contract. This
action would result in full payment, including the ramp that was
destroyed.
NOV 16 1983
900K � PA��
1110 16 1993
0
Alternative No. 2
tioK 55 PA057
Since the September storm destroyed the ramp leading from the Life-
guard Stand prior to the County acceptance of the project, the
Contractor is technically responsible. The cost for materials
and labor to construct the ramp is approximately $200. The County
could deduct this amount from the Final Pyament and instruct the
Contractor to delete this work from the Contract by Change Order.
To reconstruct the ramp at this time may result in storm damage
in the next 4 months. The second alternative would be:
1) Approve Change Order No. II -1 which reduces the Contract
.amount $106.21. This amount reflects a $200 deduct for
the ramp and an additional cost of $93.79 for plexiglass.
2) Approve final payment in the amount -of $5,829.87 and accept
the work.
3) Authorize the one year warranty period to begin November
16, 1983.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative No. 2 is recommended whereby the County would
1). Approve Final Payment in the amount of $5,829.87 and accept
the work.
2) Approve Change Order No. II -1 which decreases the Contract
amount by $106.21.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board
unanimously approved Alternate No. 2 to approve
Change Order No. II -1, Tracking Station Park,
Div. II, decreasing the contract amount by
$106.21; and accepted the work and approved
final payment in the amount of $5,829.87, as
recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
69 -a
ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR LANDFILL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/9/83:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: November 9, 1983 FILE:
_ THE BOARD OF COUNTY Ca1MISSIONERS
PROPOSED AGREEMENT ADDENDUM
THRU: Terrance G. Pinto POST, BUCIQ.h'Y, SOM & JERNIGAN, INC.
Utilities Direct SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR OBTAINING A DER OPERATION
,j PERMIT FOR THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
LANDFILL AND PREPARING A GROUNDWATER
MONITORING PROGRAM
_ FROM: Ronald R. BrooksDe REFERENCES: Specific pecific Services Addendum to
Environmental Engineering Agreement dated April 21, 19821
' Specialist/Utility Department Project No. 069
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On April 21, 1982, the Board of County Commissioners approved an agreement for the
services of Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., to apply to the Department
of Environmental Regulation for a permit to operate the Indian River County Landfill.
The application was submitted but subsequently withdrawn when difficulties were
encountered in obtaining the permit and Indian River County was transferred from
the jurisdiction of the DER office in Port St. Lucie to the DER office in Orlando.
The County Landfill is presently being operated without a DER operation permit. In
addition, recent changes in Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17-4, require that
a DER approved groundwater monitoring program be established at the Landfill.
The attached is an Addendum to the Agreement approved April 21, 1982, for professional
services whereby Post,Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc.,would continue to serve as
Indian River County's Solid Waste Consulting Engineer. The engineering firm proposes
to reapply to the Department of Environmental Regulation for an operation permit
for the Landfill. Further, they are to perform a hydrogeological study and prepare a
groundwater monitoring program for DER's approval.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
1. The attached are Addendums to the existing April 21, 1982, Agreement which provide --
for additional services. Acceptance of the Addendums will provide the following
advantages:
a. The application for an operation permit will expeditiously be submitted in
accordance with DER's request.
b. Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., are familiar with the Landfill and
have an extensive amount of information already on file that DER will require.
c. Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan,
hydrogeogical study on the landfill
monitoring program will only require
70
NOV 16 1983
Inc., has previously performed a
site and preparation of the grotmdwater
the updating and expansion of the study.
r5 PA�i-358
BOX
NOVI 1933
. V5 PAGE2,59
Z. The required engineering services could be put out for bid with the following
disadvantages:
a. A new firm will be unfamiliar with the landfill site and will have to
perform an extensive amount of work that has already been completed.
b. Submittal of an application will be delayed for a period of time that
may not be acceptable to DER.
RECONINENTDATION:
Staff recommends that the Agreement Addendums for the professional services of
Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., be approved and that the Board authorize
the Chairman to sign the Addendums on the County's behalf.
Utilities Director Pinto presented staff's
recommendation.
Commissioner Scurlock questioned continuing long term
relations with firms without having some type of
renegotiation. He was., not questioning the firm's
performance, but felt we should take advantage of the
competitive market.
Administrator Wright agreed, but felt that in this
particular case, it would be best to continue with the
present firm.
Director Pinto explained that the firm had done a
considerable amount of work on the original permit
application with the Port St. Lucie office. However, when
it came time to work with the Orlando office, we had to
start all over again. If we were to switch consultants at
this time, much of the work would have to be redone and we
would end up paying twice for the same job, and he felt -that
it would be best to retain these consultants. Mr. Pinto
reported that they had negotiated the terms of the agreement
to a point of where they have agreed on a not to exceed
amount, which is basically, $50,000 for the two Specific
Service Agreements.
Mr. William Simpson of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan,
Inc., pointed out that this particular contract did not
include a markup on the hydrogeological survey. They put
71
this into the contract just exactly as they had received it
from the subcontractor. They based their fee on a
substantially lower overhead and profit figure than usual
because they are sympathetic to the County's being forced to
reapply through no fault of its own.
ON MOTION,by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously approved the Agreement
Addendums for the professional services of
Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc., as
recommended by staff, and authorized the
Chairman's signature.
ADDENDUMS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK
FINAL ASSESSMENT - PAVING OF 23RD AVENUE - 1ST ST., S.W. TO
4TH ST.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/1/83:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: November 1, 1983 FILE: s
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Michael Wright,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Y'
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITION
Final Assessment
SUBJECT: 23rd Avenue - 1st Street S.W. to 4th St
REFERENCES:
The paving of 23rd Avenue is complete. The final cost and preliminary
estimate for the work was (N.I.C. recording fees):
Final Cost/FF Prelim. Cost/FF Final Cost Preliminary Estimate
23rd Avenue $6.416 $8.3365 $41,590.54 $55,120.36
All construction costs are under the original estimates. The Final Assessment
Rolls have been prepared and are ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the
Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments,
the first to be made twelve months from the due de.te and the second to be
made twenty-four months from the due date at the rate of interest established
by the Board of County Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the
final determination of the special assessment. The interest rate shall be
120 per annum.
72
NOV 16 1983 -
L
NOV 16 1993
IkK 5.5 ?4.L391' -
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessment to be benefited owners will be less than computed
on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative presented is to
approve the final assessment rolls.
RECONA MATIONS AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of 23rd.
Avenue be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that they be
transmitted to the Office of the -Clerk to the Board for collection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the
Board unanimously approved the final
assessment for the paving of 23rd Ave.
between 1st St.'S.w. to 4th St. at an
interest rate of 12% per annum.
Said Assessment Roll is on file in the Office of the Clerk
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
12:00 Noon for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 P.M. All Board
members were present except for Commissioner Lyons who was
temporarily delayed.
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING C-lA TO C-1 (POLISH -AMERICAN CLUB)
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:
73
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 Vera Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of dyz .2Z/ -12e-y -
rP13
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 su
(SEAL)
day of � A.D.
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption
of a County Ordinance rezoning land from:
C -1A, 'Restricted Commercial Dis-
trict" to C-1, "Commercial District."
The subject property presently owned
by the Polish American Club of Vero
Beach is located on the east side of
U.S. Highway at, north of 73rd Street.
The subject property is described as:
THAT PART OF THE NORTH 'h OF
THE NORTH y2 OF THE SE '/4 OF THE
NW 1/4 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 32
SOUTH, RANGE •39 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DE-
SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
FROM THE SW CORNER OF THE NE
'/4 OF THE NW '/4 OF SAID SECTION 3.
RUN NORTH 89° 47' 25" WEST
ALONG THE QUARTER SECTION
LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 77 FEET
TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF U.S. HIGHWAY a1; THE POINT OF
BEGINNING FOR THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED PARCEL:
THENCE RUN SOUTH 1'- 12' 29"
EAST ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY s1 FOR
A DISTANCE OF 363.72 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89° 44' 02"
EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 600 FEET;
THENCE RUN NORTH 11 12' 29"
WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 363.72
FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 89° 47'
25" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 6D0
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 4.637 ACRES OR LESS.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor-
ida, Florida, in the County Commission Cham-
bers of the County Administration Building, lo-
cated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor-
ida, on Wednesday, November 16, 1983, at
1:30 P.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings i9 made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Oct. 28. Nov 9. 1983.
Planner Richard Shearer reviewed staff memo,
follows:
74
NOV 16 1983 600K
as
, rAG.E36
nOV 16 1993
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 19, 1983 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: POLISH AMERICAN CLUB
t REQUEST TO REZONE
SUBJECT: APPROXIMATELY 4.6 ACRES
�) FROM C-lA, RESTRICTED
i COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO
Robert M. Keati g, bacp C-1, COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Planning and Development Director
g5 _
FROM; Richard shearer, AICP REFERENCES: DisETER.cLII.
Principal Planner :BUDG
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 16, 1983.
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
The applicant, Harry Klimas,_ President of the Polish American
Social Club, is requesting to rezone approximately 4.6 acres
located on the east side of U.S. Highway 1 and 4 mile south of
Hobart Road from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, to C-1,
Commercial District.
The applicant proposes to develop this site for a clubhouse for
the Polish American Social Club.
On October 13, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to approve,this request.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis
will be presented as well as
use as established in the Land
Plan.
EXISTING LA14D USE PATTERN
of the existing land use pattern
a discussion of the future land
Use Element of the Comprehensive
The subject property is currently vacant. South of the subject
property is Pro -Fashions and a citrus grove. East of the
subject property is additional vacant land owned by the appli-
cant.
pplicant. To the north of the subject property is a citrus grove,
a single-family house, and Glen & Mike's Landscaping, Inc. The
subject property has frontage on U.S. Highway 1 to the west.
West of U.S. 1 is Mama Mia's Restaurant, Busy Bee Nursery, and
vacant land.
FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN
The Comprehensive Plan designates a 50 acre Commercial/ Indus-
trial node at the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 and Hobart
Road. The subject property and the land north of. it may be
included in this node. The land east and south of the subject
property is designated LD -1, Low -Density Residential (maximum
of three units/acre). The land west of the subject property,
across U.S. Highway 1, is designated MXD, Mixed -Use District
(maximum of six units/acre), and is currently zoned C -IA,
Restricted Commercial District.
The subject property needs to be rezoned from C-lA to C-1,
because private clubs are not a permitted use in the C -IA
zoning district.
75
�J
ROADS/TRAFFIC
Because the subject property is already zoned commercially,
rezoning should have little effect on the traffic attracted to
the site based on maximum density. A private club on the site
will attract a small amount of weekday traffic and very few
trips during the peak hour.
ENVIRONMENT
The subject property is not designatedas environmentally
sensitive.
UTILITIES
The subject property is not served by County water nor waste-
water facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends approval.
Mr. Shearer pointed out that the 4.6 acres they wish to
:s
rezone is part of an approximately 9 acre tract. It is the
half that fronts on U.S.1., and is about 600' deep.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
P.M.
Commissioner Lyons entered the meeting at 1:35 o'clock
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman,
SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, to adopt
Ordinance 83-38 granting the rezoning to
C-1 as requested by the Polish American
Club.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that he did not feel the
use of this property as a home for the Polish American Club
is actually bonafide productive commercial use, and we are
using up commercial space. He further noted that the back
r
76
BOOK
NOV 16 1983
NOV 16 1983 ��o� �� ra��� ►.
portion of this parcel may be utilized for a retention pond,
and staff says it is not necessary to rezone that part of
the property for them to use it in their overall scheme of
development. He wished this indicated in the record.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
77
ORDINANCE NO. 83-38
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that
the following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
THAT PART OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE NORTH ONE HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION 3,
TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST ONE QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 3, RUN NORTH 89047'25"
WEST ALONG THE QUARTER SECTION LINE FOR A DISTANCE OF 77 FEET TO
THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1 THE POINT OF
BEGINNING FOR THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL:
THENCE RUN SOUTH 1012'29" EAST ALONG THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1 FOR A DISTANCE OF 363.72 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 89044'02" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 600 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 1012'29" WEST ,FOR A DISTANCE OF 363.72 FEET; THENCE RUN
NORTH 89047'25" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 600 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. CONTAINING 4.637 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from C -1A Restricted Commercial District to C-1,
Commercial 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 thisl6thday of November •
1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
78
NOV 16 1983 BOOK E5 rye '*30 6
NOV 16
1983
a
1EX1
* a
PUBLIC HEARING
- AMEND LAND USE PLAN RE DENSITY IN
MXDs
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:
VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero heath, 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
in the matter
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of a*L�' 16 5,23,y
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 subscriMd befflre meAis a N� day of f / ! • A.D. 19
.1`
(SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County
i NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE
I LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption
Iof a County Ordinance amending the text of
I the Land .Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan by clarifying the residential development
densities allowed in the MXD, Mixed Use Dis-
tricts by:
1. Deleting reference to the maximum
number of dwelling units per.acre al-
lowed in Mixed -Use Districts under the
general description of Mixed -Use Dis-
tricts on Page 27 of the Comprehen-
sive Plan;
2. Adding a.statement concerning the .
maximum number of dwelling units per
acre allowed in the Gifford Mixed -Use
! District under the description of the
Gifford Mixed -Use District on page 38
of the Comprehensive Plan.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor-
ida, in the County Commission Chambers of
the County Administration Building, located at
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, November 16, 1983, at 1:30 P.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he/she will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-
poses, he/she may need to ensure that a ver-
batim 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: -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Oct. 28, Nov. 9, 1983.
Planner Shearer noted that this matter of clarifying
the permitted residential densities in the MXD areas was
previously reviewed and approved at the Special Meeting of
October 12th, but the advertisement did not allow for the
adoption of an amending Ordinance; it was necessary to
readvertise, and this now has been done properly. Mr.
Shearer emphasized that this amendment does not change the
intent of the Plan, it just clarifies it.
79
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 83-39, amending the Land
Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan re
densities allowed in the Mixed Use Districts.
80 p
NOV 16 1983
NOV 16 1983
ORDINANCE NO.8j-j9
WHERTEAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
amend the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan and pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation
thereto, at which parties in interest and citzens'were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, be amended
as follows:
1. That the text of the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan be amended by clarifying the
residential development densities allowed in the MXD,
Mixed Use Districts by:
1. Deleting reference to the maximum number of
dwelling units per acre allowed in Mixed -Use
Districts under the general description of
Mixed -Use Districts on Page 27 of the
Comprehensive Plan;
2. Adding a statement concerning the maximum number
of dwelling units per acre allowed in the Gifford
Mixed -Use District under the description of the
Gifford Mixed -Use District on page 38 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Land Use Element.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on this 16thlay of November ,
1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: e(l�
RICHARD N. BIRD
Chairman
W
PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING TO C-2 (INDIAN RIVER LUMBER CO.)
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:
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
in the matter of
in the
Court, was pub -
Fished in said newspaper in the issues of Ld it .2f (`"71 • � _
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.
_ - :i
Sworn to and su
(SEAL)
N O V 16 1983
A.D. 19
and citizens ublic hearing
at which an parses in mreres,
heard, will be held PPortunity to be
County
Commissioners of IndianhRiverCountrd Of y Flor-
ida. in the County Commission Chambers of
the County Administration Building, located at i
1640 25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida, on i
Wednesday. November 16. 1983; at 1:30 P.M.
If any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur.
Poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which i
the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board or County Commissioners
By: -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Oct. 28, Nov. 9, 1983.
M.
�•i..N ji fry �-/�.t�y,.a �,�_�-,�
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption
of a County Ordinance rezoning land from:
C-1, "Commercial District" to C-2,
"Heavy Commercial District." The sub-
ject property presently owned by IN-
DIAN RIVER LUMBER COMPANY is
located on the wast side of U.S. High-
way #1, north of 95th Street (Durrance
Road).
The subject property is described as:
A PARCEL OF LAAID 200 FEET WIDE
LYING BETWEEN U.S. #1 AND THE
F.E.C.R.R. IN THE NE % OF THE SE %
OF SECTION 20-31-39, AND GOVERN-
MENT LOT 3, SECTION 21-31-39,
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DE-
SCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
FROM THE SE CORNER OF SECTION
20, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, RUN NORTH 0° 07'31" WEST,
(NORTH ASSUMED) 1298.24 FEET TO
AN IRON PIPE. THENCE CONTINUE
NORTH 1* 10' 03" WEST 361 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
THENCE RUN WEST, (PARALLEL TO
A MONUMENTED LINE 361 FEET
SOUTH) 732.42 FEET TO THE EAST-
ERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE
F.E.C.R.R. THENCE RUN NORTH 261
43' 10" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-
OF-WAY 233.89 FEET, THENCE RUN
EAST 829.02 FEET (THIS POINT IS
200 FEET NORTH OF THE POINT OF
BEGINNING ON A BEARING OF
NORTH 1. 10'03" WEST, AND 817.16
FEET SOUTH OF THE EAST '/4 COR-
NER OF SECTION 20-31-39) THENCE
RUN NORTH 89° 39'48- EAST (PAR-
ALLEL WITH A MONUMENTED UNE
561 FEET SOUTH), 238.83 FEET TO
THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF U.S. #1, THENCE RUN
SOUTH 260 45' Sr' EAST, ALONG
SAID LINE 223.32 FEET; THENCE
RUN SOUTH 89° 39,481, WEST 335.32
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND ALSO THE FOLLOWING CON-
TIGUOUS PARCEL UNDER THE
SAME OWNERSHIP:
ALL THAT PART OF THE NORTH 200
FEET OF THE SOUTH 350 FEET OF
THE NE % OF SE '/4 OF SECTION 20,
TOWNSHIP 31, SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, LYING EAST OF THE
F.E.C.R.R. LESS AND EXCEPTING
THEREFROM THAT PART OF SAID
NE 'A OF SE 'J4 OF SECTION 20 LYING
WITHIN THE FOLLOWING DESCRIP-
TION: FROM THE SW CORNER OF
GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, SAME BEING THESE CORNER
OF NE '/4 OF SE '/4 OF SECTION 20,
TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, RUN EAST ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT
LOT 3 A DISTANCE OF 486.66 FEET
TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF
U.S. HIGHWAY #1; THENCE RUN
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE
OF 167.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE
NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF
223.06 FEET;: THENCE RUN WEST
PARALLEL TO AND 350 FEET NORTH
OF TH SOUTH LINE OF GOVERN-
MENT LOT 3, SECTION 21, TOWN-
SHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST,
AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NE 'J4
OF THE SE '/4 OF SECTION 20,
TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 400 FEET;
THENCE.RUN SOUTH A DISTANCE
OF 200,FEET; THENCE RUN EAST
PARALLEL TO AND 150 FEET NORTH
OF THE SOUTHLINE OF SAID NE '/4
OF BE % OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP
31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND
SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT
3, SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST A DIS-
TANCE OF 498.77 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID LAND
LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND CONTAIN-
ING 2.616 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
COK
rA :70
RD V 16 1983
Planner Shearer reviewed the following memo:
U PA07
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 19, 1983E
of the Board of County ZM -05-021
Commissioners
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: INDIAN RIVER LUMBER CO.
REQUEST TO REZONE APPROX.
SUBJECT: 7.8 ACRES FROM C-1,
COPMMERCIAL, TO C-2, HEAVY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
Robert M. Kea inq AICP
Planning & Development Director
Rs
Richard Shearer, AICP IR LUMBER CO.
FROM: Principal Planner REFERENCES: WORKB
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 16, 1983.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The applicant, August D. Hodges, President of Indian River
Lumber Company, Inc., is requesting to rezone approximately
7.8 acres located on the west side of U.S."Highway Irl and
north of 95th Street from C-1, Commercial District, to C-2,
Heavy Commercial District.
The applicant proposes to expand the lumberyard located on
this site. Since lumberyards are not a permitted use in the
C-1 districts, the existing lumberyard is currently a
non -conforming use and cannot be enlarged or expanded. The
C-2 district allows lumberyards and would permit the expansion
of the existing facility.
On October 13, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
ALTERNATIVES & 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 Comprehen-
sive Plan.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The eastern part of the subject property has been developed as
a lumberyard. The western part of the property is currently
vacant. The Bell Telephone Wabasso Service Operations Center
is directly south.of the subject property, and single-family
residences are located south of the operations center. The
subject property abuts the F.E.C. railroad to the west. West
of the railroad tracks is vacant land. The land directly
north of this site is vacant. North of the vacant land is a
mobile home park. The subject property has U.S. Highway #1
as its eastern boundary. East of U.S. #1 is Pelican Point, a
new residential development under construction in an R -2D,
Multiple -Family District. South of Pelican Point are
single-family residences, with the dominant land use in this
area being a mixture of residential developments.
83
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as MXD,
Mixed Use Development (maximum of 6 dwelling units/acre). All
of the property surrounding this site is also designated as
MXD, except for the property east of U.S. Highway #1 which is
designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential (maximum of 6
dwelling units/acre). The MXD designation allows residential,
commercial, and industrial uses where such development will be
conducive to the dominant land uses of the area,and appropri-
ate transition areas and buffers can be provided. The land
directly north and south of the subject property is zoned C-1,
Commercial District. This C-1 zoning district seems to be
appropriate for these surrounding properties, and sufficient
transition areas and buffers could(be included in future
development between these areas and the subject property if
the subject property is rezoned C-2.
The applicant originally proposed to rezone the subject
property to M-1, Restricted Industrial. The staff worked
extensively with the applicant to find a zoning district more
compatible with the surrounding zoning and land uses.
Roads/Traffic
This property has direct access to U.S. Highway 41 which is
classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan. It
is estimated that very little additional traffic will be
generated as a result of this rezoning. Any additional
traffic would have little effect on U.S. #1 in this area,
because it carries 11,000 ADT at level -of -service "A".
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. There do not appear to be any environmental
problems associated with the development of the property.
Utilities
The subject property is not currently served by County water
nor wastewater facilities. The County has no plans to extend
utilities to this area in the next decade.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, particularly the existing land
use of the.subject property and the fact that appropriate
transition areas could be established around the subject
property, and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning
Commission, staff recommends approval.
NOV 16 1993
L_
Mr. Shearer informed the Board that representatives of
the lumber company came in and discussed with staff several
different configurations for zoning, and staff recommended
that they apply for C-2, the newest zoning district, which
has lumber yards as an allowed use and some outdoor storage.
Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and staff recommend
approval.
84
WK
N 0 V 1.6 19 3oK � WE -373
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Anita Smith came before the Board representing her
mother, Mrs. Nelson Miller, who has property just south of
the subject property, and stated that she would like the
property to stay C-1; she does not want heavy commercial
there.
Planner Shearer explained that the C-2 commercial
district
is very similar
to C-1.
C-1 traditionally
has
allowed
a wide range of
commercial
activities, and
the
intent of C-2 was to separate some of these more intensive
uses into a special district. The only use C-2 allows which
C-1 does not allow is mini warehouses. Mr. Shearer felt the
"heavy commercial" title is a bit misleading, and noted they
really are not changing the use of the land - just allowing
the non -conforming use to continue.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously
adopted Ordinance 83-40 rezoning to C-2 as
requested by Indian River Lumber Co.
85
ORDINANCE N0.83-40
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, did publish and send its.Notice of
Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property and
pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at
which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that
the following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
A PARCEL OF LAND 200 FEET WIDE LYING BETWEEN U.S.#1 AND THE
F.E.C.R.R. IN THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 20-31-39,
AND GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 21-31-39, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED.AS FOLLOWS:
FROM THE SE CORNER OF'SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, RUN NORTH 0007131" WEST, (NORTH ASSUMED) 1298.24 FEET TO
AN IRON PIPE. THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 1010103" WEST 361 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE RUN WEST, (PARALLEL TO A
MONUMENTED LINE 361 FEET SOUTH) 732.42 FEET TO THE EASTERLY
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE F.E.C.R.R. THENCE RUN NORTH 26043'10" WEST
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 233.89 FEET, THENCE RUN EAST 829.02
FEET (THIS POINT IS 200 FEET NORTH OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING
ON A BEARING OF NORTH 1°10'03" WEST, AND 817.16 FEET SOUTH OF
THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 20-31-39) THENCE RUN NORTH
89039'48" EAST (PARALLEL WITH A MONUMENTED LINE 561 FEET
SOUTH), 238.83 FEET TO THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF
U.S.#l, THENCE RUN SOUTH 26045152" EAST, ALONG SAID LINE
223.32 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89°39'48" WEST 335.32. FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AND ALSO THE FOLLOWING CONTIGUOUS PARCEL UNDER THE SAME
OWNERSHIP:
ALL THAT PART OF THE NORTH 200 FEET OF THE SOUTH 350 FEET OF THE
NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST, LYING EAST OF THE F.E.C.R.R. LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM
THAT PART OF SAID NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 20 LYING WITHIN
THE FOLLOWING DESCRIPTION: FROM THE SW CORNER OF GOVERNMENT LOT
3, SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, SAME BE3NG THE
SE CORNER OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT
LOT 3 A DISTANCE OF 486.66 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S.
HIGHWAY #1; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY A DISTANCE OF 167.26 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE
CONTINUE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY A DISTANCE OF
223.06 FEET: THENCE RUN WEST PARALLEL TO AND 350 FEET NORTH OF
THE SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, AND THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE
1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, A DISTANCE
OF 400 FEET: THENCE RUN SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 200 FEET: THENCE
86
NOV 16 19$3
BOOK 55 PA6Q74
J
NOV 16 1993
55 PAGE375
RUN EAST PARALLEL TO AND 150 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF
SAID NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39
EAST AND SOUTH LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3, SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31
SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST A DISTANCE OF 498.77 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
FLORIDA, AND CONTAINING 2.816 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from C-1, "Commercial District" to C-2, "Heavy
Commercial 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 16th day of November ,
1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
'Richard N. Bird "—
Chairman
PUBLIC HEARING - TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
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:
87
Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull noted that the
proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Board and members of
the public on August 17th. Since that time staff has
conducted three workshops which were well attended by people
involved in related businesses, and Mr. Paul felt just about
all the problems have been ironed out. The proposed
ordinance did go back before the Planning & Zoning
Commission on October 13th for another public hearing, and
it was unanimously recommended for adoption. Attorney Paull
then proceeded to highlight the improvements to the
ordinance.
1. The key person responsible for the administration of
this ordinance is the Environmental Planner, and a job
W:
NOV 16 1983
VERO BEACH !PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
.Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING
TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY ORDINANCE
The Board of County Commissioners of In
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
than River County. Florida, will conduct
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach. Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
public hearing at which parties in interest anc
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard.
on November 16, 1583, at 1:30 P.M. in the
County Commission Chambers at the County
Administration Building, 1840 25th Street.
a /YJ wSL�1 � �+ l�
Vero Beach Florida to consider the adoption
P
of an ordinance entitled:
-y -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD. OF
- in the matter of
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN-
DIAN RIVER COUNTY; FLORIDA, RE-
LATING TO THE PROTECTION OF
TREES, AND DUNE
SINDIAN
VEGETAT ON WITHIN RIVER
COUNTY; PROVIDING A SHORT
TITLE; AUTHORITY FOR ENACT -
in the Court, was pub-
MENT: APPLICABILITY: LEGISLATIVE
INTENT; DEFINITIONS, GENERAL
G
9r 3
PROHIBITIONS; EXEMPTIONS:
DESIGNATING PERMITS AVAILABLE
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 16C.24 - ��� ! / &-Z.)• 1 iJ�>
AND CRITERIA GOVERNING THEIR
ISSUANCE; ADDITIONAL MANGROVE
PROTECTION; ADDITIONAL DUNE.
AND SHORELINE VEGETATION PRO-
TECTION; APPLICATION PROCE-
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
DURE AND FEES; DETERMINATION
DURE
OF PROTECTED AREA; RECOGNIZ-
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
ING OTHER AGENCY'S JURISDIC-
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
TION; PROVIDING VARIANCE
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
PROCEDURES; PROVIDNG FOR
t , Florida, for period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
Y P Y P 9 P PI
PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT
WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
JURISDICTION; CODIFICATION; RE -
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
PEAL OF CONFLICTING LAWS; SEV-
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
IfEa ABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
y person decides to appeal any deci-
��
sion made on the above matters, he/she will
need a record of the proceedings, and for
Sworn to and subscrdb bef a me s day of !%Z% A.D. 19
9such
purposes, he/she may need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the proceedings is
•
made, which record includes the testimony in
iness na
evidence on which the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River CoJR(y, Florida)
Oct. 28, Nov. s, 1983.
(SEAL)
Assistant County Attorney Chris Paull noted that the
proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Board and members of
the public on August 17th. Since that time staff has
conducted three workshops which were well attended by people
involved in related businesses, and Mr. Paul felt just about
all the problems have been ironed out. The proposed
ordinance did go back before the Planning & Zoning
Commission on October 13th for another public hearing, and
it was unanimously recommended for adoption. Attorney Paull
then proceeded to highlight the improvements to the
ordinance.
1. The key person responsible for the administration of
this ordinance is the Environmental Planner, and a job
W:
NOV 16 1983
NOV 1 b 1983
15 PACE 77
description has been written as to minimal qualifications
needed for this position.
2. The key definition "protected tree" is now defined as
any tree having a diameter at breast height of 8 inches or
greater; it originally was lo". It also includes trees that
do not necessarily get to that size, i.e., "significant
groupings of trees of the West Indian or tropical origin of
any size, and all mangroves regardless of size." Certain
trash trees are excluded and all citrus and sabal palmetto.
Mr. Paull continued that the criteria justifying
removal of the protected trees were reviewed and they are
now somewhat refined. There is a gross buildable area - net
buildable area concept, a rather complicated definition,
which was requested by the landscape architects. The
exemptions were reviewed, and there is one re routine
landscape maintenance which includes maintenance of dune
vegetation growing seaward of the Coastal Construction
Control Line if
permission has been given
by
the DNR.
The other parts
of the ordinance have to
do
with mangrove
alterations, hedging, etc., and trimming of mangroves during
any part of the year with the exception of a 2h month
period. Dune and shoreline vegetation is substantially the
same with an exception for construction of facilities or
structures that have some connection with public safety.
There is a section which addresses land clearing activities
and requires that an individual obtain a land clearing
permit before clearcutting a site whether he is removing
trees or not.
Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern about the
impact of the new septic tank ordinance on trees, as too
high a level of fill is very damaging to some varieties of
trees.
Attorney Paull believed that will be something the
Environmental Planner will want to look at on a case to case
M
basis, and Planner Challacombe agreed that is how this will
have to be handled. He believed there are ways trees can be
protected through proper drainage and possibly bulkheaded
walls, which could be a landscaping asset.
Commissioner Lyons wished to know if this ordinance is
broad enough to include protection of trees after
construction as well as during construction.
Environmental Planner Challacombe reported that he and
Urban Forester Paul Palmiotto looked at this problem in
terms of the landscape ordinance, and if a developer uses a
tree to complete a portion of his landscape ordinance
requirements, he will have to keep that tree alive and
healthy for at least one year.
Commissioner Lyons had a question in regard to the
statement on Page 244 that any permit will remain valid for
six months and will be renewable for successive six month
periods. He felt this should be limited and possibly only
renewable for one six month period.
Discussion followed as to saying that a permit may be
renewable for "a" successive six month period, and it was
generally agreed this was preferable.
Commissioner Bowman again brought up the new septic
tank regulations requiring additional fill, and wondered if
we are making a mistake in exempting single family lots
under one acre in size from these regulations.
Planning Manager Keating noted that if single family
lots were not exempted, he did not have sufficient staff to
ensure that the ordinance would be carried out adequately.
Chairman Bird wished to be sure we weren't being overly
restrictive to someone who just wanted to do some light
underbrushing and wanted to know what exactly is involved in
obtaining a permit in addition to paying the fee.
Attorney Paull explained that if someone just cuts down
underbrush and is not removing any trees, there is an
90
NOV 16 1983 gQ°K r�� I
fi 0 V 16 199x r�
exemption. If it is a case where someone is denuding the
parcel, they then would come under land clearing regulations
and would be required to submit a sketch of the property to
show what they plan to do about prohibiting erosion and also
submit a tree survey.
Mr. Challacombe reported that we have some very general
guidelines that cover a good deal of different situations;
the whole intent is to give the Environmental Planner an
opportunity to get on site before they cut everything down.
Commissioner Bowman commented that in most cases in
underbrushing, you are usually removing trash trees. She
hoped that the 8" diameter would also apply to wax myrtle
which is multiple stemmed, and it was noted that the
ordinance does address cluster stems.
Planning Manager Keating discussed applications and
fees, noting that a tree removal permit is $35.00, land
clearing $45.00, and mangrove alteration $50.00. These were
determined to be adequate fees based on the amount of time
and effort staff would have to spend addressing the various
applications. He continued- that he would request the rl
ability to come back to the Commission after this ordinance
has been in existence for a while and report on how it is
working out.
Chairman Bird felt possibly the fees should be based on
acreage.
41
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be w
heard.
Ann Robinson, Conservation Chairman. of the Pelican
Island Audubon Society, noted that this ordinance has been
worked on for about ten years, and she was pleased to see
that we are finally reaching the stage of adopting it. She
did feel the workshops were very productive and wanted to
compliment the staff.
91
F7
NOV 16 1983
Andy Davison, 4105 Shoreland Drive, informed the Board
that he is in the landscaping development and maintenance
business, and for thirteen years he has been involved to
some degree in maintaining dune lines, trimming and removing
mangroves, and in general, improving and developing
waterfront properties in Indian River County. Mr. Davison
emphasized that his work, which was not a result of a tree
protection ordinance, has enhanced those properties without
a doubt, and he felt compelled to speak against this
gigantic extension of government bureauracy. Mr. Davison
then cited an article in READER'S DIGEST which gave an
example of government agencies and regulations stifling
private enterprise. He emphasized that the process starts
at this level, and if the Commission makes these laws,
others will have the duty of enforcing them. Mr. Davison
defied everyone to answer his charges and justify the sweep
of the proposed intrusion into his business.
Ray Scent, local realtor, brought up a reference made
to lots of less than an acre in size, and wished to
determine whether one acre lots or just those of less than
one acre would be exempt.
It was confirmed that subdivisions of one acre lots or
less would be exempt.
Mr. Scent then discussed being at a City Council
hearing where they were dictating the type of trees for
planting, and he did not see why we should pull out palm
trees to put up something that will shed leaves. He further
noted that if an abutting neighbor complains about uncleared
property, the owner gets a notice from the county that says
either clear your lot or we'll clear it and bill you, but if
a man just wants to go in and clean his land, he has to go
through all kinds of bureaucratic red tape. He felt the
property owner would be better off going to his neighbors
and asking them to complain.
92
.r-: rA ®
NOV 1 6 1993 c�
BOO CE-5PAC'Ec� 1
Chairman Bird informed Mr. Scent that we do not
presently have any ordinance that would force anyone to
clear their lot.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the County used to have
such an ordinance, but there were several difficulties with
its enforcement and it was repealed. He was sure the
Commission will be addressing another ordinance in the
future that will accomplish the same kind of thing but be
consistent with this ordinance.
Attorney Paull stated that the ordinance before the
Commission is nothing like the City's. They are based on
different philosophies, and he did not feel we invade the
province of the individual land owner as much as some people
who have not read the ordinance might think.
William Priestly, local businessman, stated that
although he sympathizes with Mr. Davison and hates the very
nature of the proposed ordinance, he did believe, because of
the few who will thoughtlessly denude beautiful property,
that it is something that has to be done to protect our
community. Mr. Priestly noted that a lot of good people put
a lot of time and thought in this ordinance, and he did not
feel the Commission should be villified. He did agree that
the ordinance should be monitored carefully to see how it
does work out.
Tom Culler, spoke representing the Construction
Industry Management Council of Indian River (CIMC) and
reported that they did have representation at the workshops.
Mr. Culler stated that although this ordinance represents
another layer of restrictions, the CIMC realizes it is a
necessity in order to preserve the quality of life in this
county and endorses the ordinance as written.
93
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
MOTION.WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to adopt
Ordinance 83-41 (the Tree Ordinance), in-
cluding changes made to Sec. 11.
Attorney Brandenburg noted that the way Sec. 3 -
Applicability - is written, it is applicable countywide,
including within municipal boundaries. He wished to know if
this has been coordinated with any of the municipalities.
Attorney Paull stated that it has been addressed with
some of the municipalities, but not all. He noted that if a
city does not want to be governed by this ordinance, they
have the ability to adopt their own ordinance.
Attorney Brandenburg recommended that the Board make
the ordinance applicable only in the unincorporated area and
send a copy to each of the municipalities, asking them to
consider adoption of it.
COMMISSIONERS SCURLOCK AND BOWMAN reworded their
Motion to adopt Ordinance 83-41 including the Changes
to Sec.11 and further modification to Sec.3 as re-
commended by the Attorney.
Commissioner Wodtke discussed the fact that one acre
lot subdivisions are exempt except at the time the original
subdivider plats the property, and Attorney Paull confirmed
that when the original subdivider lays out his streets,
easements, etc., he would have to obtain a tree removal
permit if he wished to remove any protected trees.
94
Nov 16 1983
I
N O V 16 1983
Commissioner Wodtke noted that if he buys a one acre
lot from a subdivider, this ordinance would not affect him,
and it, therefore, apparently does not have that much effect
on the overall trees other than in the road rights-of-way.
Attorney Paull noted that what it does is leave the
option up to the lot purchasers. Obviously, if it is a
beautiful subdivision, they are buying there for that
reason, and he felt the thrust of this ordinance is to allow
this to happen on its own and not to dictate that it
happens.
Chairman Bird noted that staff and the Board members
felt a very strong need and have tried to create something
that will represent the minimal amount of inconvenience and
cost to those involved. He emphasized that we plan to
monitor the enforcement of this ordinance very closely, and
if it does present problems, he would be the first to
suggest we make modifications.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to be sure that the
Environmental Planner has sufficient time to carry out his
duties in connection with administering this ordinance, and
Environmental Planner Challacombe stated that, while he
could not say for sure at this point, he believed he will.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It
was voted on and Ordinance 83-41 was adopted
unanimously with the modification suggested
by Attorney Brandenburg.
95
96 00aK u. 38
Nov 16 1983
TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE
PAGE
Section 1
Short Title
2
Section 2
Authority for Enactment
2
Section 3
Applicability
3
Section 4
Legislative Intent
3
Section 5
Definitions
3
- 6
Section 6
General Prohibitions
6
- 7
Section 7
Exemptions
7 -
9
Section 8
Permits Available; Criteria Governing
Issuance°
9 -
12
Section 9
Additional Mangrove Protection
12
- 13
Section 10
Additional Dune and Shoreline Vegetation
Protection
13
- 14
Section 11
Application Procedure and Fees
14
- 16
Section 12
Determination of Protected Area
.16
- 17
Section 13
�+
Local Permit Not Exclusive
17
Section 14
Variances and Administrative Appeals
17
Section 15
Tree Protection as Justification for
Variance Relief from Other Land
. Development Regulations
17 -
18
Section 16
Penalties and Enforcement --
Code Enforcement Board Jurisdiction
18
Section 17
Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
18 -
19
Section 18
Incorporation in Code
19
Section 19
Severability
19
Section 20
Effective Date
19
96 00aK u. 38
Nov 16 1983
NOV 14 7993 �Ac
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 83-41
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE
PROTECTION OF TREES, MANGROVES, AND DUNE VEGETATION
WITHIN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY; PROVIDING A SHORT TITLE;
AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT; APPLICABILITY; LEGISLATIVE
INTENT; DEFINITIONS; GENERAL PROHIBITIONS; EXEMPTIONS;
DESIGNATING PERMITS AVAILABLE AND CRITERIA GOVERNING
THEIR ISSUANCE; ADDITIONAL MANGROVE PROTECTION;
ADDITIONAL DUNE AND SHORELINE VEGETATION PROTECTION;
APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND FEES; DETERMINATION OF
PROTECTED AREA; RECOGNIZING OTHER AGENCY'S
JURISDICTION; PROVIDING VARIANCE PROCEDURES; PROVIDING
FOR PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT
BOARD JURISDICTION; CODIFICATION; REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING LAWS; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, trees are an essential link in the conditioning
of our environment for human life through the production of
oxygen, transfer of water, precipitation of airborne pollutants,
and conversion of carbon dioxide; and
WHEREAS, root systems of trees help stabilize the
groundwater table, neutralize wastewater and play an important and
effective role in County -wide soil conservation and erosion
control; and
WHEREAS, trees add an invaluable physical and psycho-
logical addition to the County, making life more comfortable by
providing shade and cooling the air and land, reducing noise
levels and glare, and breaking the monotony of man's developments
on the land; and
WHEREAS, trees have diminished in great quantities
through man's development activities in recent years; and
WHEREAS, of those trees worthy of protection mangroves
deserve special attention; and
WHEREAS, mangrove trees stabilize shorelines and
substrates hindering erosion caused by the effects of storm and
boat wakes, protecting upland populations from flooding and wave
action, serving as hurricane buffers, and are vital to the
necessary estuarian system; and
WHEREAS, mangrove leaf litter provides raw material for
the production of usable nutrients for consumption by juvenile
forms of marine animals, thus establishing an essential link in
I
the aquatic food chain; and
WHEREAS, mangrove areas are primary nursery and feeding
areas for fish and shellfish of commercial and sport value, as
well as nesting, roosting and feeding areas for native and migra-
tory birds and other wildlife; and
WHEREAS, in filtering and absorbing upland runoff and
silt, mangroves serve the function of effectively purifying the
water of harmful nutrients and heavy materials; and
WHEREAS, certain natural dune vegetations on the primary
and secondary dunes are invaluable in the prevention of beach and
shore erosion; and
WHEREAS, the Conservation and Coastal Zone Management
element of the County's Comprehensive Plan requires the County to
enact a native plant community, tree protection, and land clearing
ordinance in order to preserve native flora and fauna and to
further protect the social, economic, and environmental attributes
of the coastal system; and
WHEREAS, the protection of most species of trees, and
especially mangrove and dune vegetation within Indian River
County, is not only consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, but is
essential to the present and future health, safety and welfare of
all citizens of Indian River County.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
C. T ,l m -r r%x7 1
SHORT TITLE
This ordinance and the provisions contained herein shall
be known as the Indian River County Tree Protection Ordinance.
SECTION 2
AUTHORITY FOR ENACTMENT
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to authority vested
in the Board of County Commissioners by virtue of Article 8
Section 1 (f) of the Constitution of the State of Florida, and
Sections 125.01 (j) (t) (w), and Section 163.3161 et seq of
Florida Statutes (1982).
NOV 16 1983 -2- BOOK 5
J
NOV 16 -1983
ONS 5 W�QV
SECTION 3
APPLICABILITY
This ordinance shall be applicable to all land lying in
the unincorporated area of Indian River County, Florida.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT
The purpose of this ordinance is to provide for the pro-
tection and preservation of trees and vegetation within Indian
River County in order to minimize environmental degradation caused
by unnecessary or excessive destruction of trees and other valu-
able vegetation.
SECTION 5
DEFINITIONS
a) Buildable Area, Gross. That portion of a parcel of
property intended to be developed or site planned as a single lot,
tract, or building site, exclusive of any setback or yard area
required by any applicable land development regulation; that is
all of the area upon which a building, or other structure governed
by setback limitations, could be erected by right and without
respect to any possible or desired variance, and without respect
to other limiting factors such as maximum lot coverage or minimum
open space requirements.
b) Buildable Area, Net. The gross buildable area as
decreased by maximum lot coverage limits contained in any appli-
cable land development regulation.
c) Diameter at breast height (DBH). The standard
measure of a single -stemmed tree at four and one-half ( 4-1/2) feet
above grade. When a tree has grown with cluster stems at breast
height,, DBH shall be equal to the sum or aggregate of the individ-
ual stems measured at four and one-half (4-1/2) feet above grade.
d) Environmental Planner. The individual employed by
Indian River County who is responsible for the administration of
the provisions of this ordinance and prosecution of any violations
thereof. The Environmental Planner shall hold a bachelor's degree
from an accredited university or college in either landscape
-3-
NOV 16
M
-s
architecture, horticulture, forestry, or botany, and have at least
three (3) years of significant work related experience in a land
development or construction industry, or environmental regulation
setting with direct interface with the land development or
construction industry. Alternatively, the Environmental Planner
may'have a bachelor's degree in urban planning from an accredited
college or university with at least three (3) years significant
work related experience in the landscaping, horticulture,
forestry, or environmental protection setting, provided such
experience involved direct contact or interface with the land
development or construction industries.
e) Grubbing. The removal or destruction of any living
rooted shrubbery; the denuding of a parcel by digging, raking, or
dragging; activities which disturb the roots of such vegetation or
the soil in which such roots are located in a manner which is
calculated to result, or likely to result, in the death, destruc-
tion or removal of such vegetation.
f) Historic tree. A tree which has been determined to
be of notable historic interest and value to Indian River County
because of its location, or historic association, with the
community, and which has been so designated by the County
Commission in the Official Record Books of the County following a
public hearing with due notice' -provided in advance by certified
mail to the owner.
g) Land clearing. The removal or grubbing, by any
means, of any type of vegetation from land not including, however,
activities governed by tree removal or mangrove alteration
permits.
h) Mangrove. Rooted trees and seedlings of the follow-
ing species, but only when having a coastal or estuarine
association:
Red mangrove - Rhizophora mangle;
Black mangrove - Avicennia germinans;
White mangrove - Laguncularia racemosa;
Buttonwood or Button -
mangrove - Conocarpus erecta
N � � F9n
NOV 1.6.1993 uc �.5 FAAF9
i) Person. Any individual, firm, corporation, partner-
ship, joint venture, association, principal, trustee, municipal
corporation, political subdivision, or special district, or any
agent or representative thereof.
j) Protected Area. An area surrounding a protected,
historic, or specimen tree within which physical intrusion is
prohibited in order to prevent damage to the tree, roots and soil
around the tree base, the dimensions of which shall be established
by the Environmental Planner and set forth in the tree removal
permit, in accordance with Section 12.
k) Protected tree. Any tree having a DBH of eight (8)
inches or more, all specimen and historic trees, and all signifi-
cant groupings of trees of the West Indian or tropical origin of
any size, and all mangroves regardless of size; excluding,
however, the following trees, regardless of size or location:
Casuarina
cunninghamiana
- Australian
pine
Casuarina
lepido
hloia
- Australian
pine
Casuarina equisetifolia - Australian pine
Enterolobium cyclocar um - Ear -pod tree
Melia azedarach - Chinaberry
Schinus terebinthifolius - Brazilian pepper tree
Melaleuca quinquenervia - Melaleuca, punk or paper
tree
Cabbage palms (Sabel palmetto) and citrus trees of all
varieties shall not be considered to be protected trees, but such
trees shall be included in the tree survey in the event the
applicant chooses to make use of said such trees as a credit
against the trees otherwise required under an applicable
landscaping regulation or requirement.
1) Protective barrier. Any structure, device, or
visual barrier which effectively identifies the parameters -of the
protected area.
m) Remove or removal. The actual physical removal or
the effective removal through damaging, poisoning or other direct
or indirect action resulting in or likely to result in the death
of a plant.
M5- -
1"
n) Specimen tree. A tree which has been determined by
the County Commission, following input from the Environmental
Planner, to be of high value because of its type, size, age, or
other relevant criteria, and has been so designated by the County
Commission in the Official Record Books following a public hearing
with due notice by certified mail to the owner.
o) Tree. A woody plant having a well defined stem, a
more or less well defined crown, and which is capable of attaining
a height of at least eight (8) feet with a trunk diameter.of not
less than two (2) inches, or a cluster of main stems having an
aggregate diameter of not less than two (2) inches, at a point
four and one-half (4-1/2) feet above ground.
p) Tree survey. An aerial photograph or sketch
prepared to a scale no smaller than one (1) inch to two hundred
(200) feet which provides the location, size and common name of
all protected trees located on a given parcel of land intended for
development or site planning as a single lot, tract, or building
site. The tree survey need not encompass contiguous property of
the applicant which is not to be included within the actual limits
of the area subject to development consideration.
SECTION 6
GENERAL PROHIBITIONS
Unless expressly exempted herein, it shall be unlawful
and subject to the penalties provided herein for any person
directly or indirectly by another on his behalf to:
a), remove, relocate, destroy or damage, any protected
. tree on any site or tract without first obtaining a tree removal
permit or mangrove alteration permit pursuant to this ordinance;
b) perform any land clearing or grubbing unless a land
clearing permit has been issued pursuant to this ordinance;
c) perform tree removal, land clearing, grubbing, grad-
ing, excavation, construction, or make or install any improvement
upon any site or tract, regardless of the existence of valid
permits or approvals for the given activity, unless each protected
tree to be preserved pursuant to this ordinance has been marked by
a highly visible band and -unless all protected areas established
NOV 16 1983 -6- BOOK ' n4399
F_
_ V 16
1993
00A
'CIV -5 IACQ91
pursuant to this
ordinance have been surrounded by a
protective
barrier;
d) encroach onto protected areas established pursuant
to this ordinance by any of the following acts or omissions;
(1) movement or storage of any vehicle within or across
a protected area;
(2) the storage of building ;materials, debris, fill,
soil or any other matter within a protected area;
(3) the cleaning of material or equipment within a pro-
tested area;
(4) the disposal of any liquid or solid waste material
such as paints, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete, mortar, or other
materials similarly harmful within a protected area; and
(5) the placement of any structure or site improvement
within a protected area with the exception of landscaping or
related irrigation improvements.
e) violate or fail to observe any of the requirements
set forth in Section 8 of this ordinance pertaining to mangrove
protection;
f) _violate or fail to observe any of the requirements
or provisions set forth in Section 9 of this ordinance pertaining
to the protection of dune and shoreline vegetation.
SECTION 7.
EXEMPTIONS
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this ordi-
nance, the following activities shall be lawful without applica-
tion for or issuance of'a tree removal or land clearing permit.
None of these exemptions shall apply to any mangrove, dune
vegetation, specimen or historic tree, unless otherwise stated
below. The burden of proving entitlement to any particular
exemption shall lie with the person claiming use of the exemption,
in the event the exempted activity ever becomes subject to an
enforcement proceeding.
A. The limited pruning and trimming of any tree or
other vegetation as necessary for the clearing of a path not to
exceed four (4) feet in width to provide physical access or view
W7 -
r
necessary to conduct a survey or site examination for the
preparation of subdivision plats, site plans, or tree surveys,
provided such clearing or removal is conducted under the direction
of a Florida registered surveyor or engineer.
B. Routine landscape maintenance such as trimming or
pruning of vegetation which is not intended to result in the
eventual death of the plant, mowing of yards or lawns, or any
other landscaping or gardening activity which is commonly recog-
nized as routine maintenance or replacement. This exemption shall
be construed to allow routine maintenance of dune vegtation grow-
ing seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line, provided the
person owning such property, or his agent, first provides suffi-
cient documentation evidencing express permission for such
activity from the Bureau of Beaches and Shores of the Department
of Natural Resources of the State of Florida.
C. The removal, trimming, pruning or alteration of any
tree or vegetation in an existing utility easement or right-of-way
provided such work is done by or under the control of the opera-
ting utility company and said company has received all necessary
licenses or permits to provide utility service within the ease-
ment.
D. The removal, pruning, trimming or alteration of any
tree or vegetation for the purpose of maintaining existing access
to a property.
E. Any activity conducted by a lawfully operating and
bona fide commercial nursery, tree farm, agricultural operation,
ranch, or similar operation, when the activity occurs on prop-
erty owned or lawfully occupied by the person conducting said
activity and is done in pursuit of said activity. This exemption
shall include the purposeful removal of a tree or trees for their
permanent relocation at another site undergoing development. When
land clearing or tree removal has been performed under this exemp-
tion based upon the use of the property for an agricultural opera-
tion, no land development order shall be approved for any
non-agricultural use or improvement on the same site within two
(2) years of the completion of such land clearing or tree
;f�QK PACE 9YC19
-8-
NOV 16 1983 "',
OV 16 1993
removal.
F. Any tree which has been destroyed or damaged beyond
saving, or which constitutes an immediate peril to life, property,
or other trees, may be removed without a permit.
G. Tree removal, land clearing, or grubbing of any
vegetation, except mangrove or dune vegetation, upon any detached
single family residential lot or parcel of land having an area of
1.0 acres or less; provided, this exemption shall not be construed
to allow land clearing, grubbing, or tree removal without permit
of any such lot or parcel by its subdivider unless the subdivider
intends in good faith to forthwith begin construction of a
dwelling unit or units upon said lot. Advertisement or listing
for sale of the particular lot or parcel without the dwelling unit
shall create a presumption that the subdivider does not intend to
forthwith begin such construction and that the intent is for the
lot or parcel to be developed by a subsequent purchaser.
SECTION 8
PERMITS AVAILABLE; CRITERIA GOVERNING ISSUANCE
A. The following permits shall be available upon proper
application to the Community Development Division and compliance
with this ordinance: tree removal permit; land clearing permit;
and mangrove alternation permit.
B. Criteria Governing Issuance.
1) Tree Removal Permit. No tree removal.permit shall
be issued unless the Environmental Planner finds that at least one
of the following criteria has been satisfied with respect to each
protected tree designated for removal under the permit.
(a) that the tree is located within the net buildable
area of a given site, as identified on the tree survey and site
plan by the applicant;
(b) that the tree is located within an existing or
proposed right-of-way;
(c) that the tree is located within an existing or
proposed easement, stormwater management tract or facility,
provided that only the minimum area reasonably necessary for the
contemplated service or use shall be considered under this
criteria;
(d) that the tree is located where its continued exis-
tence would unreasonably interfere with the physical construction
of the improvements on a particular site as may result from inter-
ference with the access to the site by construction equipment, or
with the operation of the equipment on the site in the immediate
vicinity of the proposed structure or improvements;
(e) that the tree is located where it creates or will
create a safety or health hazard, or a nuisance with respect to
existing or proposed structures or vehicle or pedestrian routes;
(f) that the tree is located where it interferes with
the installation, delivery, or maintenance of proposed or existing
utility services to the site;
(g) that the tree is diseased, injured, or in danger of
falling;
(h) that the tree is located on a portion of the site
outside of the net buildable area but within that portion of the
site to be used for construction of required parking areas or
vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress areas; provided that,
when this criteria is used to justify removal of a tree or trees
located outside of the gross buildable area, the applicant shall
replace any such tree or trees with an equal number of trees of
similar ecological or aesthetic value, as determined by the
Environmental Planner, unless it can be demonstrated by the appli-
cant that the remaining site cannot be designed to accommodate and
sustain the substituted tree or tress. All replacement trees
shall be of a minimum two (2) inches DBH
2) Land Clearing Permit. No land clearing permit shall
be issued unless the Environmental Planner finds that each of the
following criteria has been satisfied:
a) That the land clearing or grubbing is necessary in
order to make site improvements authorized by an approved site
plan, subdivision approval, or land development permit, and that
the area to be cleared is the minimum necessary for such work or
in the event the aforementioned approvals are not required by law
for the intended use of
the property,
that the proposed clearing
NOV 16
1983
-lo-
hax PA q94
NOV 16 19839CCK v FACE 5..
is the minimum necessary for the proposed use or improvement.
b) That the applicant has provided a reasonable written
plan to control erosion which may be expected -to occur as a result
of the proposed clearing or grubbing. The plan shall incorporate
some or all of the following means as determined by the applicant;
temporary seeding and mulching, sodding, diversion berms, inter-
ceptor ditches, sediment barriers, sediment basins, and related
appurtenances or devices. All provisions of an erosion control
plan shall be incorporated as express conditions of the land
clearing permit issued and a violation of any of the conditions or
provisions of the plan shall be considered a violation of this
ordinance, and subject to all enforcement provisions. The
Environmental Planner may request written elaboration of a
proposed plan prior to issuance of a permit in order to clarify
the nature and design of measures intended by the applicant.
c) That the applicant has or is complying with all tree
protection provisions contained elsewhere in this ordinance.
3) A land clearing permit does not authorize the
removal or destruction of protected trees. Notwithstanding
anything in Section 8 to the contrary, no tree removal or land
clearing permit shall be construed to authorize any act with
respect to a mangrove.
4) Mangrove Alteration Permit. Mangrove alteration
permits shall be available upon proper application in accordance
with Section 11 and provided the applicant affirmatively acknowl-
edges an understanding of the requirements of Section 9 of this
ordinance, which conditions shall govern use of the permit. A
mangrove alteration permit shall not authorize removal of any
mangrove unless the applicant replaces or relocates that number of
mangroves necessary to revegetate an area approximately equal to
the area destroyed, on the same same development site. The appli-
cant must provide an affirmative program satisfactory to the
Environmental Planner to assure survival of the replaced or
relocated mangroves and to stabilize the shoreline from which man-
groves were removed. 'The approved program shall be considered an
express condition of the permit and failure to carry out any of
-11-
-I
its provisions shall be considered a violation of this ordinance.
Removal of any mangrove under this provision shall be allowed only
if the Environmental Planner finds that one or more of the
criteria described in Section 8 B (1), except 8 B (1) (a), which
shall not justify removal, has been satisfied with respect to each
mangrove scheduled for removal and relocation or replacement.
ADDITIONAL MANGROVE PROTECTION
A. All mangrove alteration permits shall be governed by
the following regulations, which shall be deemed incorporated as
special conditions of the permit. A violation of any of these
provisions shall be deemed to be unlawful and subject to all
penalties provided herein.
1) At least fifty (50) percent of the canopy of any
mangrove trees shall be retained.
2) No prop roots shall be damaged or removed from a red
mangrove nor shall pneumatophores be damaged or removed from a
black mangrove. Neither prop roots nor pneumatophores shall be
buried by fill or other means.
3) On a black mangroves of ten (10) feet or less in
height there shall be no cutting or trimming below the lowest two
(2) living lateral limbs, unless a significant canopy area is left
at the top of the tree.
4) White mangroves and buttonwood shall not be trimmed
at all at a distance less than two (2) feet above the natural
ground elevation. All resultant sprout regrowth shall be allowed
to attain a height of a minimum of four -(4) feet above natural
ground elevation.
5) No mangrove cuttings shall be discarded into any
estuary, marsh, river, or adjacent water course.
6) Pruning, removal and relocation of mangroves shall
be prohibited between December 1st and February 15th.
7) On red mangroves, there shall be no trimming or
cutting below the lowest four (4) living lateral limbs, nor shall
the outer growing ends of these lowest four (4) limbs be trimmed
except for light shearing related to shaping or hedging of the
NOV 16 1983 -12- BOK MW
n 0 V 1-6- 7983 96K P :
J7
S
tree.
8) All cuts shall be made cleanly and at the base of
the branch or limb cut, except when done with respect to the
shaping of a hedge.
9) Red mangroves may be hedged down to a minimum height
of six (6) feet, providing the limitations in paragraphs 1 and 7
above are not exceeded.
SECTION 10
ADDITIONAL DUNE AND SHORELINE VEGETATION PROTECTION
In orders=to protect the natural vegetation and the main
dune bluff fronting on the Atlantic Ocean, the following
restrictions shall be observed;
A. No structure shall be located seaward of the Coastal
Construction Control Line established by the Department of Natural
Resources pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 161, as may be
amended from time to time, except as provided elsewhere in this
ordinance. This provision shall be construed to establish a local
setback ordinance within the meaning of Fla. Admin. Code Chapters
16B-25 and 16B-33,, as may be amended from time to time.
B. Except as provided herein, encroachment or ingress
onto or any disturbance of the main dune or natural vegetation
seaward of the state Coastal Construction Control Line is
prohibited, including encroachment or disturbance caused by
individuals upon foot or by vehicle of any kind.
C. No structure, other than an elevated bridge or dune
crossover, or observation tower constructed in the interest of
public safety, may be located seaward of the Coastal Construction
Control Line and the design of any such allowed structure must be
approved in advance by the Department of Natural Resources, Bureau
of Beaches and Shores, or its successor, and the Public Works
Director of Indian River County, Florida.
D. Except as expressly provided in Subparagraph E, it
shall be unlawful for any person to operate, drive, or propel any
truck, tractor, bulldozer, grader, crane, automobile, motorcycle,
dune buggy, moped, minibike, all terrain cycle, or any other
0
vehicle seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line;
_ =13- -
ILI
M
F7
excluding, however, any of the aforementioned vehicles when
operated by the State of Florida or a political subdivision of the
State of.Florida, or those operations which have received the
express authorization of the Board of County Commissioners.
E. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, during
construction in the vicinity of the main dune, an applicant who
has received the express written approval of the Bureau of Beaches
and Shores of the Department of Natural Resources to carry on
construction activity seaward of the Coastal Construction Control
Line may make use of a leeway zone of up to fifteen (15) feet
seaward of said Control Line for those activities related to
construction of improvements up to or landward of the Control
Line. No permanent improvement or structure may be made in the
leeway zone and, prior to encroachment "therein, a temporary
barrier running parallel to the Coastal Construction Control Line
shall be placed at the most seaward extent of the leeway zone to
identify the limits beyond which no encroachment of any kind may
occur; provided, however, all activitiesnrelated to construction
of an approved dune crossover or elevated bridge shall be governed
by the authorization given under paragraph C above. All proposed
activity within the fifteen (15) foot leeway zone shall be
described in writing and submitted to the Environmental Planner
for prior approval, in addition to the approval by the Bureau of
Beaches and Shores required above. Approvals required under this
paragraph may be obtained concurrently with site plan or
subdivision approval, as the case may be, but must be obtained in
any event prior to the scheduled activity. The leeway zone shall
be revegetated with natural indigenous dune vegetation upon
completion of construction activities and prior to the issuance of
any certificate of occupancy for the subject improvements. The
applicant remains responsible for successful reclamation of the
dune vegetation temporarily destroyed under this paragraph.
NOV 16 1993
L
SECTION 11
APPLICATION PROCEDURE AND FEES
A. Application for issuance of any permit required by
-14-
N O V 16 1983 tag . ?.A 4-1099
this ordinance shall be made in writing to the Community
Development Division on a form provided by the Environmental
Planner. The form shall request all information necessary to
evaluate a particular application including but not limited to:
1) Statement as to the applicant's interest in the ..
property and reasonable proof of ownership.
2) Legal description of the property and a boundary
survey or accurate scaled drawing thereof.
3) A tree survey indicating which protected trees are
intended for removal, relocation or alteration in any way and
those which will be left undisturbed. on sites which are larger
than 2.O acres, protected trees may be depicted as a group or
cluster rather than as individual trees, provided the group or
cluster
is one which
is to be either entirely removed
or left
entirely
undisturbed.
A written explanation shall be
included
with the tree survey which identifies those criteria in Section 8
of this ordinance which justify issuance of the requested permit.
4) If landclearing is intended, an erosion control plan
as described in Section 8 B (2), together with reasons for clear-
ing or grubbing of the site.
5) The application shall be submitted and processed
concurrently with site plan review or subdivision approval, as the
case may be, when such approvals are otherwise required to make
use of the property. The site plan or subdivision preliminary
plat shall be prepared in a manner to allow ready comparison with
the tree survey, to assess whether the cited criteria have been
met. All items shown shall be properly dimensioned, scaled and
referenced to the property lines, and setback or yard require-
ments. If known, existing and proposed site elevations and major
contours shall be included.
6) An administrative fee to offset the cost of evalu-
ating the application shall be collected in an amount determined
by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners.
B. The filing of an application shall be deemed to
extend permission to the Environmental Planner to inspect the
subject property if necessary for purposes of evaluating the
® . W-15-
application.
C. For those applications which are not being processed
concurrently with site plan or subdivision approval, the Community.
Development Division shall have ten (10) working days following
receipt of a completed application within which to make a deter-
mination on whether a permit shall be issued as requested. If the
permit is not issued, the Environmental Planner shall state in
writing the reasons for denial and advise applicant of any appeal
remedies available.. If no action has been taken on the applica-
tion within the stated time, the application shall be deemed to
have been approved and the applicant shall be entitled to issuance
of the permit in accordance with the application. For good cause,
the Environmental Planner may request an extension of an addi-
tional ten (10) working days in which to make a determination,
provided the extension is requested prior to expiration of the
initial ten (10) day period.
D. Any permit issued hereunder shall remain valid for a
term of six (6) months and may be renewable for a second six (6)
month period upon request to the Environmental Planner. The
Environmental Planner may require reapplication and full review in
those renewal cases where site conditions have changed
substantially from the date of issuance of the initial permit as a
result of natural growth of trees and vegetation, or high winds,
hurricane, tornado, flooding, fire, or other act of God. If a
permit required by this ordinance has been issued concurrently
with site plan or subdivision approval, then such permit shall run
concurrently with the site plan or subdivision approval and shall
be renewed together therewith.
SECTION 12
DETERMINATION OF PROTECTED AREA
The Environmental Planner shall review each application,
and may inspect each site, for the purpose of making a determina-
tion as to the appropriate protected area to be designated for
those protected trees on a given site. The protected area shall
be established based upon consideration of the species, age, size,
condition of the tree, or soil condition, topography, means of
-16-
NOV 16 1983 PACAn,
N O V 16 1983
wK E-5
protective barrier proposed, or other relevant criteria, and shall
be established for the purpose of protecting the roots and trunk
of a protected tree both during and after construction. In no
event shall the protected area exceed the drip line of the canopy
area, nor shall the protected area be less than an area measured
five (5) feet radially from the center of the tree at its base.
SECTION 13
LOCAL PERMIT NOT EXCLUSIVE
It is the intent of this ordinance that permits or
approvals required hereunder shall be in addition to and not in
lieu of any federal, state, regional or other local approvals
which may be required for the same or similar activities. In the
event this ordinance conflicts with any other regulations on this
subject matter, the more restrictive shall apply, with the excep-
tion that in a municipality, the municipal ordinance shall pre-
vail. Compliance with provisions of this ordinance does not
excuse any person for non-compliance with other applicable
federal, state, regional or local laws.
SECTION 14
VARIANCES AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS
A variance from any of the substantive requirements of
this ordinance or an appeal of any administrative determination
made by the Environmental Planner may be obtained in accordance
with the procedures set forth for such -relief under the current
Zoning Ordinance of Indian River County, however, the Planning and
Zoning Commission of Indian River County shall be the Board to
which all such variance requests or appeals are made.
SECTION 15
TREE PROTECTION AS JUSTIFICATION FOR VARIANCE RELIEF
FROM OTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Inasmuch as the requirements of this ordinance have been
determined to be of vital importance to the health, safety and
well-being of the community, the desire to preserve a protected
tree, whether mandated by this ordinance or not, shall be
considered prima facie a unique or special condition or
=17- _
circumstance peculiar to the land involved for the purpose of
application for a variance from the literal requirements of a land
development ordinance pertaining to building setbacks, parking
space requirements, or minor or residential street right-of-way
widths, provided adjustments are made elsewhere on the site to
preserve the maximum permitted lot coverage and the total minimum
number of parking spaces, and provided safety precautions are
taken to offset any hazard resulting from decreased right-of-way
widths.
SECTION 16
PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT -- CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD
JURISDICTION
A violation of any provision of this ordinance shall be
punishable upon conviction by a fine not to exceed FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($500.00), or by imprisonment in the County jail up to
sixty (60) days, or both such fine and imprisonment. The destruc-
tion or alteration of each tree or plant under this ordinance
shall be considered a separate offense. -The destruction of an
historic or specimen tree, mangrove, or any dune vegetation,
contrary to this ordinance shall receive the maximum penalty pro-
vided by law. Any violation of this ordinance is also subject to
prosecution before the Indian River County Code Enforcement Board
in accordance with applicable law and subject to penalties allow-
able under the Code Enforcement Board Ordinance. In addition to
either of the foregoing remedies, the County or any aggrieved
party havinq a substantial interest in the protections provided by
this ordinance may apply directly to a court of competent juris-
diction for mandatory or prohibitive injunctive relief. In any
enforcement proceeding, the adjudicating body may consider miti-
gating measures voluntarily undertaken by the alleged violator
such as replacement or relocation of trees or vegetation, or other
landscaping improvements, in fashioning its remedy. Such body may
also require such restorative measures.
SECTION 17
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the
i
NOV 1.6 1983 -18- K. rA �
�- 1
JV0VJ 6 7983 + ra : 3
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida
which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance, and
specifically, Section 3 (8)(a) of Appendix A--Zoning--of the Code
of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 18
INCORPORATION IN CODE
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated
into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish
such intentions.
SECTION 19
SEVERABILITY
If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or
word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitu-
tional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the
remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been
the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such uncon-
stitutional, invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 20
EFFECTIVE DATE
This ordinance shall become effective as law on the 10th
calendar day following the date of receipt of acknowledgement from
the Department of State of the filing of this ordinance. Any
project which has received final site plan or subdivision approval
prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be considered
exempt from its requirements, with the exception of mangrove
alteration or removal provisions which shall apply prospectively
to all such activity beginning on the effective date hereof.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 16th day
of November 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
By //,,-
RICHARD
RICHARD N. BIR5
Chairman
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 21st day of November , 1983.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 28th day of November , 1983, at 11:00
A.M./P.M. and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROV S TO FORM AND
LEGA IE
By
CHRPTOPHER J. PAULL, Asst. County Attorney
NOV 16 1983
-20- 600K V 5 ?AG 4
I
NOV 16 1993
K U Ar. 55
PUBLIC HEARING — HELENE HOLDING CO. REQUEST TO AMEND COMPRE—
HENSIVE PLAN
The hour of 2:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
\/ERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
I
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT
Published Daily
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AND TO CONSIDER INTERPRETATION
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Vero Beach Indian River G®unt FloridaThis
• y•
is notice of a hearing to consider the
adoption of a County Ordinance amending
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan by changing the designaton of the com-
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
i mercial node at the intersection of 1-95 and
t C.R. 512 from a commercial node to a
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
! commercial/industrial node and enlarging the
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
node from 150 acres to 175 acres: and
I
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
This is further notice of a hearing to con-
sider the following commercial/industrial
node designation request made by H€LENE
a ��/j�+ pJ
HOLDING COMPANY, as agent for the pre-
sent owner, D.S.C. Enterprises of Newark,
Inc., for the following described property
in the matter of 9 [ �i t i�f //�
which proposed to be included in the 1-95
sig-
i and C.RR . 512 aforementioned Nie as desig-
�
nated on the future land use map in the Land
j Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of In-
dian River County, Florida.
The subject property requested to be so
designated is described as follows:
in the Court, was pub-
BEING A PART OF GOVERNMENT
LOTS 1&2, THE NE 1A OF THE SW %
OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31
/
SOUTH, RANGE 3$ EAST AND A
lished in said newspaper in the issues of 2ce /% CI7J
PART OF SECTION 26 OF THE FLEM-
ING GRANT ALL LYING AND BEING
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT AN IRON PIPE
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
FOUND AT THE SE CORNER OF THE
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
NW 1/4 OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 21,
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38
EAST RUN NORTH ALONG EAST
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
P
LINE OF SAID NW 1A OF THE SW %
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
1141.75 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT -
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
OF -WAY LINE OF THE T.F.C. RR
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
(SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY PRESENTLY
OWNED IN FEE SIMPLE BY GULF
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
WESTERN) ALSO BEING THE TRUE
OF BEGINNING, THENCE
PONTITINUE NORTH ALONG THE PRO-.
CO
CON
Sworn to and subscri be re m s dayA.D. 19
CTIOOF SAID EAST LINE OF THE
4-7 •
NW V. OF SW '/4 2421.88 FEET TO
THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE FLEMING GRANT LINE, THENCE
(BUST S ger)
i
RUN NW ALONG THE FLEMING
-, -
GRANT LINE 1663.68 FEET TO A
/ "�t'�'----✓j �'E"'
POINT. THENCE RUN EAST PARAL-
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida)
LEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NE
'i. OF THE SW % OF SECTION 21,
(SEAL)
TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH. RANGE 38
EAST 2176.66 FEET TO A POINT, ,
THENCE RUN SOUTH PARALLEL TO -
SAID EAST LINE OF THE NW % OF
-THE SW '!4 OF SECTION 21, TOWN-
SHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST•
3739.02 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID
NORTH RIGHT -OF -WAX LINE T.F.C.
RR (SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED LINE
ALSO BEING 1000 FEET EAST OF
SAID EAST LINE OF THE NW '!4 OF
THE SW % AS MEASURED AT A
RIGHT ANGLE). THENCE RUN NW
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
1010.92 FEET BACK TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING
100.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard each of the above matters will be held
by the Board of County Commissioners of In-
dian River County. Florida. in the County
Commission Chambers of the County Admin-
istration Building, located at 1840 25th Street,
Vero Beach, Florida. on Wednesday. Novem-
ber 16. 1983, at 2:00 P.M.
if any person decides to appeal any decision
made on the above matter, he, will need a
record of the proceedings. and for Such pur-
poses. he may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which in-
cludes testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County.Commissroners
By -s -Richard N Bird. Chairman
Oct. 28. Nov 9. 1983
97
Principal Planner Richard Shearer displayed slides of
the subject property and reviewed the following staff
recommendation:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FROM:
October 27, 1983
SUBJECT:
Robert M. Keatidg, Aif�P
Planning & Developme t Director
eS
Richard Shearer AICP
HELENE HOLDING COMPANY
REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMP PLAN ON 100 ACRES
FROM AGRICULTURAL* AND
COMMERCIAL TO COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL AND TO REZONE
FROM A, TO LM -1
Principal Planner REFERENCES:
Req. Helene Hol. Co
DIS:MON
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of.County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of November 16, 1983.
DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS
Helene Holding Company, an agent for D.S.C. of Newark Enter-
prises, Inc., is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan for
100 acres located 3/4 mile east of I-95 and 1000 feet north of
C.R. 512 by redesignating the Commercial node at I-95 and C.R.
512 to a Commercial/Industrial node, enlarging the node to
include all of their property, and rezoning their property from
A, Agricultural District, to LM -1, Light Manufacturing Dis-
trict.
The applicant plans, initially, to construct a 50,000 square
foot electronics manufacturing facility.
On October 12, 1983, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to redesignate the Commercial node at I-95 and County
Road 512 to a Commercial/Industrial node; voted 3 -to -1 to
enlarge the node from 150 to 175 acres; and voted 3 -to -1 to
include the subject property in the node and rezone the subject
property from A, Agricultural District, to LM -1, Light Man-
ufacturing District.
ALTERNATIVES & 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 subject property is currently vacant. All of the land
around the subject property is vacant or being used as pasture
land. The soils are poorly drained in this area, so this site
cannot be considered a prime or unique agricultural area. One
thousand (1000) feet south of the subject property is County
Road 512. South of C.R. 512 is Vero Lakes Estates, a platted
single-family subdivision that is partially developed.
W
NOV 16 1983
NOV 16 1993
FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as
Agricultural. However, part of the subject property could be
included in the Commercial node at the intersection of I-95 and
C.R. 512. This 150.acre node cannot logically accommodate the
existing commercial uses at the interchange, all of the subject
property, and a reasonable amount of infill land in between to
provide a concise node. This node would have to be enlarged to
175 acres to include all of the subject property.
In addition, the node at I-95 and C.R. 512 is designated as a
commercial node. In order to accommodate industrial uses in
this node, the designation must be changed to a commercial/
industrial node.- This type of node already exists at several
other major intersections in the County, including the I-95 and
State Road 60 interchange.
Because industrial facilities generally need access to major
transportation facilities, good land use planning principles
indicate that -industrial locations near interstate highway
interchanges are desirable. Many industrial activities desire
locations near interstate highways because the raw materials
they need and the finished products they produce are shipped by
trucks using these highways. In addition, modern industrial
facilities require large tracts of land to accommodate
single -level buildings for manufacturing processes as well as
adequate area for employee parking spaces. Within the County,
large tracts of available industrial land are difficult to
find. In this case, the existing transportation facilities
have sufficient capacity to handle the traffic needs of indus-
trial land uses in this area, and the large amount of vacant
land ensures that adequate space is available. For these
reasons, there is justification for changing the designation of
the node at I-95 and C.R. 512 to a commercial/industrial node.
Such a redesignation would also warrant an enlargement of the
node to accommodate industrial type land use activities.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
The subject property will be connected to C.R. 512 by a 24 foot
wide paved road with an 80 foot wide right-of-way. The initial
development of a 50,000 square foot industrial building on the
site would generate 945 average daily -trips (ADT). This
additional traffic will have little effect on C.R. 512 which
currently carries less than 4,000 ADT at level -of -service "A"
(capacity is 12,000 ADT).
ENVIRONMENT
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. However, a significant portion of the site is
located in a flood. hazard area (flood elevations have yet to be
determined) as detailed in the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (map
#120119 0075C). The applicant's engineer would have to deter-
mine flood elevations prior to site plan approval. Soils on
the subject property are generally poorly drained and sandy.
The site contains South Florida Slash Pines, Sand Pines,
Palmettos, Wax Myrtles, and Cabbage Palms.
UTILITIES
The subject property is not served by County water nor wastewa-
ter facilities.
99
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, and the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations, staff recommends the following:
1. The Commercial node at I-95 and C.R. 512 be
redesignated a Commercial/Industrial node on the land
use map, and be enlarged from 150 acres to 175 acres;
2. The subject property be included in the node; and
3. The subject property be rezoned -from A, Agricultural
District, to LM -1, Light Manufacturing District. -
Question arose as to how much acreage would be
available in the node after including the subject 100 acres,
and Mr. Shearer explained that the staff approach was based
on enlarging the node to include all 100 acres of the
subject property and have 75 acres available to connect it
to the center of the node, and those acres would be
available for other commercial and industrial uses. It was
felt the very fact that they recommended changing the
designation to commercial/industrial would warrant a slight
increase because of adding additional uses.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to know how much acreage
would be available after considering existing development,
and Mr. Shearer stated that actually there would be 68 acres
left as 7 acres is currently developed. He emphasized that
nodes are meant to be flexible; they can deviate in any way
from the center and do not have to extend equally in each
direction.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if we have some
vehicle whereby we later can redesignate land included in
the node which has not been put to use over the years.
Mr. Shearer reported that staff has told people if they
just sit on the property, there is no guarantee it will
still be in the node. If someone comes in with a viable use
and wants to be in a node, staff feels they should be
allowed.
100
NOV 19 1983 BOW `7� 5 PAS 408"
R_00/ 16 1993 575 {Ac,9
Planning & Zoning Commission Chairman Carolyn Eggert
noted that when her commission first addressed this node, it
was intended to be a 230 acre node but was cut back. She
believed there have been some changes and this should be
readdressed.
Planning Manager Keating noted that we have a workshop
meeting coming up on nodes. He pointed out that one of the
advantages of the nodal system is its relation to the land
economics concept whereby if people holding land at the
center of the node, don't use it, the system is flexible
enough to allow the node to spread out, and this in turn,
discourages speculation.
The Chairman opened the meeting to the public and
asked if anyone present wished to be heard. He asked that a
representative of Helene Holding Co. make their presentation
first.
B. B. Nelson, consultant for Helene Holding Co. took
the floor, and emphasized that what they are proposing is an
ideal industrial development for the purpose of manufac-
turing electronic computers. A 50,000 sq. ft. plant will be
constructed on the land as soon as it can be accomplished
after rezoning. There will be between 85-132 employees
needed immediately, no effluent other than human waste, no
water requirements other than for people, and the
fabrication of sheet metal parts and manufacturing of the
boards will not be accomplished on the site. .Mr. Nelson
explained that the 100 acres is needed for future expansion
for the wastewater treatment plant, for aesthetics, and for
other requirements such as security, antenna sites, etc. He
reported that this company anticipates doubling its size
each year for the next five years, and the types of workers
needed are the types of people available in this county from
other closed down plants. He emphasized the reliability of
the company.
101
Commissioner Scurlock questioned the purpose of
withholding the name of the company, and Mr. Nelson felt
there are several obvious reasons that the majority of
companies coming into an area like this do not want the
company name bandied about, especially when they have a lot
of employees.
Commissioner Wodtke raised a question as to documenta-
tion of the necessary access and building of a road.
Mr. Nelson stated that the contract for the purchase of
the land includes having a road the length of the property,
and the road will be built to county standards.
Bob Byer next came before the Board representing Helene
Holding Company and stated that the company today has about
60 or 70 employees who would be immediately affected by the
move to the proposed site. It will take perhaps six to
eight months to arrange for the design and construction of
the facility, and they do not want their continuing
operations impacted by people who may feel that to commute
to this new site would be too far for them.
J. B. Norton of the Vero Beach Chamber of Commerce
urged the Board to approve the three step project which has
been presented by staff. He noted that while Indian River
County has the fifth highest household income in the State
of Florida, it also has the third highest unemployment
figure -in the state, and we are not providing jobs to take
up the slack. Dale Manufacturing in Wabasso will be going
back to their main office in Ohio, and this will put us down
another 40 jobs. Mr. Norton reported that he has visited
the subject plant and checked everything out he could think
of, and he is completely convinced that they will fit into
this community and not disrupt our lifestyle. He has been
told they anticipate 1,000 employees within five years. Mr.
Norton urged the Board to give this request a favorable
vote.
102
NOV 1 6 1983 BQO 5 PAC.�0
� NOV 16 1983
#86K ur' 5PAGE 411
Pat Flood, Mayor of Sebastian, introduced Tish
Whitfield, acting Mayor for the student "take-over" day to
read the City of Sebastian Resolution supporting the
application of Helene Holding Company.
Ms. Whitfield read the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION N0. 3-2.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN,
FLORIDA, SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION OF
HELENE HOLDING CO. TO AMEND THE INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN
MAP AND ZONING MAP TO PERMIT INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT ON A SITE LOCATED ON CR 512
AND EAST OF I-95, NEAR FELLSMERE, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, the Helene Holding Company, on behalf of
a major technological/electronics corporation presently
doing business in the State of Florida, has applied to
the Indian River County to amend its comprehensive land
use plan map and zoning map to permit the construction
of an industrial`plant on a site located on CR 512 and east
of Interstate 95, near Fellsmere, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the communities that make up Indian River
County have had and continue to have one -of the highest
unemployment rates in the State of Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds and determines that this
County urgently needs high quality, clean, light industry
to establish manufacturing in the county; and
WHEREAS, the application of Helene Holding Company
indicates that if granted, its client will construct and
operate a computer assembly plant at the proposed site, and
that the site will be sufficiently large so as to provide
for expansion; and
WHEREAS, the application indicates that when con-
structed the plant will not cause harmful pollution to the
environment; and
103
L-2
r
WHEREAS, the construction and operation of this
plant will provide much needed employment opportunities for
people of our communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, as follows:
- 1. The Council fully supports the application
of Helene Holding Company to amdnd the Indian River
Comprehensive Plan and Map and Zoning Map to permit
industrial development on a site located on County Road
512, ea -St of Interstate 95, near Fellsmere, Florida.
2. The Council urges the Indian River County
Planning and Zoning Commission and the Indian River County
Commission to amend the comprehensive plan and maps to
permit industrial development to occur at the proposed
site.
THIS RESOLUTION was passed by the City Council
of the City of Sebastian, Florida, on the/066 day
of (�%[' r�h� ,1983.
Mayor,City- of -Sebastian, ori a
Mayor Flood commented that while he did have some
doubts and reservations, especially as to why the company
kept their name secret, he did visit their existing plant
and was quite impressed and can understand why they want a
large site. Mayor Flood believed the proposed plant would
be a big asset not only to his community but to the county
as a whole and hoped the Commission would vote in favor of
their request.
Ms. Pat Lambert, President of Sebastian River Area
Chamber of Commerce, presented petitions with 1,132
signatures of citizens who support the concept of Helene
Holding Company.
Sample of the petition is as follows and the originals
are on file in the Office of the Clerk:
104
wov 161983 s� *A*
L
Fr—
NOV 16 1983
16K
We, the undersigned residettty and concerned citizens of the
Fellsmere-Sebastian area, do hereby endorse the construction
of the proposed electronics manufacturing firm in north
Indian River County.
We therefore petition the Indian River County Commissioners
to grant the redesignation of the land use element of the
Comprehensive Plan to accommodate the proposed facility to
be located on the 100 acre site near Interstate 95 and
County Road 512.
)111.n - _e - t)-R� gd-�
A.ZZ -hl"Ju� "Ezo - 7z"�
L
a
Roger Cooper, 336 Live Oak Dr. Wabasso, spoke on behalf
of Vero Beach Civic Association and stated that they are not
opposed to the establishment of clean light industry in the
county, but they do have objections to certain aspects of
the request, one being the secrecy surrounding this
proposal. Mr. Cooper felt we can accept Mr. Byers
explanation, but believed we still are owed more than we
have heard in this regard. Mr. Cooper had questions as to
how many employees would transfer and how many jobs actually
would be available and felt the projection re doubling their
size every year was unrealistic in view of the present
economic situation. He further wondered why this particular
tract was selected out of all the available industial land
in the county and stated that the Civic Association is still
concerned that there may be a real estate orientation
involved. He felt there should be a more valid reason to
open up a lot of changes to the Comprehensive Plan other
than for just one corporation.
Mr. Byers stated that the company is hiring people at
the rate of about five a month and expects to continue doing
so for quite some period of time. He did hope the employees
they have will join them in their move, but they are coming
down here because they think the body of people available
will make it easier to hire the people they need to imple-
ment their growth plans. Of course, they do have some turn-
over and undoubtedly will lose some employees when they
move.
Ray Scent, Realtor, also had strong doubts as to the
projections re doubling their size each year and felt their
other plans re a road the length of the property, a waste-
water plant, security, etc., indicate the possibility that
they could fence in the entire parcel and suddenly have a
very convenient 100 acre industrial complex with a lock on
it for the whole future. Mr. Scent believed that adding the
105
Nov 1 1983 8�g U %AIA
I� J
r 1
.NOV 16 1993 gig PAG1 15
25 acres in order to go over and take this property into the
node emasculates that whole intersection. Instead of adding
25 acres in order to connect up with one detached piece of
property, Mr. Scent felt it would be preferable to increase
the node back to the original 230 acres, let the nature of
the intersection work for itself, and give other people a
crack at future development rather than handing practically
every bit of the commercial/ industrial area over to one
ownership.
Nancy Branch Offutt came before the Board representing
the Vero Beach Board of Realtors who enthusiastically join
the Sebastian and Vero Beach Chambers of Commerce in their
endorsement of the proposal. She urged the Commission to
consider the many benefits to the county and the mandate of
the population in welcoming future light industry.
Sebastian Councilman Jim Gallagher spoke of the need to
provide the necessary economic opportunities for the youth
of our community and urged the Commission to give an okay to
the request of Helene Holding Company.
Alvin Thomas, Mayor of Fellsmere, quoted an article
from the TODAY newspaper wherein the Mayor of Malabar spoke
of the great benefits brought to his town by Harris Corpora-
tion. Mayor Thomas emphasized that we must provide our
young people with something more meaningful than drugs and
welfare, and believed that Helene Holding Company is
offering us a start in this direction. He agreed that he
certainly would not want a plant that would cause pollution,
etc., but he has visited their existing.plant and been
impressed with their operation. Mayor Thomas believed they
do need room for expansion and felt that Mr. Scent, with his
concern about the zoning, is representing special interests
and wants to make a sale, which is understandable. Mayor
Thomas mentioned that three of the Commissioners present are
106
coming up for re-election, and he urged the Board to vote in
the interests of all, not for special interests.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that the City of Vero
Beach at one time had great hopes for their Airport complex,
but to this date the only development out there is basically
the City of Vero Beach itself. He felt now, however, we
have a real live prospect. Commissioner Scurlock noted that
we have been trying to attract light industry, and he felt
the proposed project will not only benefit the community,
but will indicate that we do have a sincere interest in
clean light industry. He further pointed out that the
Sebastian community has industrial acreage available, and he
felt it is unselfish of them to come before us and support
this request.
Commissioner Lyons expressed the belief that if this
factory locates in our area, it will attract other industry,
and he favored approving their request.
Chairman Bird felt Mayor Thomas hit it on the head when
he said you have to represent all the people. Strictly from
a planning point of view, the Chairman agreed it would be
nice if the subject property were right in the center of
that intersection and we did not have to stretch some to
include it, but he felt the plusses of having this type of
development in the county certainly outweigh the minuses.
Commissioner Bowman agreed and believed, if the price
of the land doesn't get too horrendously high around that
intersection, the node eventually could encompass it.
107
NOV 16 1983
L_--
r
NQV16 1993
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 83-42, changing the designation of the
Commercial Node at the intersection of CR 512 and
I-95 to Commercial/Industrial on the Land Use Map
and enlarging it from 150 acres to 175 acres.
ORDINANCE NO. 83-42
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and
pursuant thereto held a public hearing in relation thereto, at
which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW,
THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, and the
accompanying Land Use Map, be amended as follows:
1. That the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan be
amended by changing the designation of the commercial
node at the intersection of I-95 and C.R. 512 from a
commercial node to a commercial/industrial node and
enlarging the node from 150 acres to 175 acres.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Land Use Element.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida on thisl6th day of November ,
1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
RICHARD N. BIRD
Chairman
108
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
adopted Resolution 83-115, designating the
advertised 100 acres represented by Helene
Holding Company to be included within the
CR 512 I-95 Commercial/Industrial Node.
109
NOV 16 1983
5009
U FAGS 'S, _.
N 0 V 16 1993
RESOLUTION NO. 83- 115
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DESIGNATING CERTAIN
PROPERTY AS LYING WITHIN THE I-95 CR512 COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, after notice and public hearing, adopted an
ordinance amending the County's Comprehensive Plan to redesignate
the commercial node at the intersection of I-95 and CR512 as a
175 -acre commercial/industrial node; and
WHEREAS, Helene Holding Co., as Agent for D.S.C.
Enterprises of Newark, Inc., the owner of a 100 -acre parcel near
the intersection, has requested that the County make a formal
determination as to whether their property lies within said node,
within the meaning and intent of the County's Comprehensive Plan;
and
WHEREAS, the County's Planning and Zoning Commission,
after notice and public hearing, has recommended that the County
Commission favorably consider the requested designation; and
'WHEREAS, the Board of County�Commissioners has conducted
a public hearing, after due notice, on the issue of whether or not
the aforementioned property, which is more particularly described
in the attached Exhibit "A," is within said node, as contemplated
by the Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan, as
amended.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed in their
entirety; and
2. The 100 -acre more or less parcel presently owned by
D.S.C. Enterprises of Newark, Inc., and more particularly
described in the attached Exhibit "A," is hereby determined to lie
within the 175 -acre commercial/industrial node designated at the
intersection of I-95 and County Road 512, in accordance with the
Land Use Element of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner -
Lyons who moved its adoption.
110
The motion was seconded
by Commissioner Scurlock
vote was as follows:
and, upon -being put to a vote, the
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. Wodtke, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly
passed and adopted this 16th
Attest: -
FREDA WRI H L
Clerk
APPROVED
AND LEGA
By
A
day ofNovember , 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By,
RICHARD N. BIRD
Chairman
EXHIBIT "A"
BEING A PART OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1&2, THE NE 4 OF THE SW 4 OF
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST AND A PART OF
SECTION 26 OF THE FLEMING GRANT ALL LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT AN IRON PIPE FOUND AT THE SE CORNER OF THE NW 4
OF THE SW 4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST RUN
NORTH ALONG EAST LINE OF SAID NW 4 OF THE SW 4 1141.75 FEET TO
THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE T.F.C. RR (SAID RIGHT-OF-
WAY PRESENTLY OWNED IN FEE SIMPLE BY GULF WESTERN) ALSO BEING
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUE NORTH ALONG THE
PROJECTION OF SAID EAST LINE OF'THE NW 4 OF THE SW 4 2421.88
FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE FLEMING GRANT LINE,
THENCE RUN NW ALONG THE FLEMING GRANT LINE 1663.68 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE RUN EAST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NE 4
OF THE SW 4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST
2176.66 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE RUN SOUTH PARALLEL TO SAID EAST
LINE OF THE NW 4 OF THE SW 4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH,
RANGE 38 EAST 3739.02 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE T.F.C. RR (SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED LINE ALSO BEING 1000
FEET EAST OF SAID EAST LINE OF THE NW 4 OF THE SW 4 AS MEASURED
AT A RIGHT ANGLE). THENCE RUN NW ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
.1010.92 FEET BACK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING
100.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
111
NOV 16 1983
x na-420
N D V 16 19-83 Sim : ra�.� 41 .
-=
PUBLIC HEARING — HELENE HOLDING COMPANY REZONING
The hour of 2:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
AERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published wily
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
in the matter ofi
in the
Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of6Z AL %'24y • /,
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 subscribyJ bef)fle me^ n D79 day of ._�•A.D. 19
(SEAL)
s
Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, rndian,/RWer County, Florida)
NOTICE PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption
of a County Ordinance rezoning land from:
A. "Agricultural District" to LM -1,
"Light Manufacturing District. The
subject property presently owned by
D.S.C. of Newark Enterprises, Inc., is
located east of Interstate 95, north of
C.R. 512.
The subject property is described as:
BEING A PART OF GOVERNMENT
LOTS 182• THE NE 'A OF THE SW 'A
OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31
SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST AND A
PART OF SECTION 26 OF THE FLEM-
ING GRANT ALL LYING AND BEING
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT AN IRON PIPE
FOUND AT THE SE CORNER OF THE
NW 'A OF THE SW '/4 OF SECTION 21,
4 TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38
EAST RUN NORTH ALONG EAST
LINE OF SAID NW '/. OF THE SW 'A
1141.75 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF THE T.F.C. RR
(SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY PRESENTLY
OWNED IN FEE SIMPLE BY GULF
WESTERN) ALSO BEING THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING. THENCE
CONTINUE NORTH ALONG THE PRO-
JECTION OF SAID EAST LINE F THE
NW '/4 OF SW 'A 2421.88 FEET TO
THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH
THE FLEMING GRANT LINE, THENCE
RUN NW ALONG THE FLEMING, ,
GRANT LINE 1663.68 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE RUN EAST PARAL-
LEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NE
'A OF THE SW 'A OF SECTION 21,
TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38
EAST 2176.66 FEET TO A POINT,
THENCE RUNSOUTH PARALLEL TO
SAID EAST LINE OF THE NW 'A OF
THE SW % OF SECTION 21, TOWN-
SHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST
.3739.02 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID
NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE T.F.C.
RR (SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED LINE
ALSO BEING 1000 FEET EAST OF
SAID EAST LINE OF THE NW Y4 OF
THE SW % AS MEASURED AT A
RIGHT ANGLE). THENCE RUN NW
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
1010.92 FEET BACK TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING "
100.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
A public hearing at which parties in interest .
and citizens shall have an opportunity to be
heard, will be held by the Board of County.
Commissioners of Indian River County, Flor-.
ida; in the County Commission Chambers of .
the County Administration Building, located at,
1840 26th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Wednesday, November 16,1983, at 2:00 P.M. -'
If any person decides to appeal any decision-
made
ecisionmade on the above matter, he will need a
record of the proceedings, and for such pur-:
poses, he may need to ensure that a verbatim ,
record of the proceedings is made, which In- ,
cludes testimony and evidence upon which •
the appeal is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Oct. 28, Nov. 9, 1983.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be
heard.
Ray Scent spoke in opposition to rezoning of the entire
100 acres and requested that the Commission make it only 25.
Mr. Scent stated that if in the future someone should come
112
I
8
in with a plan and can justify it; he would then be in favor
of it, but he did not want to give it all to one person.
Chairman Bird pointed out that the entire node does not
have to stretch in that direction if we get a request from
one of the other quadrants, and Planning Director Keating
confirmed that each node develops on the basis of first
come, first served, and not in any particular geometric
pattern. He further noted that the Board could at any point
in time determine that this property is no longer in the
node and take action to rezone it and also pointed out that
nothing precludes the Board from increasing the node even
further.
Ray Scent argued about the center of the node changing
as you add land, and Mr. Keating commented that center
probably is not the right word - "focus" would be more
accurate.
Commissioner Bowman noted that a node is not just a
circle; it is a glob and can go in any direction.
Mayor Thomas again spoke emotionally about the need to
help the young people and afford them opportunities to work.
The Chairman determined that no one further wished to
be heard.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
closed the public hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt
Ordinance 83-43 rezoning the 100 acres to
LM -1 as requested by Helene Holding Company.
Commissioner Wodtke wished to respond to the concern
113
NOV 16 1983 BOOK r 5 PAGE4 2 ..
NOV 16 1993
899 u5 PAGL423
expressed about
not
knowing
the name of
the
company. He
noted that back
in
the 50's
when Piper
was
talking about
coming to town, they also had reasons to do it quietly.
Commissioner. Wodtke stated that while he is not happy about
the name being kept secret, he is convinced it is a proper
company and that they will add a lot to the community. He
also believed there is a great potential and that the need
for 100 acres is in line.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
114
ORDINANCE NO. 3-4
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property and pursuant thereto
held a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning Ordinance of
Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Zoning Map,
be amended as follows:
1. That the Zoning Map be changed in order that
the following described property situated in
Indian River County, Florida, to -wit:
BEING A PART OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1&2, THE NE 4 OF THE SW 4 OF
SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST AND A PART OF
SECTION 26 OF THE FLEMING GRANT ALL -LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
COMMENCING AT AN IRON PIPE FOUND AT THE SE CORNER OF THE NW 4
OF THE SW 4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST RUN
NORTH ALONG EAST LINE OF SAID NW 4 OF THE SW 4 1141.75 FEET TO
THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE T.F.C. RR (SAID RIGHT-OF-
WAY PRESENTLY OWNED IN FEE SIMPLE BY GULF WESTERN) ALSO BEING
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, THENCE CONTINUE NORTH ALONG THE
PROJECTION OF SAID EAST LINE OF THE NW 4 OF THE SW 4 2421.88
FEET TO THE POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE FLEMING GRANT LINE,
THENCE RUN NW ALONG THE FLEMING GRANT LINE_ 1663.68 FEET TO A
POINT, THENCE RUN EAST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NE 4
OF THE SW 4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST
2176.66 FEET TO A POINT, THENCE RUN SOUTH PARALLEL TO SAID EAST
LINE OF THE NW 4 OF THE SW 4 OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH,
RANGE 38 EAST 3739.02 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTH RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE T.F.C. RR (SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED LINE ALSO BEING 1000
FEET EAST OF SAID EAST LINE OF THE NW 4 OF THE SW 4 AS MEASURED
AT A RIGHT ANGLE). THENCE RUN NW ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
1010.92 FEET BACK TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING
100.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
Be changed from A, "Agricultural District" to LM -1, "Light
• Manufacturing 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 thisl6thday of November ,
1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY �'c`�r�'�4,L
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
115
NOV 16 1983 1600 U P��.���4
NOV 16 1993 55 ri i4?5
Mr. Nelson requested the Board's assistance on two
other items. He informed the Board that it is their intent
to build the road coming into the property immediately with
letters of credit or bonds, and he would like a Motion to
instruct the staff to work with them to design the road.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that is standard operating
procedure, and the Administrator confirmed that all Mr.
Nelson has to do is ask.
Mt. Nelson then brought up the problem of matching the
road right-of-way with the permitted railroad right-of-way
crossings, and asked the County's assistance in acquiring an
easement to eliminate a possible "S" in the road, even to
condemnation if necessary. He mainly wished the County's
support to give them strength in negotiating.
Chairman Bird suggested that Mr. Nelson get together
with the County Administrator and Attorney, who will come
back and advise the Board re this matter.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER ACTION RE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM
Chairman Bird announced that the Clerk has requested
that the Board allow some time later in the meeting to
readdress Agenda Item 8-B re a budget amendment for the Data
Processing IBM System/38.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unani-
mously agreed to reconsider the above agenda
item as requested by the Clerk.
DISCUSSION RE'FOURTH COURTROOM.
Dr. Hardin, Assistant to the County Administrator,
reviewed the following staff memo:
116
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: November 14, 1983 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
THRU: C. B. H din,Jr. Ph. D. FOURTH COURTROOM ALTERNATIVES
Asst. o ounty Admin./ SUBJECT:
GENERA ERVICES DIVISION
FROM:jBilding
Williams , Supt. REFERENCES:
& Grounds Dept.
Staff was directed by -the Board to investigate all possible
alternatives for providing space for a 4th courtroom. The process
included locating and pricing of lease space available which would
be suitable for the proposed use. Staff also prepared a basic
design for a large Courtroom to be constructed in the Courthouse
Annex. The proposed design is conceptual only and is designed
with future use in mind, should the Courts be located in the new
Justice Complex at a later date.
Listed below please find the lease space alternatives investi-
gated by staff:
1) 2001 Building, Suite 311 was formerly used as a courtroom
during the courthouse alteration project. It includes approxi-
mately 1500 sq. ft. of space, with a separate room set aside
for jury deliberations. There are no restrooms within the
space. Staff feels that at very best this would be a temporary
set-up and a full fledged trial would cause some parking pro-
blems.
2) Univest.Building - This building is scheduled for completion
in the very near future and is presently a shell to which
tenants would make their own alterations. Up to 8,000 sq. ft.
is available at a base rate of $12.00 per foot annual lease
cost.
Staff would need authorization to negotiate interior altera-
tions, lease rate, and length of lease should the Board decide
to lease this space.
3) Transmission $ Distribution Warehouses - Staff discussed with
City the future use plans of both warehouses and office areas
they use for the T & D Department. City warehouse located at
the intersection of Indian River Boulevard and 17th Street
Causeway will be relocated to the City Industrial Park in the
near future. This warehouse is located on a large tract of
land and is directly west of the Sewer Treatment Plant. It is
a steel type building and would require major alterations for
use as a court facility. Downtown warehouse is similar struc-
ture located next to the old power plant. Either of the pro-
perties could be viewed from,a purchase point of view as well.
4) Townsend Building - now in preliminary design stages. Staff
met with Jack Townsend, developer of the project, to discuss
possible long term lease arrangements for space in this com-
plex. Project would be located south of 2001 Building in
Vero Beach.
Alterations would be required on either of the above lease
spaces. More extensive alterations would be required in the Univest
space, as it presently unfinished. The Townsend property would
be built to our specifications.
117
N 0 V 1 1
6 983
NOV 16 193
In addition to the above properties, staff made inquiries
on two buildings on the market for sale.
1) Assembly of God building, located on Atlantic Boule-
vard at 20th Avenue. Architect, John Calmes, studied
this property as a possible court facility. The
building is located adjacent to County -owned property
bordering the Relief Canal. Major alterations would
be required for use as a court facility.
2) Masonic Lodge - '14th Avenue and 19th Place - Older,
two story building available for sale. Inadequate
area for off-street parking. Alterations required.
Annex Alteration:
Staff has made preliminary cost projections for providing a
4th courtroom within the Courthouse Annex. Approximately 50% of
the projected total of $50,000 is for interior furnishings which
could be used elsewhere in the court system should it be moved in
the future. Interior partitions ate proposed as demountable with
sound insulation in all walls.
Carpet is proposed to be installed with existing carpet used
for padding.
Electrical alterations will include additional convenience
outlets and lighting changes.
Air conditioning will include duct work alterations and possi-
bly a separate system for the jury room area.
All ceiling tile will be replaced and all existing walls
patched and painted.
The Judges' Bench would require millwork provided by an out-
side source. The design and dimensions should be approved by the
Judges before construction.
Staff has based the design and cost projections from a prac-
tical viewpoint with the basic necessities included and using what-
ever information, concerning future court needs, was available.
Staff feels additional information on the long range needs of the
court system would be helpful in planning for future space require-
ments.
Administrator Wright brought up financing and wished to
make it clear that he cannot tell how much money we have
until we actually refinance this building. He noted that
$50,000 was borrowed from the General Fund to settle the
Reinhold case, and he felt that needs to come out first, but
believed we then would be in the neighborhood of $250,000 to
$325,000, hopefully more.
Discussion continued re any commitments we may have
besides repayment of the Reinhold loan, and the Administra
118
for noted the Board might want to -consider that some kind of
financing needs to be in place to pay back the purchase of
the jail land.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to discuss the kind of
money that will be generated by a refinancing and pointed
out that the Finance Committee had been figuring on as much
as $527,000 and nothing less than $450,000. He had felt the
emphasis on the refinancing was to generate as much new
money as possible.
OMB Director Barton explained that those scenarios were
based on the market at that day; since then interest rates
have drifted up, and there is a rate cap on the ordinance.
Commissioner Scurlock felt possibly we need to get back
into negotiating the refinancing again if they are going to
change it that much and believed we should calla Finance
Advisory Committee meeting as it seems a lot has happened
without their being involved.
Administrator Wright noted that nothing has happened
yet. We are in a very changeable market, and he did not
believe the Advisory Committee should meet until we have a
firm proposal.
Dr. Hardin wished everyone to understand that the Annex
alteration proposed by staff is simply meant to deal with
the situation on a temporary basis.
Judge Charles Smith made the presentation for the
judiciary, stressing that the proposed fourth courtroom has
been in the planning stages for over two years, and the
Board already has paid an architect about $13,000 to design
a courtroom to occupy the vacant space on the second floor
of the Annex. Judge Smith emphasized that it would not be
in the best interests of the court facilities or the Clerk's
office to locate this courtroom anywhere other than the
Annex and felt to do so would be not only unworkable, but
extremely uneconomical, especially when you take into
119
NOV i9� sQ�K �� PA�E•��8 ;
16 3
Pr-
NOV 16 1J"
if 5 PACEM
consideration the savings generated by jury pooling. Judge
Smith continued that acoustics are of vital importance since
they now record their hearings rather than pay a court
reporter, and he did not believe the county employees, who
are not professionals, have the capability of designing a
workable courtroom. He further did not think that any type
of temporary courtroom would work and believed that any
so-called "temporary" courtroom would become a permanent
courtroom. The Judge emphasized that they do not need a
courtroom at the jail site, only a hearing room, and he felt
if the Commission would build the courtroom in the Annex, it
would be sufficient for the next three to five years,. at
which point possibly some could be done to split off
the County Judge. He again stressed that the fourth
courtroom is needed now, and urged that the Board approve
the plan submitted by Architect Calmes and implement
financing.
Administrator Wright asked if Judge Smith felt they
could live with the low ceiling height, and Judge Smith
believed so. He noted that he is relying on the architect,
who in his letter stated that they do not anticipate any
acoustical problem from the low ceiling if a complete sound
system is implemented.
Commissioner Lyons noted that Court Administrator
Douglas had no problems with the revised plan prepared by
the County staff and further noted that we are -not sure we
are going to have enough money to do anything much different
in any event.
Judge Smith was emphatic on the point that the judici-
ary does not want to rely on plans that are not done by a
professional architect or built by a general contractor. As
to funds, the Judge noted that figures have been mentioned
in the range of $250,000 to $450,000 and also pointed out
120
that he has presented the Board with a proposal in regard to
generating revenue by increasing court filing fees.
Administrator Wright noted that he is asking the Board
not to commit to spending that money until we actually have
it in the bank.
Chairman Bird spoke of the Board's shock on first
learning the cost estimated to renovate the Annex, which it
was felt was completely out of line. He asked if Architect
Calmes had had any chance to reflect on these figures.
Mr. Calmes reviewed the estimate he made in September,
1982, which totaled $325,000, and noted that it included the
following four items:
Reconstruction of the space $186,000
Covering of the walkway 52,000
Recording & amplification
equipment 12,000
Furnishings package 75,000
Mr. Calmes continued that in June of 1983, he sent a
statement of probable cost pursuant to their contract at
the end of schematic design and stated they still felt
comfortable with these numbers. Mr. Calmes felt the covered
walkway was important in order to integrate the buildings
and utilize the existing facilities in the old courthouse.
Since the courtroom is such a complex integration of a
variety of functions and people, it was felt the sound
system also should be in their realm of responsibility so
they could have total control of the job. That is not
normally considered a construction cost. Mr. Calmes be-
lieved a budget of $325,000 would still be a viable budget
if we moved expeditiously.
Commissioner Bowman inquired what the $186,000 for
reconstruction of space includes, and Mr. Calmes stated that
it is close to 3,000 sq. ft. He noted that square foot cost
of construction of new justice facilities is running between
$120 to $150, and this figure is approximately half of that.
121
NOV 16 1983
BOOK PACE �:i
� 1
N 0 V 16 7933 KE 5 PACE 411
Chairman Bird asked Architect Calmes if he could
possibly redesign the courtroom to fit within a $150,000
budget, and Mr. Calmes reviewed in detail the various
factors inherent in the design of a courtroom which present
many specialized problems.
Chairman Bird wished Judge Smith to confirm that he was
indicating we should continue to consolidate our court
facilities in their present locale and that he felt this
probably would suffice 3-5 years.
Judge Smith confirmed that he felt it is unrealistic to
consider putting up courtroom facilities at the jail site
within the next 3-5 years. The way the county is growing,
however, he believed that'in five years we will be ready to
split off the county court system and let them move out
there first.
Clerk Freda Wright assured the Board that there is a
very pressing need for larger courtroom for circuit court
work, not county court.
Considerable discussion ensued as to whether Judge
Stikelether's courtroom was satisfactory for the larger
trials, and Judge Smith stated that it is satisfactory for
medium size trials, but actually it is not wide enough.
Mr. Calmes made the point that the concept of a
temporary courtroom of the magnitude being discussed is
unfeasible because of all the systems that go into it, and
he, therefore, felt it is necessary to look at .it in a more
permanent long range nature.
Commissioner Lyons stated that he would not vote to
spend either $320,000 or $186,000 on this because he
believed we can provide an adequate court space for the next
3-5 years by making the simpler revisions we have proposed.
Commissioner Wodtke did not disagree. with the Judge's
belief that these functions should stay consolidated in the
Courthouse area or with his belief that the fourth courtroom
122
in the Annex would probably be in use for more than five
years, but he did have a problem with renovating a 70 x 40
space in an existing building for $325,000.
Commissioner Scurlock objected to the $52,000 estimated
for a covered walkway.
Judge .Smith made the point that the estimate for the
jail facility was $450,000, and he understood that a
prefabricated jail would cost $19.00 per bed rather than
$37.00 per bed. He did not feel we needed to build a Taj
Mahal for a jail.
Commissioner Lyons took offense at this remark and
informed the Judge that the contract with the architect
included investigating the possibility of prefabrication of
part of the jail.
Judge Smith continued to argue about costs, etc., and
emphasized that the lack of availability of a larger
courtroom would be a bottleneck to the entire judicial
system.
Attorney Charles Sullivan took the floor and spoke
eloquently of the urgent need for a fourth courtroom in the
Annex as he believed it would be a disaster to break off
part of the system at this point. He brought up the
technical problems involved with using Judge Stikelether's
court, pointing out that County Court operates almost two
weeks a month while criminal cases may go on for weeks at a
time. Attorney Sullivan agreed that everything costs too
much these days, but, like it or not, it is necessary to
have adequate facilities for a court system. Since the
Board already has money invested with the architect, he felt
we should put Mr. Calmes' proposal out to bid.
Administrator Wright commented that actually the
proposed renovation of the room in the Annex would result in
a courtroom only slightly larger than Judge Stikelether's
NOV 16 1983
123
QQlf '-5 PAGE 4
1
NOV 16 1993 �A
present courtroom, and he wondered if the judicial system
really would be happy with it.
Attorney Sullivan made the point that all the judges
and lawyers, as well as the Clerk, have met and made their
wishes known, and the plan designed by Architect Calmes
satisfies all of them even though the renovated courtroom
may not be as large as they could wish.
Commissioner Scurlock believed we are kidding ourselves
when we talk about this courtroom only being used for 3-5
years; he noted we are talking about a ten year bond issue
for the jail project, and it could be even longer.
Attorney Sullivan agreed that any courtroom the Commis-
sion builds will be the one all the lawyers here will deal
with indefinitely, and whether they can get a larger
courtroom or not, they definitely need an additional
courtroom.
Attorney George Moss agreed with Attorney Sullivan and
emphasized that' our court system is mandated. He informed
the Board that he was just involved in a case in which there
were 120 exhibits, and it took the Deputy Clerk and the
Bailiff 30 minutes each night just to lock them up. He
further noted that there are security problems with large
cases. Attorney Moss felt it is time for the Commission to
"bite the bullet" and face that there is a need and there is
no way around it.
Attorney Miles Mank added his support,to Attorneys Moss
and Sullivan, emphasizing that the fourth courtroom is an
absolute necessity.
Chairman Bird asked Mr. Calmes for a ballpark figure on
the additional money it would require for him to go into
construction drawings on his proposal.
Mr. Calmes estimated roughly that architectural fees
from this point to completion of construction drawings and
124
- M 'M
contract documents would be approximately another $18,000,
and the bid phase would be probably another $1,600.
Chairman Bird asked if Mr. Calmes felt the octagonal
configuration of his design contributed to the high cost,
and Mr. Calmes did not believe so. He pointed out that
although it. may take a bit longer to lay out the basic
. framework, it results in better utilization of the square
footage.
'4
Chairman Bird suggested that we proceed with design of
the covered walkway, but only bid it as an alternative.
Commissioner Scurlock asked the Judge and attorneys
present if they would state that they would be happy for the
next five years if the Commission did build the architect's
design without the covered walkway, and Judge Smith and the
attorneys indicated that they would.
Sherman Smith, III, President of the local Bar
Association presented the Commission with a unanimous
Resolution of the Bar Association supporting the urgent need
for a fourth courtroom. He echoed the belief that this
courtroom would not be of a temporary nature, but would
probably be in use until the building fell down.
125
N O V 16 1983
NOV 16 1993 E,5 PAA15
At the regular monthly meeting of the Indian River County Bar
Association held on March 15, 1983, the following Resolution
was unanimously passed:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Indian River County has recently been certified `
by the Suprome Court of the State of Florida as needing an
additional County Judge; and
WIiEREAS, the Supreme Court of the State of Florida has
recently certified that an additional Circuit Judge is needed
by the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of which Indian River
County is a part; and
WHEREAS, the present.courtrooms at the Indian River County
Courthouse are not presently able -to handle the existing case-
load of all Judges presently based at the said Courthouse; and
WIiEREAS, the Indian River County Commission is consider-
ing adding an additional courtroom in the Courthouse Annex.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Indian River County
Bar Association endorses the concept of adding a courtroom in
the Indian River County Courthouse Annex and further, encourages`
the Indian River County Commission to act promptly in establish-
ing said courtroom so that the ends of justice will not suffer:
or be delayed. ;
L WR C E A. AR , ecretary
Treasurer, Indian River County
Bar Association
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke for purposes
of discussion, to authorize Architect John
Calmes to go to construction drawings of
his design for the fourth courtroom with
the exception of the covered walkway.
126
Attorney. Sullivan believed the walkway is essential
since there is no elevator in the Annex. He asked if
possibly just a canvas awning arrangement would be feasible.
Administrator Wright did feel we need to bid it as an
alternative.
Mr. Calmes agreed there are a variety of coverings they
can look into, but wished to clarify that if his firm did
design the covered walkway and receive bids on it, they then
would be compensated for that part of the.job whether or not
it was accepted as part of the contract.
Administrator Wright stated that he would back off from
his recommendation to include the walkway in the bidding as
an alternative, and Attorney Mank felt we should just say
scrap the walkway.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that if the bid figures
come in at the total of the $186,000 for renovation of the
room, $12,000 for the recording system, and $75,000 for
furnishings as estimated by Mr. Calmes, he is not going to
vote for it. He again brought up the county staff plan, but
Administrator Wright noted that the staff plan was intended
to be more of a temporary nature.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he personally en-
visioned continued unhappiness, but he has heard the Judge
and the attorneys commit that they will not complain for the
next five years.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Lyons voting in opposition.
RETROACTIVE APPROVAL FOR JAIL COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR SOUTH
DAKOTA TRIP
Commissioner Lyons reviewed his memo as follows, noting
127
NOV 1619 3 Bo `5 PaEPB
N O V 16
1983
WK
%'05 FAA3
that
since this item had not been taken up at the
Special
Meeting of November 9th, it will now require retroactive
approval:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board.of County Commissioners
FROM: Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman
Jail Committee
DATE: November 8, 1983
SUBJECT: South Dakota Trip
At the last Jail Committee meeting it was determined that
there is a jail in Sioux Falls, South Dakota which is almost
identical to the one we are considering. It is the
recommendation of the Committee that we send representatives
there at once to ascertain, from experience, whether or not the
design we are considering will save the maximum number of
around-the-clock guards. We are in a critical stage in design
and must determine this at once. Because of the -work required on
the bond issue, it is necessary to get this question settled
prior to our next regular meeting. Consequently, I am asking
that the subject of this trip be placed on the Agenda of the -
November 9, 1983 Special Call Meeting of the Board of County
Commissioners.
I would like to ask for the Commission to send three members
from the Jail Committee. The Sheriff will provide the financing
for his personnel.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously
granted retroactive approval of out -of -County
travel for three members of the Jail Committee
to visit the jail in Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
as set out in the above memo.
DISCUSSION REGARDING ANNUAL REORGANIZATIONAL MEETING
Commissioner Lyons announced that he is going to be in
California over Christmas and is planning to be back by the
first meeting in January, but wondered if the Board might
consider having the reorgganizational meeting the second
meeting in December rather than the first meeting in
January.
128
Chairman Bird felt possibly we could move the reorgani-
zational meeting to the second meeting in January.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously
agreed that if all five Commissioners are not
present at the first meeting in January, the
reorganizational meeting will be delayed until
the second meeting in January, or until all
five Commissioners are present.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT LEGISLATIVE MEETING
Commissioner Lyons reported that he is disturbed by the
people involved with the proposed growth management legisla-
tion, and he would like the Commission to set up an educa-
tional meeting with our Legislative Delegation to see what
we are doing about growth management and what is in the
mill.
Administrator Wright informed the Board that Represen-
tative Patchett suggested we bring this up at the Legisla-
tive Delegation meeting in January, and if the Board concurs
and would like to have an informal presentation, we can make
it a part of our allocated time.
Commissioner Lyons believed we have got to be heard on
this, and the Board members concurred.
Commissioner Lyons thereupon left the meeting at 5:20
o'clock P.M.
BID # 188 - 4 AUTOMOBILES FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
129
NOV 16 1983
16 1983
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: Oct. 31, 1983 FILE:
PAGE 439
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC BID #188 - (4) New 1983 or
County Administrator 1984 - 4 Dr. Automobiles
GEWAL S VICES IVIS ON -
FROM: L �` ���-�.� REFERENCES:
aro ynodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions:
Bids were received October 25, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for (4) New
4 Door Automobiles for the Building Department Inspectors.
The State Contract for Automobiles and Trucks expired August 31, 1983.
The new contract will not be available until at least Mid -November. The
only mid-size vehicles available on the State Contract are police (pursuit)
vehicles.
18 Bid Proposals were sent out, 7 bids were received.
2. Alternatives and Analysis:
Of the 7 bidders responding, 3 did not meet specifications. Of the
4 bidders meeting specifications, the low bid was submitted by Bill Schultz
Chevrolet for 1984 Chevrolet Citations in the amount of $8192.34 each, total
of $32,769.36 for 4.
3. Recommendation and Funding:
Staff recommends IRC Bid ,#188 be awarded to the low bidder, Bill Schultz
Chevrolet in the amount of $32,769.36 for 4 - 1984 Chevrolet Citations.
There is $40,000 budgeted in Account #441-233-524-66-42 for the
purchase of 4 automobiles.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his only question was
regarding the Dodge Aries and Chevrolet Cavalier that were
substantially less money. Athough these apparently have
less options, he wished to know if they might not be
acceptable.
Purchasing Manager Carolyn Goodrich noted that those
models are 4 cylinder and the specs call for 6 cylinders.
Administrator Wright did believe we need the 6 cylinder
engine; he felt there is no significant difference in
economy, but a lot less strain on the engine and he would
130
W
advise approval of all four six cylinder cars as
recommended.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Lyons
having left the meeting, the Board by a 4 to
0 vote, approved recommendation of staff and
awarded Bid #188 to the low bidder, Bill Schultz -
Chevrolet for four 1,984 Chevrolet Citations in
the amount of $32,769.36.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
2145 -14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
'ter i m \
O°
r D
o°� k,
- yi� 4
. c° c`'
9m
�
a'
BID NO.
IRC BID #188
DATE OF OPENING
Oct. 25, 1983
BID TITLE'a���
(4) New 1983 or 1984 Automobiles
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
- - —
UNIT PRICE
UNIT
'1. (4) New 1983 or 1984 -4Dr
Celebritv
Citation
4 Cy
Mer
�ury
Po
tia
N
ssai
Ci
tati
n
Automobiles
6 Cyl.
Aries
Topaz
Bonne
ill
Seiitra
6
8224
Cyl
00
_
4 Each
8883 05
8192
34
7798
98
8379
00
9106
42
7511
00
4 C
6C1
4C1
—
—
1
6 C
1
8 Cy
Ponti
c
Citation
-1-0
t
6000
--
8504 60
066
00
9048
53
-
--C 17--
lIDp
6 Cy
—
---
9175 00
Cavali r
7575 00
4 Cyl.—
-
Days required for delivery after
45 -to
receipt of Purchase Order Days
40
4 We
ks
90-120
60
45
BID #189 - ECONOMY PICKUP TRUCK FOR ROAD & BRIDGE DEPT.
The Board reviewed the following staff memo:
131 �- say 5 ?Ar; e t 440
NOV 16 1983
N 0 v 16 1983
MQ�t ' racE 441
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 31, 1983 FILE:
THRU: Michael Wright SUBJECT: IRC Bid #189 - (1) New 1983 or 1984
County Administrator Economy Pickup Truck
GEy5RAL S,ERVICES IVI;ION
FROM: C_&'&� . � REFERENCES:
Caroly oodrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions:
Bids were received October 25, 1983 at 11:00 A.M. for IRC Bid #189 -
New 1983 or 1984 Economy Pickup Truck for the Road & Bridge Department
Assistant Superintendent. The truck currently in use by the Assistant
Superintendent is a 1974 Ford and will be -kept and used at the County Barn.
The State Contract for automobiles and trucks expired August 31, 1983
The new con'Lract will not be available until mid-November.
There is not a 4 cylinder economy pickup available on State Contract.
18 Bid Proposals were sent out, 6 bids were received.
2- A' ternatives and Analysis:
Of the 6 bids received, 2 did not meet specifications. The low bid was
submitted by Ft. Pierce Dodge in the amount of $6,742.31 for a Dodge D-50
and meets all specifications.
3. Recommendation and Funding:
Staff recommends IRC Bid #189 be awarded to Ft. Pierce Dodge in the amount
of $6,742.31.
There is $7,700.00 budgeted in account #004-214-541-66-42 for the purchase
of an economy pickup truck.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Lyons
having left the meeting, the Board by a 4 to
0 vote, approved recommendation of staff and
awarded Bid #189 for a Dodge D-50 economy
pickup truck to the low bidder, Ft. Pierce
Dodge in the amount of $6,742.31.
132
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
�y
4
2145 -14th Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
Oz"
BID NO.
DATE OF OPENING
IRC BID #189
Oct. 25, 1983
.,444
Q v
BID TITLE
(1) New 1983 or 1984 Economy Pickup
•k
ITEM
-
NO. DESCRIPTION
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE
UNIT PRICE UNIT
1. 1 New 1983 or 1984 Economy
Chev.
Dodg
1982
Niss
n
S-1
Mazd
'Pickup Truck
S-1(
D-50
S-15
I FAr"_
7711
22
6742
317932
00
7944
00
7334
00
7376
00
2. Days required for delivery after
reci t of Purchase Order
Days
45
120
3
45
45-50
45
CHANGE ORDER #4 - SOUTH BEACH VIATER SYSTEM (ORTEGA
INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS)
The Board reviewed staff memo as follows:
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: November 8, 1983 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
THROUGH: Michael Wright
County Administrator
SUBJECT: SOUTH BEACH WATER SYSTEM
IMPROVEMENTS -CHANGE ORDER
FROM: Terrance G. Pinto- REFERENCES' A) Ortega Industrial Letter
Utility Services Director �B) City/County Agreement
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Ortega has requested a time extension for this project as a result
of contract changes and various uncontrollable circumstances.
Their letter (Attachment A) lists six points as the basis of this
request.
133
NOV 161983 BOOK KACE.4�?
N O V 16 1983 go Q'5FAtE-4
01
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSES:
The County is not meeting the time restrictions under the provisions
of the contract and the County might consider to have an evaluation
done to determine if they want to proceed with the concept of cross-
ing Indian River with a waterline to service the south beach. The
agreement between the City of Vero Beach and Indian River County is
Attachment B.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board authorize the time extension and consider
an evaluation be conducted.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to approve
Change Order #4, granting a time extension
to Ortega Industrial Contractors on the South
Beach Water System'Improvements as requested.
Administrator Wright believed we need some discussion.
He noted the Agreement with the City of Vero Beach re South
Beach Water Service is included in the backup material and
believed we need to address the economics of that river
crossing.
Chairman Bird felt this could wait until the utility
workshop, and Utilities Director Pinto did not believe there
is any question about extension of the contract, but noted
we have already exceeded some of the time limits under that
agreement.
Administrator Wright agreed that we can't meet the
deadlines on the crossing in any event and we -can discuss
this at the workshop in December.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 0 with
Commissioner Lyons having left the meeting.
134
Lam'
.-
F SECTION M
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER FORM
Contract No. Date
Change Order No. 4 Location _Indian River County Florida
To: (Contractor) Ortega Industrial Contractors
You are hereby requested to comply with the following changes from the contract drawings & specification
Item
No.
Description of Changes — Quantities, Units, Unit Prices,
Change in Completion Schedule, Etc.
Decrease in
Contract Price
Increase in
Contract Pric
1
2
3
4
total
adjusted
contract price to date
thereby
(1)
Change Date of Completion from December 5, 1983
N/A
N/A
to January 4, 1984.
(See Attachment)
Change in contract price due to this Change Order:
'
Total Decrease
Total Increase
Difference between Col. (3) and (4):
Net (increase) (decrease) contract price
$
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
$
$
$
$ NLA
$ N/Q
The
sum
of S
0 is
hereby
added
to, deducted from, the total contract price, ar
the
total
adjusted
contract price to date
thereby
is S
681,020.50
The time provided for completion in the contract isXtARRkki)SeA increased, ) XXNWXO, by 'in
calendar days. This document shall become an amendment to the contract and all provisions of ti
contract will apply hereto.
Accepted by:
Recommended by:
J l:rtgj�ccr
Requested by:
NOTE: Work performed under this change order prior to
rid-.
ATTACHMENT "A"
//-6- F3
Date
Date
'Date
Owner's concurrence is at the Contracto
JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 4
South Beach Water -System
Improvements - Phase I
Indian River County, Florida
135
NOV 16 1983
6C171f 155 PA ( 4
FF"-- I
IOIP 1 6' 1983 010K U 'PAcE.4 5
ITEM 1 - Time Extension
The following list contains several items noted as.reasons for requesting the
time extension in Change Order No. 4:
1. Additional fill provided at the Fire Booster Station to meet required
elevations.
2. The installation of underground electrical service in lieu of overhead
at the Potable Water Booster Station, Fire Booster Station and elevated
tank ( Change Order No. 1).
3. Excessive dewatering for the underground piping at the Potable Water
Booster Station tie-in to existing 12 waterline.
4. Delays in receiving major equipment (pumps and auxiliary engines).
5. Defects in the glue in the plywood roof sheathing requiring roof to be
removed and replaced at the Potable Water Booster Station.
6. Unfavorable weather conditions (ie: rain delays).
RECONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM - BUDGET AMENDMENT
FOR DATA PROCESSING, IBM 8YSTEM/38
Finance Director Ed Fry explained to the Board that
when they ordered this equipment for expansion, they based
it on components needed for the last expansion. However,
when IBM presented the final bill, there were two additional
components needed. Mr. Fry continued that if these
additional components are removed, it will be necessary to
start deleting CRTs from the systema When the budget was
drawn up for the Clerk's Office, the need for a third work
station controller was anticipated as the Budget Office and
the Supervisor of Elections were brought on the system, as
well as some work for the Utilities Department and the
Sheriff.
Commissioner Wodtke commented that it would seem that
somewhere along the line IBM would have spelled out what
equipment would be required for the expansion, and if we do
any further expansion, he felt that IBM should give us a
written quote.
Finance Director Fry stated that they did learn about
this before the end of the fiscal year, but not until the
budget hearings were over. They had thought since it would
be in the budget for this year, they would come back with
136
their regm.Sst then, which apparently was an error in
judgment. Mr. Fry pointed out that they easily could have
paid for this equipment last year out of the excess fees the
Clerk turned back to the General Fund, which were
considerably more than anticipated, ($50,000 instead of
$25,000), but they knew the Board had approved these funds
in the budget and generally wished to pay for all capital
;x outlay items out of Federal Revenue Sharing. If the Board
desired, however, they could take the excess out of the
General Fund.
Clerk Freda Wright confirmed that all this came about
just at the end of the fiscal year; it was not timely.
Administrator Wright did not believe we have much
choice in this matter as the equipment is needed and felt we
should take the funds out of Federal Revenue Sharing.
Commissioner Wodtke noted that the excess fees went
back into the General Fund, but the Administrator pointed
out that it works out the same whichever way you do it, and
he believed the bookkeeping is better to keep it in Federal
Revenue Sharing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED
by Commissioner Scurlock, Commissioner Lyons
having left the meeting, the Board by a 4 to 0
vote approved the following budget amendment
to pay for the expansion of the IBM System/38
computer as recommended by OMB Director Barton.
Account Title
Other Mach. & Equip.
Account No. Increase Decrease
102-232-513-66.49 $6,485
Res. for Contingency 102-199-584-99.91
137
L NOV 16 1983
$6,485
SOAK PAa-M
N0V 16 1083 "M E ?APE447
DISCUSSION RE POSSIBLE COURT FILING FEE INCREASE
Chairman Bird felt we should ask the Administrator and
staff to do some more analysis on the proposed additional
service charge for the Court facility and provide some
projection on what kind of money we might be talking about.
OMB Director Barton reported that the Clerk's office
has furnished the historical information and this will just
involve multiplying it out to see what dollars it will
generate.
Administrator Wright stated that Mr. Barton will bring
back a written report to give the Commission a pretty good
idea of what the effect will be and how it compares to other
counties.
STUDY RE WORK DONE IN GIFFORD AREA
Administrator Wright informed the Board that several
persons from the Gifford community have come in and
expressed some displeasure or lack of understanding as to
where we have spent monies in the last five or ten years
from Federal Revenue Sharing, gas tax, etc., and he would
like to recommend that we do a historical study and an
analysis of just where we have spent our money in various
areas in the county. He commented that this will require a
great deal of help from the custodian of the records, and he
would request the Clerk's assistance to try to determine
where and how the monies have been spent over the years.
Commissioner Scurlock informed the Board .that Victor
Hart of the Gifford community appeared before the Trans-
portation Planning Committee the last two meetings and
registered complaints in the same vein as well as some
impatience with the fact that it takes time to do a -study.
Commissioner Scurlock concurred that if there have been
inequities in the past, we should come up with an aggressive
plan to make the necessary adjustments and improvements to
the Gifford community, but noted that he did express to Mr.
138
M
Hart his belief that the Commission has been very
cooperative in trying to bring about improvements in the
Gifford community, not only in the parks and recreation
area, but water and sewer, as well as roads.
Chairman Bird suggested that the Administrator request
Mr. Hart to.meet with him and staff and determine the areas
where they feel there are inequities, and then we can study
those.particular areas.
OMB Director Barton pointed out that there may be some
problems doing a detailed analysis before 1977 as the State
Archives authorized destroyal of checks and warrants before
that date. It was generally felt we should just try to
identify if there are any inequities and meet with Mr. Hart
and the Civic League to determine what some of their
priorities are.
The Administrator confirmed that he will invite Mr.
Hart to discuss this matter with him and with Attorney
Brandenburg, and reiterated that he would like the Clerk's
assistance with researching the records.
The Clerk assured him of her staff's cooperation.
WORKSHOP MEETINGS
Administrator Wright recommended that we have a joint
meeting with the Planning & Zoning Commission on the morning
of December 14th, and have a workshop with the Utilities
Department that afternoon re the planned water extension to
South Beach. Mr. Pinto confirmed he would be ready on that
date, and the Board had no objections.
REPORT - WELFARE DEPARTMENT
Administrator Wright reported that Welfare has set
aside $2,500 to handle food and other items which they
dispense at Thanksgiving and Christmas. There is a slightly
different procedure this year, and they are qualifying
people. He believed this department is running out of money
139
NOV 16 1983
NOV 16 1983 Ong U'5 PAcE4 9
and may need additional funds for Christmas; they will call
on the public to help gather items to dispense.
SAVE OUR COAST PROGRAM
Administrator Wright announced that on November 30th at
9:00 A.M. in Tallahassee, the Save .Our Coast selection
committee will have a general discussion of our application,
and he and Chairman Bird would like to be present.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Lyons
having left the meeting, the Board by a 4 to 0
vote authorized out -of -County travel for Chair-
man Bird and Administrator Wright to attend the
Save Our Coast Selection Committee meeting in
Tallahassee on November 30, 1983.
PROMISSORY NOTES - PETITION PAVING
Attorney Brandenburg informed the Board that Elizabeth
Newcomb and Irene Foote, who are delinquent in paying their
petition paving assessments, both have signed Promissory
Notes which will allow these individuals extra time to pay
off the monies they owe.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wodtke, Commissioner Lyons
having left the meeting, the Board by a-4 to 0
vote accepted the Promissory Notes of Elizabeth
Newcomb and Irene Foote for the purposes and
subject to the terms and conditions stated
therein.
140
PROMISSORY NOTE
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Ms. Elizabeth L. Newcombe
residing at 715 15th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida
hereinafter Promisors), promises to pay without further demand or notice,
to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
hereinafter Promisee, the total sum of -Two thousand ten and 30/100---------
($ 2,010.30 ), in installments as follow:
Amount
1. $ 400.00
2. $ 400.00
3. $ 400.00
4. $ 400.00
5. $ 410.30
6. $
Due Date
Dec. 4, 1983
Jan. 4, 1984
Feb. 4, 1984
Mar. 4, 1984
Apr. 4, 1984
Said amounts represent remaining principal and interest due on a special
assessment levied by Indian River County for the Paving & Drainage Improvements
for 14th Ave. between 7th & 8th St. . This note is executed in settlement of the
current delinquency of this account and Promisor('s) agree(s) that sums payable
hereunder have been lawfully assessed and are presently due and owing to the
Promisee. In the event legal action is required to collect sums due hereunder,
the Promisee shall be entitled to recover in addition to principal and interest
all reasonable costs of collection, including attorney's fees. Promisor(s) waive(s)
protest, presentment and notice of dishonor with respect to this note. By receipt
of this note, the Promisee does not surrender any other remedy available by law
to collect the underlying special assessment, including specifically the right to
foreclose on any lien which might exist by operation of law against the subject
property which is described as follows:
14-33-39-0002-0030-00007.0
Glendale Park Sub PBI 1-87
Lots 7 to 11 inc., Block 3
This note may be prepaid at any time without penalty, and in the event the
aforementioned sums of money are not promptly paid by the dates shown hereon,
interest at the rate of one percent ( 1%. ; percent per month shall
continue to accrue in accordance with the original assessment obligation. All
payments should be made by check payable to Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector, and
mailed to the Office of the Tax Collector, P.O. Box 1509, Vero Beach, Fla. 32961.
WHEREUPON, The Promisor(s) has (have) executed this note in her band
and seal this 31st day of October 1933
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
Before me personally appeared ELIZABETH L. NEWCOMB to
me well known and known to me to be the person described in and
who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to and
before me that she executed said instrument for the purposes
therein expressed.
WITNESS my hand and official seal, this 1st day of N beS,
NOV 16 1983 1983. � WE 450
Approved November 16, 1983 11A 7;or
ub
Board of County Commissioners N r Plii�ub
Indian River County, Florida GV..
r. N 0 V 16 1983
PROMISSORY NOTE
6"KU5 P,1
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, IRENE M. FOOTE
residing at ve., ero eac To r1 a
hereinafter Promisor(s), promises to pay without further demand or notice,
to INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida,
hereinafter Promisee, the total sum of Six hundred dollars & 91/100 ---------
($ 600.91 ), in installments as follow:
Amount
1.
$
171.23
2.
$
107.42
3.
$
107.42
4.
$
107.42
5.
$
107.42
6.
$
Due Date
December 4, 1983
January 4, 1984
February 4, 1984
March 4, 1984
April 4, 1984
Said amounts represent remaining:principal and interest due on a special
assessment levied by Indian River County for the paving and drainage improvements
fnr 14th Ava_ hPtwaPn 7 h nth St .'This note is executed in settlement of the
current delinquency of this account and Promisor(s) agree(s) that sums payable
hereunder have been lawfully assessed and are presently due and owing to the
Promisee. In the event legal action is required to collect sums due hereunder,
the Promisee shall be entitled to recover in addition to principal and interest
all reasonable costs of collection, including attorney's fees. Promisor(s) waive(s)
protest, presentment and notice of dishonor with respect to this note. By receipt
of this note, the Promisee does not surrender any other remedy available by law
to collect the underlying special assessment, including specifically the right to
foreclose on any lien which might exist by operation of law against the subject
property which is described as follows:
14-33-39-0002-0030-00005.0
Glendale Park Sub PBI 1-87
S 25 ft. of Lot 5 & All of Lot 6,
Block 3;
This Rote may be prepaid at any time without penalty, and in the event the
aforementioned sums of money are not promptly paid 6y the dates shown hereon,
interest at the rate of one and one-quarter (1-1/4%) percent per month shall
continue to accrue in accordance with the original assessment obligation. All
payments should be made by check payable to Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector, and
mailed to the Office of the Tax Collector, P.O. Box 1509, Vero Beach, Fla. 32961.
WHEREUPON, The Promisor(s) has (have) executed this note 'in her hand
and seal this 27th day of October , 1983
f eo e
Approved November 16, 1983
Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
HOUSE BILL 20
Attorney Brandenburg reviewed his memo regarding House
Bill 20 which legislation would allow counties and cities to
utilize jail inmate labor:
TO: Members of the DATE: October 31, 1983 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: House Bill 20
1984 Session
FROM: Gary m. Brandenburg REFERENCES:
County Attorney',
Attached to this memorandum you will find a letter from Wayne
Hollingsworth, Representative of District 12, requesting your
support for House Bill 20 (also attached). Upon the receipt of
this request, several questions came to mind. Consequently, I
called'Representative Hollingsworth to ascertain additional details
on the bill. The Representative indicated that a County using less
than 10 prisoners would have to provide their own supervision of
the crew. If more than 10 prisoners were to be utilized, the State
would provide the supervision. He indicated that Indian River
County would have the potential of drawing prisoners to comprise
work forces from the Indian -River County Correctional Facility, and
the Lantana and the Glades facilities. The prisoners would be
brought back and forth from the facilities by State personnel and
would be guarded during their work time by State personnel. The
County would have to supply someone to direct what work was to be
performed. There would be no liability and no cost to the County
under this proposal.
This matter is submitted for your review to determine whether the
Indian River County Commission desires to adopt a resolution
supporting the passage of such a measure.
The Attorney noted that the proposed Bill would allow
the county more flexibility to use minimum and medium
custody prisoners.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock,
SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to instruct
the Attorney to prepare a Resolution in
support of House Bill 20.
143
`5 PACE
,�jNf1V 16 1983
NOV 16 1983
M" 575 rw, 453
Commissioner Bowman objected and felt the inmates
should be
paid for
their labor -
possibly 1/3 to them, 1/3
to their
families,
and the other
1/3 to pay for their board
in prison. She did not feel they should work for nothing.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 3 to 1 with
Commissioner Lyons having left the meet-
ing and Commissioner Bowman voting in
opposition.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at
5:45 o'clock P.M. in order that they might convene as the
District Board of Fire Commissioners of the North Indian
River County Fire District. These Minutes are being
prepared separately.
The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 5:48
o'clock P.M. with all members present except Commissioner
Lyons who had left the meeting earlier.
PURCHASE OF VOTING MACHINES
Chairman Bird announced that Supervisor of Elections,
Rosemary Richey, has an opportunity to obtain 16 or 17
voting machines which are in good condition. These would be
donated to the county by the City of St. Augustine. All we
have to do is transport these machines by county truck,
which might require two trips, and provide some storage
space, but the Chairman felt it is an excellent opportunity
to acquire these machines.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Lyons
144
6'�
having left the meeting, the Board by a 4 to 0
vote authorized the Supervisor of Elections to
acquire the voting machines from the City of
St. Augustine and to avail herself of county
equipment and staff as needed to transport
said machines.
APPOINTMENT TO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Commissioner Scurlock reported that Mayor Flood has
recommended someone to replace him on the Transportation
Planning Committee as set out in the following letter:
Pat Floo1
Mayor
City of Sebastian
POST OFFICE BOX 127 ❑ SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958
TELEPHONE (305) 589-5330
November 8, 1983
Mr. Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
Chairman, Transportation
Planning Committee
Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Don:
Deborah C. Krages
City Clerk
This is to advise that I would like to recommend that Robert J. Fitzmaurice
be appointed to the Transportation Committee as a voting delegate,as my
replacement.
As my busy schedule prohibits me from attending these meeting I would
appreciate the board taking official action by honoring my recommendation.
145
N 0 V 16 1983
Very truly ours,
Pat Flood, Jr.
Mayor
BOOK PACE 454 -
NOV 16 198 �5
am PACE�:y
�
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bowman, Commissioner Lyons
having left the meeting, the Board by a 4 to 0
vote appointed Robert J. Fitzmaurice to the
Transportation Committee as recommended by
Mayor Flood.
REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Commissioner Scurlock reviewed the following summary of
actions of the November 8th meeting of the Transportation
Planning Committee:
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS- -
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
November 8, 1983
1. Twelfth Street Traffic Improvement Plan:
Committee approved unanimously staff's recommended plan for
improving 12th Street and Indian River Boulevard as follows:
.Extend Indian River Boulevard south of 17th Street to
12th Street (four lanes divided);
-Widen and extend 12th Street between Old Dixie Highway and
Indian River Boulevard (five lanes);
•Bikepath/sidewalks on 12th Street from 20th Avenue and
6th Avenue, and on 6th Avenue from 16th Street to 12th Street;
2. School Speed Reduction Beacons:
Committee approved school beacons as requested by the School
Board and P.T.A. as follows:
•27th Avenue (SR -607) at Citrus Elementary: speed reduction
beacon to be requested through the FDOT;
-45th Street at Middle 6/7: speed reduction beacon;
?CR512 at Sebastian River Middle School: advance warning
beacon with school entrance sign;
-Funding to be included in FY84-85 budget or with current
year funds if available at end of year.
3. Traffic Signal - U.S. 1 at Oslo Road:
Committee approved staff recommendation to install- atraffic
signal. FDOT to be requested to add to their five-year plan.
If new development occurs at the intersection, then a contribution
for,signalization costs will be required and the signal may
be installed prior to FDOT's schedule using County and developer
funds.
146
DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE PART OF THE MINUTES
A. Transfer of Site Plan Approval - Doran to Muller - Indian
Lake Condos
Letter from Attorney Robert Jaffe offering further
clarification of previous letter of September 8th, 1983, as
to transfer,of title to Mr. Muller is hereby made a part of
the Minutes (approved at Meeting of September 7, 1983):
ROBERT F. JAFFE
ATTORNEY -AT -LARD
-- 3339 CARDINAL DRIVE
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963
TELEPHONE (305) 231-9790
November 6, 1983 '
Gary Brandenburg, Esq.
Indian River County Attorney
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
re: County Commission Meeting 9/7/83
Agenda Item No. 21E
My Letter to You u/d/o 9/8/83
Dear Mr. Brandenburg:
W7;
Further to my letter to you -of September 8, 1983, relating
to the ownership of Muller Enterprises, Inc., please be
advised that I have on Friday, November 4, 1983, been in-
formed that Messrs. Muller and Schleifer have decided to
apportion share interests in Muller Enterprises, Inc.,
as follows, supplementing the information contained in
said letter:
Henry J. Muller
25%
Cecelia Z. Muller
25%
(wife of Henry J.
Muller)
Jack Schleifer
1220
Geraldine Schleifer
122%
(wife of Jack Schleifer)
Natalie Schlass
25%
(daughter of Jack
Schleifer)
As stated previously, Mr. Muller will be the President and
Chief Executive Officer of the corporation and will have
complete responsibility for the design and construction of
the project to be.built pursuant to the site plan.
If there is any further information about this matter with which
I can furnish you, please do not hesitate to let me know.
s vei= gtrpty,
obert F. Ja e
Attorney Muller Enterprises, Inc.
NOV 16 1983
147
aK.55
N.OV 16 1993 qac55 PnE457
B. Letter of Agreement with Lester Solin
Said Letter of Agreement with Mr. Solin for consulting
services re development regulations, having been fully
executed and received, is hereby made a part of the Minutes
as approved at the meeting of November 2, 1983.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RS
1840 25th. Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
aV` 01
?off U, _ Q
Mr. Lester L. Solin, Jr., AICP
Solin & Associates Inc.
1540 Highland Avenue
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
November 7, 1983
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
GARY M.BRANDENBURG
County ,Attorney
(305) 567-8Ob0
CHRISTOPHER J. PAULL
Asst. County Attorney
(305) 567-8000
Please be advised that the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County On November 2, 1983 unanimously approved
hiring your firm for consulting services with respect to develop-
ment regulations in Indian River County. The motion contained the
following salient points:
1. The arrangement will be based on the hourly rates quoted in
your proposal.
2. This office will define specific tasks with respect to the
development code, will advise on all legal aspects of the code
and will supervise the project.
3. The County Commission has initially authorized the expenditure
of $10,000.00. Any work required above this amount will
require further Board authorization at which time the
Commission will want to review the quality and quantity of
your work and the overall progress in the County of adopting
the proposed regulations.
Please submit all bills for services to our office monthly.
Include within each bill a breakdown on the hours, times and dates
by each member of.your firm working on the project with reference
to the portion of the project worked on. An example would be:
Les Solin--11;`30/83 -- 1:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Drafting Section 1--13 Zoning Code
148
0„
It is our understanding that your firm will not represent private
parties with respect to any matters involving the County during
the time you are engaged by the County. That all of the work
product, data, etc. developed by your office while employed by. the
County shall become the sole property of the County at the end of
your engagement and shall not be used during or after the term of
this engagement for the benefit of any party other than Indian
River County without the County's approval.
I look forward to working with you on this project. If the terms
of this Letter of Agreement are satisfactory, please execute it in
the place provided below and return it to my office. Thanking you
in advance -for your cooperation.
GMB /mg
cc: Robert Keating,
Michael Wright,
Date:*...
Since y,
�l I
ry M. Brandenburg
ou ty Attorney
Planning & Development Director
County Administrator
SOLIN & .ASS CIATES
... _�.
By.
L STER L. SOLIN, ., AICP
Principal
C. North County Recreation Agreement
North County Recreation Agreement, having been fully
executed and received, is hereby made a part of the Minutes
as approved at the Meeting of October 19, 1983:
149
16 1983
NORTH COUNTY RECREATION AGREEMENT
K, t.,5 rAcE x:59
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 19th day of OCtbher ►
1983, by and between North County Recreation, Inc., a not-for-
profit corporation existing under the laws of the State of
Florida, hereinafter referred to as "North County Recreation," and
Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of
Florida, hereinafter referred to as "County;"
WHEREAS, North County Recreation is a non-profit corpor-
ation dedicated to the community purpose of supplying recreational
activities to residents in the North Indian River County area,
and
WHEREAS, Indian River County as part of its overall park
and recreation program desires to cooperate with North County
Recreation thereby enhancing the recreational services and oppor-
tunities available to the residents in the North County area com-
prised of Roseland, Fellsmere, Sebastian, Wabasso, and the general
area of Winter Beach, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County declares the provision of
recreational opportunities under this contract to be a valid
public purpose and in the community's best interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Each year, during the budget sessions of the County
Commission, North County Recreation will submit a detailed budget
proposal listing the projects and programs proposed for the ensu-
ing fiscal year and the estimated cost of each project together
with an estimate of anticipated revenues, if any. The budget
shall be submitted on forms supplied by the Indian River County
Finance Department.
2. The County Commission shall review all proposals
submitted and shall fund such proposals that the Commission deter-
mines are warranted in light of fiscal restraints and that best
serve the needs of the North County residents. Based on such
findings, the Board shall approve a budget for North County
Recreation for the ensuing fiscal year.
3. In reviewing the projects the Commission may deter-
mine that some projects are not in the best interest of the County
rNO
and shall not, in any event, be funded by the County. If during
the fiscal year it appears that a funded and approved project no
longer is feasible, the Board of Directors of the North County
Recreation shall have the discretion to redesignate the funds
budgeted for the unfeasible project to any other approved project
that'wasnot funded by the Commission. The County Commission
shall be notified of any such redesignation and shall be given the
opportunity to comment.
4. North County Recreation's Board of Directors shall
manage and supervise all projects and participants therein which
are undertaken with County funds pursuant to this agreement in a
safe and economical manner and shall endeavor to promote the
recreational opportunities of all the residents in the North
County area in a non-discriminatory fashion.
5. All funds budgeted by the County for the purpose of
this agreement shall be expended by the Board of Directors of
North County Recreation for the purposes specified in the budget
or as redesignated pursuant to paragraph •3 herein. The Board of
Directors shall have the authority to expend the funds. The Board
of Directors whenever possible will make use of the Indian River
County Purchasing Department to obtain the best price and best
available equipment for the money spent. All invoices for equip-
ment shall be directed to the Indian River County Finance
Department who will then review such invoices to verify that the
expenditure is for an approved project within the budget and
thereafter shall pay the invoice.
6. All personal property purchased in the past or
future with the use of County funds shall become County property.
All purchases shall be reported to the County and all items
purchased shall be assigned County asset numbers according to
County policy and Florida Statutes. Each year North County
Recreation, Inc. shall conduct, with the help of the County, a
thorough inventory of all assets purchased with County funds.
During the life of this agreement all assets purchased under its
terms shall be utilized in the North County area covered by this
agreement. Upon termination of this agreement, the County shall
-2-
IOW 1 6 1983 5 M
attempt to designate equipment purchased under this agreement for
use in the North County area.
7. To aid in the performance of the goals set forth in
this agreement Indian River County shall assign at least one full
time employee to the project. This employee shall fall under the
Indian River County Personnel Rules and Regulations but shall be
under the immediate supervision of the Board of Directors of North
County Recreation. As a County employee, the individual shall
ultimately be responsible to the County Administrator. This
employee will devote full time efforts to enhance the recreational
opportunities in the North County area by implementing. budgeted
projects pursuant to this agreement.
8. Indian. River County agrees to include the North
County Recreation Board of Directors as well as approved projects
and activities pursuant to this agreement within the scope of
coverage of the County's insurance in such amounts as the County
determines to be warranted from time to time.
9. This agreement shall continue in full force and
effect unless terminated by either party by virtue of sending
written notice of intent to terminate to the other by certified
mail sixty (60) days in advance of the agreement termination date.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their
signatures on the date above written.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY,.,� FLORIDA
BY % e�l�l-•
RICHARD N. BIRD, Chairman
Attest:h�
FREDA WRIGHT,, Clork
NORTH COUNTY RECREATION, INC.
By t: 06 Uab46�-o
Chairman
Attest: LLiU... ^
Secretary
APPROVED S ND
LEGAL ICS
(seal)
By
G� v
B DENB G, County Attorney
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. 8885 - 89022 inclusive. Such
bills and accounts being on file in the Office of the Clerk
of the Circuit Court, the warrants so issued from the
respective bonds being listed in the Supplemental Minute
Book as provided by the rules of the Legislative Auditor,
reference to such record and list so recorded being made a
part of these Minutes.
There being no further business, on Motion made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 5:50 o'clock
P.M.
Attest:
Clerk
Chairman
153
N O V 16 1983 6009 5 �A�; .